Sitting of 11 February 2004

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]. (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question.
    That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
    That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
    That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Question again proposed.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Wednesday 25 February.

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

    Political Parties (Funding)
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: If he will make a statement on the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. [153155]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): We began a review last year of the rules governing funding arrangements of parties in Northern Ireland. I shall make a statement to the House shortly on its outcome. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are aware of the concerns being voiced about funding arrangements for political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of continuing revelations about the scale and
    1396
    extent of paramilitary and criminal activities carried out by the republican movement in support, in particular, of Sinn Fein, the Minister will be aware of the great need to reassure the public, to prevent further corruption of the political process and to ensure that all political parties in Northern Ireland operate by the same democratic methods. Can he assure us that his review will be conducted speedily and proposals brought forward as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the concerns he has just expressed were also expressed at the last Northern Ireland questions from all parts of the House, including the Front Bench. I will make my statement shortly, and we shall then receive representations from all political parties. I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. Gentleman's party and others. We recognise that there is widespread public concern, and we will engage in dialogue on it.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the Minister accept that if Sinn Fein's protestations about party funding are to be accepted, the answer lies in that party subjecting itself to the same rules on donations and on the disclosure of donations that apply to the Minister's party and to mine? Will the Government acknowledge, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a mistake to exempt political parties in Northern Ireland from the rules that apply to political parties in Great Britain? Will the Government look sympathetically at rescinding those exemptions so that political parties in Northern Ireland have to comply with the same rules as every other political party in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Spellar: I do not expect to receive representations only from Northern Ireland parties when I announce the review. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps note that there were major considerations regarding whether Northern Ireland should have legislation similar to that of the rest of the United Kingdom, not least the question of potential intimidation of donors and whether that would lead to disorder or discourage people from funding the political process. I accept that things have changed since then, both in the number of concerns expressed about funding in Northern Ireland and because of changes to legislation in the Republic of Ireland, which we will have to take into account. We will consider all the factors and I shall make a statement shortly. We will then receive representations and will go on to announce the outcome of the review. I shall take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others in the House have raised.

    Belfast Agreement
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: If he will make a statement on the review of the Belfast agreement. [153156]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The review of the operation of the agreement formally began, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Belfast last Tuesday, and it has continued this week. It involves all parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as the British and Irish Governments. Several parties, including the hon. Gentleman's own, have put

    1397
    forward interesting proposals, which we welcome. We have proposed an indicative calendar for intensive discussion between now and Easter across the range of issues that parties wish to raise.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it will be absolutely essential at the conclusion of the negotiations that each section of the community in Northern Ireland has confidence that its rights, culture, identity and future employment prospects are safeguarded, bearing in mind the Unionist community's concerns about the 1998 model?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that, clearly, the agreement and its review must achieve confidence in all parts of the community. That includes nationalists, republicans, loyalists and Unionists, and, indeed, those who do not describe themselves as anything. The fundamental purpose of the Good Friday agreement was to ensure parity of esteem between people in Northern Ireland, from different communities and with different ways, who felt aggrieved over the years about what had happened to them in their communities. Clearly, it is important to give the confidence for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I believe that the discussions in Belfast over the next few weeks will need to concentrate heavily on building confidence across the board.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Will the Secretary of State reaffirm the Government's attitude and policy that the review is about the workings of the agreement, and not about the fundamental principles established and agreed to not only by the parties that participated in it, but by referendums, north and south, in Ireland? Will he confirm that it will be essential for a successful conclusion that all parties participating and agreeing will eventually participate in all strands—strands 1, 2, and 3? Documentation from the party of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) deals only with strand 1. Will the Secretary of State say what is happening at the moment to the functioning of strand 2, which deals with north-south relationships?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, the Government still take the view that the Good Friday agreement is the basis on which progress can be made. We know that the agreement covers fundamental matters such as the principle of consent, power sharing between parties, parity of esteem, which I have mentioned, and proper arrangements both north and south on the island of Ireland. All those things must be discussed and agreed in, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, a review of the operation of the agreement. There are inevitably differing views on the fundamentals of the agreement, but I believe that I have covered them. There are certainly differing views on the details of the operation of the agreement, and the discussions, reviews and negotiations are about trying to agree a compromise between nationalists and Unionists.
    Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State will recall that the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in October 2002. At that time, the Government said that the Assembly would not resume until republicans had clearly completed the transition from paramilitarism to exclusively peaceful
    1398
    means. Is that still their position, and if it is, what steps are they taking to pressure republicans to complete that transition or are they addressing that issue, as others, in a purely passive way?
    Mr. Murphy: No. The right hon. Gentleman is of course right that the Assembly was suspended in 2002 because of the collapse of confidence among politicians in Northern Ireland. He rightly emphasises the fact that paramilitary activity, as defined in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, was the reason why confidence collapsed. Both Governments take the view that we must resolve the issue, which is an important function of the review. Not only Governments but parties too must play their part in ensuring that paramilitary activity and violence are both things of the past.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about the need for confidence, but part of that is confidence in the good will of Her Majesty's Government. It is more than four months since the Government received the Cory report, and the Republic of Ireland Government have issued their two statements. There is a general feeling that the security forces are attempting to sanitise the report by Judge Cory and that they will deal with it in the same way as they tried to protract matters before the Saville inquiry. Can he give an undertaking to the House that the Government will publish the reports before the projected judicial review takes place? The courts have said that the Government have a case to answer in the Finucane family's case for not publishing them.
    Mr. Murphy: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of trying to suppress the Cory report, which we hope to publish fairly soon. He knows that there are difficulties regarding the protection of individuals who might be named in those four reports, which is obviously a matter of safety and privacy, but there are other legal reasons that we must examine carefully. However, he may rest assured that the Government intend to publish the report.
    Mr. David Lidington: May I press the Secretary of State on the fundamentals of the agreement, and in particular the extent to which he sees power sharing as fundamental? If the Independent Monitoring Commission reports to him later this year that one or more parties in Northern Ireland have failed to comply with their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and failed to break their links with paramilitarism, would the Government be prepared to take the necessary action to exclude such a party from participation in government in the way in which the Taoiseach has said that it would be his policy south of the border?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Act that set up the Independent Monitoring Commission is clear about the process that must be followed. If the Assembly were up and running—I hope that it will be—it would have a role to play in the process, too. If the Assembly failed to agree on a method to deal with that situation, it would come before me. I cannot comment on what has not yet been reported, but the mechanisms for doing so are clear.

    Maghaberry Prison
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received on the separation of paramilitary prisoners from other prisoners at Maghaberry prison. [153157]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The closing date for responses to the consultation on separation was set as 22 January. By the end of the consultation exercise, 21 submissions had been received from a variety of sources. We are currently considering those representations and will publish our conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today sees the publication of the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the separation of paramilitary prisoners from ordinary prisoners in Maghaberry prison. It says that it was a dangerous decision for the public servants that had to implement it; that it was made for political reasons, following a campaign by dissidents; and that the trail seems to go back to 10 Downing street, where the decision may have been made by officials. May we have a guarantee that the line will now be drawn and we will not end up with the situation at Maghaberry that we used to have at the Maze, with the paramilitaries running their own areas?
    Jane Kennedy: We will obviously study the report carefully and respond at the appropriate time. It is important to understand that the Steele review was of the safety of staff and prisoners at Maghaberry. On that basis, it was welcomed and endorsed by church leaders and political parties in Northern Ireland. Decisions were taken on that basis by Northern Ireland Ministers. I welcome the detail of the report, which shows how complex and dangerous it is to manage and run prisons in Northern Ireland. In accepting John Steele's recommendations, we have made it clear that there will be no return to Maze-style conditions. We are determined that prison staff must remain in control, and the physical security measures, together with the prisoner compact, are designed to achieve that.
    Mr. Michael Mates: When was the last time that the Secretary of State and his team took a decision contrary to all the advice received from every responsible agency in the Province, as happened over the prison issue?
    Jane Kennedy: I can answer only for the decision that we took on this occasion. When we commissioned the Steele review, the terms of reference were clear: they were to examine options for improving conditions at Maghaberry prison, especially as they related to safety, for all prisoners and staff. Included in the terms of reference was the need to bear in mind the lessons of the past. I hope that that will reassure members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: The disturbances in summer 2003 were not instigated by paramilitaries, but by integrated prisoners—the ordinary, decent criminals, or ODCs as they are affectionately known. Since those disturbances, the best
    1400
    accommodation at Maghaberry has been put aside for separated paramilitary prisoners and integrated prisoners have had to double up. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that the facilities for the ordinary, decent criminal population will improve, thus preventing further disturbances this summer?
    Jane Kennedy: I accept that there has been some reduction in the regime on offer to all prisoners in Maghaberry while we have been developing the arrangements for the separated prisoners. However, it is our intention that following establishment of the regime and the moving of the prisoners into their new accommodation, which we anticipate will take place at the end of this month, we will begin to put resources into the integrated regime that will continue to be offered in the rest of the prison.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the recent attacks on prison officers and their homes, which are linked to the whole issue of separation. Recently, the Secretary of State reached an agreement with the Prison Officers Association to appoint an independent person to assess the need for security measures at home for individual cases. Can the Minister assure me that resources will not be an issue and that if prison officers need protection in their homes it will be made available? Will she confirm that it will not be a case of a window here or there, but that she will comply with the security recommendations?
    Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [153158]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Dissident republicans remain a threat to the peace process, as evidenced by the recent device at Shackleton barracks in Ballykelly. For the most part their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by intelligence-led policing operations. Loyalist and republican paramilitaries continue to carry out attacks and acts of intimidation against their own communities. Apart from a few isolated incidents, however, interface areas have been quiet for the past 18 months.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that illegal shipments of arms from Libya to the IRA played a vital role in prolonging the terrorist campaign? Now that we are reopening diplomatic and other relations with Libya, and Libya is giving information about its weapons of mass destruction, surely Colonel Gaddafi owes it to us to give us details about those illegal shipments. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that would help the decommissioning process?
    Jane Kennedy: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would expect that the subject of arms supplied by Libya to the IRA in the past would be part of the

    1401
    Government's wide-ranging discussions with Libya. The hon. Gentleman is right; such information would be of great benefit.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that in recent years Northern Ireland Office Ministers have found difficult, if not impossible, to decide when ceasefires had been broken. Can she give us some idea about how the international Independent Monitoring Commission will receive evidence that points to the breaking of ceasefires? Can she inform the House whether that evidence will come from police and security sources who could not give such assurances to previous Ministers?
    Jane Kennedy: I am not quite sure about the point that my hon. Friend made in his last sentence, but I can assure him that the Independent Monitoring Commission will receive reports from all the areas that he identified and that it will present its reports to the two Governments.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister comment on the extent of the intimidation directed both at Catholic members of district policing partnerships and at Catholics who apply to join the police? What steps are the Government taking to help the police to tackle that issue—for example, by commencing an active dialogue on it with Sinn Fein?
    Jane Kennedy: The attacks upon members of the district policing partnerships are being undertaken by dissident republican groups. Obviously, we are interested in speaking to whoever might have influence to bring about an end to intimidation in Northern Ireland. However, the specific attacks to which the hon. Gentleman refers are being diverted and disrupted by intelligence-led policing operations, and the police are to be commended for the work that they are undertaking. Such attacks are deplorable and the people who carry them out have no place in a democratic society.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the security situation for minority ethnic communities in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the Chinese community, which has suffered appalling violence and intimidation at the hands of racist thugs? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what is being done to protect the Chinese community in Northern Ireland, and will she meet the all-party Chinese in Britain group to discuss what we can do to try to help?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. New legislation is being developed that will enable the police to have more powers to deal with such attacks and will allow the courts to deal with them more rigorously. The police continue to do all that they can to divert such activity and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking into the matter to see what more can be done on that front.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a feeling of dread in Northern Ireland—given the kind of remarks that have
    1402
    been made in the Chamber today about the increasing likelihood of no-warning bomb attacks from the Real IRA, the race attacks that have been taking place and general issues of criminality—at the prospect of losing 1,600 members of the security forces with the removal of the police reserve? Will she ensure that no political pressure is applied to the Chief Constable that would lead to such a decision?
    Jane Kennedy: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As he knows, the Chief Constable will review the security situation later this summer, and following that review final decisions will be taken.
    Lady Hermon: Given the lack of confidence in the security situation at present, and particularly in prior acts of decommissioning, has any thought been given to replacing de Chastelain at the head of the independent weapons decommissioning monitoring body?
    Jane Kennedy: As I hope to have the opportunity to say later today, I commend the work of General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. No thought has been given to the matter that the hon. Lady asked about. We are grateful for the commitment that the general has shown to the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to working with him in the future—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order.
    Mr. David Lidington: A recent written answer that the Minister of State gave me showed that the full-time reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland accounts for roughly a quarter of all officers attached to district command units, and in the case of some local command units the proportion is much larger. In view of that, can the Government state categorically that the full-time reserve will not be sacrificed or disbanded for political reasons, and that it will be maintained for as long as its presence on the ground in Northern Ireland is necessary for the maintenance of effective local policing?
    Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a decision that the Policing Board has in hand. Its decision will be very much informed by the advice of the Chief Constable once he has completed his review of security later this summer.

    Arts (Promotion)
    Jim Knight: What discussions he has had with interested parties in Northern Ireland about the promotion of the arts. [153159]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I have had discussions about the promotion of the arts with a range of interested parties, including political representatives and those working in the statutory, community and voluntary sectors.

    1403
    The Arts Council of Northern Ireland is the statutory body responsible for the promotion of the arts. Both my Department and the Arts Council engage on a regular basis with a wide range of stakeholders from the arts sector.
    Jim Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I know first hand from my work as a professional arts promoter the potential of the arts to heal, to educate and to strengthen communities. What use is my hon. Friend making of the arts in those capacities in Northern Ireland?
    Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in the issue. The arts do indeed have the capacity to bring communities together. The work that I have seen of, for example, the Lyric theatre and the Community Circus school in Belfast and the Nerve centre and the Verbal Arts centre in the city of Derry shows that they can promote a far greater understanding and acceptance of different cultures and traditions.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: We are all aware of the growing culture of mural art in Northern Ireland. This is to be found in both communities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question.
    Mr. Beggs: In fact, that mural art is a tourist attraction. Is the Minister aware of just how many properties in public ownership carry sectarian and political murals? Will she provide funding and harness the talent that exists in Northern Ireland to provide more attractive and more acceptable murals and give encouragement to that art?
    Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Murals can be divisive or unifying. As he knows, the Ulster-Scots Agency has looked at bringing in new murals and over-painting those that are sectarian. I will give further consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    Schools (Christianity)
    Mr. Graham Allen: Whether the religious education core syllabus for grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland seeks to ensure that children understand both Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity; and if he will make a statement. [153160]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The current core syllabus for religious education was developed jointly by the four main churches. It accounts for around half of teaching time in this subject. Schools can augment the core syllabus in accordance with their own ethos. The syllabus is currently being reviewed by a working party, whose advice I expect to receive shortly.
    Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to undermine the religious bigotry that exists in
    1404
    schools in Northern Ireland, and give young people the broadest possible understanding of both religious and secular value systems, so that the inter-generational problems that we see in Northern Ireland can begin to be tackled where it really counts—at home and in the early years at school?
    Jane Kennedy: I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. It is already open to schools to provide opportunities for pupils to look at the beliefs of other Christian denominations and at other world religions, and I encourage them to do so.
    David Burnside: The Minister could help with this problem a great deal. If I were a young man applying to become a police officer in Northern Ireland, I would be referred to as a non-Catholic, not a Protestant, so could the Minister give a commitment that all future legislation in Northern Ireland will refer to Protestants who are members of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that all those who are not Protestants will be referred to correctly as Roman Catholics?
    Jane Kennedy: No, I am not prepared to give any such assurance.

    The Prime Minister was asked—

    Engagements
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Carmichael: Next week, I shall visit Kenny Richey—a British citizen who has been held on death row in Ohio for the past 17 years. Amnesty International describes his case as
    "one of the most compelling cases of innocence"
    that it has ever seen. Will the Prime Minister undertake to make direct and personal representations to the Governor of Ohio at the appropriate time to prevent the killing of that innocent man?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of that question. I can give him the following information: I understand that Mr. Richey is awaiting the decision on an appeal for his retrial, and that decision is expected soon. We are continuing to monitor the case closely and will see what the result of Mr. Richey's appeal is before deciding what further representations we need to make. The Foreign Office is in touch directly with Mr. Richey's lawyers, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, and with Ohio state officials, so we will continue to

    1405
    monitor this closely, and, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall obviously make inquiries about it myself.
    Geraldine Smith: Nineteen young people drowned in Morecambe bay last Thursday—the victims not only of the sea but of greed and exploitation. Does the Prime Minister agree that the slave-labour practices of some gangmasters put a stain on the character of Britain throughout the world? Does he also agree that it is an affront to every decent person in Britain? Can he therefore tell me whether the Government are willing to support and give time to the private Member's Bill that is being proposed to license the operation of gangmasters? Can he also tell me what regulations will be put in place for the operation of public fisheries such as Morecambe bay?
    The Prime Minister: First, I think that the whole House would want to express its sorrow at what happened in that terrible tragedy and our deep sympathy for the victims and their families. As my hon. Friend will realise, a criminal investigation is under way, and it would be inappropriate therefore to comment at this stage, but there is no doubt that a number of issues arise out of this, and I can tell her that we certainly support the objectives set out in the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan). The detail must be got right, and we are working with him and Departments to ensure that it is.
    The current asylum Bill will make it a criminal offence to traffic people in or out of the UK for the purposes of exploitation. The cockle fishing industry is regulated by sea fisheries committees, and they are actively looking at what further steps they can take, but I want to stress one point that she makes: there are firms that operate in a reputable way, but where people are operating for the purposes of greed or exploitation, it is absolutely right that we take action—if necessary, legal action, by changing the law. That is why I can assure the House that we will examine what the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend says, and if we can find the right way to meet its objectives, we will do so.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing my sympathy to the families of the victims of the tragedy at Morecambe bay?
    Last week, the Prime Minister said that the Government were looking at imposing transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries of eastern Europe, as other member states have done. The Home Secretary says that they are not. Who speaks for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: What I said—and what we are doing—is that before the regulations that will grant the concession of free movement of workers are laid before Parliament, we have to make sure that any potential basis for the exploitation of any loopholes in the rules is closed off. That is what we are looking at now, and that includes looking in particular at the benefits regime.
    Mr. Howard: No, no. The Prime Minister was not referring last week only to the benefits regime. I put it to
    1406
    him last Wednesday that most other European Union countries had imposed transitional controls, and he replied:
    "It is precisely for that reason that we are examining doing that now."
    The Prime Minister repeated that several times. He also said that "eligibility for benefits" was an additional issue at which the Government were looking, and said:
    "That is why we are looking at both issues."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 753.]
    Is he now changing his mind?
    The Prime Minister: I am not changing my mind. The free movement of people is guaranteed throughout the European Union after accession. The free—[Interruption.] Yes, the free movement of people is guaranteed; the free movement of workers, however, is not. In respect of that, we are looking at both the benefits system and whatever other measures are necessary to make sure that if that concession is granted—and we have not yet laid the regulations that will grant it—that is done in a way that prevents it from being exploited. We are not against people coming here to work properly; we will not, however, allow our system to be exploited or abused.
    Mr. Howard: We are hearing one thing from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box and completely different things from others in his own Government. The Prime Minister said one thing last Wednesday, and was contradicted that very afternoon by his own official spokesman. He was contradicted at the weekend by the Home Secretary, contradicted again by another official spokesman, then contradicted again by the Home Secretary on Monday. Last week, we saw a bold statement on Wednesday, good headlines on Thursday, a climbdown on Friday and total confusion by the weekend—a familiar pattern from this Prime Minister. Will he now give us a clear answer? Will the Government do what other countries are doing, and what the Prime Minister said he was looking at? Will he impose transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries or not?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out his last question without paying any attention to the answers that he had already been given. The position, as I have set it out, is quite simply this. There will be free movement of people after 1 May this year. Free movement of workers, however, is a concession that we are prepared to grant, but not in circumstances in which it can be abused. We are therefore looking at the benefits system and considering any other measures necessary to ensure that that concession is not abused. I do not see what is so complicated about that.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I understand that Ministers will shortly be deciding on the central rail project for roll-on/roll-off trains to transport lorries from north to south, which will halve the north-south traffic on the M1. That is not only supported by people in Broxtowe because of the potential for jobs; it is the only project in human history that has support from

    1407
    employers, unions, green groups and the Freight Transport Association—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend give it a warm welcome?
    The Prime Minister: I think, as was fairly obvious just then, that that proposal is not without controversy in certain quarters. All that I can say to my hon. Friend on the project is this. It clearly has the potential to offer significant environmental and congestion benefits, and we are therefore considering it carefully, but we will want to make sure that the claimed environmental and congestion benefits are real. In addition, the issue of the financing of the proposal is very important. However, we will look at it with an open mind.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister clarify the current state of negotiations between the British Government and the American Administration over the British citizens who are being held captive at Guantanamo bay?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can. We are continuing to negotiate over whether those people should be tried by the US commission, or whether they should be returned. There is an option, in the end, over which of those courses is pursued. I am sorry—I have to say this—that the process is taking time, but it is taking time, as I hope the House understands, for very good reasons. We want to make sure that if people are brought back here—I say this without any disrespect to those people—that does not in any shape or form endanger the security of this country.
    Mr. Kennedy: On that very important latter point, given the recent comments of the Home Secretary about lowering the burden of proof in terrorist cases, will the Prime Minister give the House an absolute assurance that we will not undermine the fundamental principles of British justice if these people are brought back to these shores and are then made to stand trial? Has he set a deadline with the American Government for this issue to be resolved once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: No, there is not a deadline for that, and in a sense, it is for us ultimately to decide, if we cannot reach agreement, that we bring them back here. In relation to civil liberties and issues to do with legislation, we shall not do anything—indeed, I do not believe that we have done anything—to undermine essential civil liberties in this country. But there are real issues and dangers to do with terrorism. That is why we took exceptional measures, which were passed through the House, to allow us to detain people who were not British nationals in circumstances in which they would not be convicted in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. We took those powers in respect of people who are not British nationals because of the danger that terrorism poses to this country. We will continue to keep the law under review, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was saying, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the dangers of terrorism are real. There are groups of people in this country and right round the world at the moment who would have no compunction at all in killing large numbers of innocent people; we saw that happen in Moscow last week. I know that, while this type of
    1408
    legislation is before the House, people worry about civil liberties. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that if some terrible terrorist event occurred, their worry would be about security.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the Prime Minister's welcome talks with Mr. Shalgam yesterday, what was said about the prisoner in Barlinnie jail in Glasgow, Mr. Megrahi? Was that matter discussed?
    The Prime Minister: That particular individual was not discussed at all, but the issue to do with Libyan and British relations arising out of Lockerbie obviously was. But, no, that particular individual was not mentioned in the conversation.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: What steps are being taken to persuade Israel to give up her weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: I would like to see the whole of the middle east free from the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the particular worries that Israel has about security, given that it is surrounded by many countries, some of whose stated objective is still to get rid of the state of Israel altogether. I have my criticisms of Israeli policy, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is a democracy, whose Governments are elected by its people. At the same time as we try to strive for a region free of weapons of mass destruction, in whatever country, we must recognise that it is important to respect the security of Israel.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that there was a tragic fire in Padiham in my constituency at the weekend in which three young children died, despite the heroic efforts of their mother and of the emergency services. He will also know that a review of building regulations is currently taking place. The chief fire officer of Lancashire, Peter Holland, and the News of the World are campaigning for sprinklers to be included in the new building regulations, starting with those affecting new build properties for vulnerable people. Will the Government support those moves, recognising that sprinklers can save lives?
    The Prime Minister: Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the three young victims of that horrific tragedy in Padiham in Lancashire. At the moment, investigations into that fire, and into whether it could have been avoided if the home had been fitted with a sprinkler, are still continuing. We have, however, been actively investigating the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. The results of that work, which is being undertaken on our behalf by the Building Research Establishment, are to be published this week. They will be fed into the review of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations that is currently under way. We are going to have a look at this issue; we can take forward any lessons, and any indications that we receive from local people in the fire service as to what they think. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of this issue, which is that there may well be a case for altering the provisions in respect of

    1409
    properties where particularly vulnerable people are housed. Whether that means that we extend the provisions even further is a more difficult question, but I understand the point that he has raised.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plan to give £10 million of taxpayer's money to the trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: Somewhere in the region of £5 million to £10 million will be given to trade unions over—
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Higher, higher.
    The Prime Minister: Only around £5 million to £10 million will be given to trade unions over the next few years, to encourage the process of modernisation in the trade union movement. [Interruption.] Unlike the Opposition, we think that good industrial relations between employers and trade unions are good for British business, and for Britain.
    Mr. Howard: I have here the relevant Government new clause to the Employment Relations Bill, and it is very widely drawn. It states:
    "The Secretary of State may provide money to a trade union…to improve the carrying out of any of its functions"
    or
    "to carry out any new functions."
    That could have been written by Bob Crow. The trade unions gave more than £6 million to the Labour party last year. Why can they not use that money for modernisation?
    The Prime Minister: I doubt very much whether Mr. Bob Crow is in favour of the money being used for the modernisation of trade unions. I totally disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: it is right to spend the money because it is right to help trade unions modernise. However, I can give another example that involves the Government spending rather more than £5 million to £10 million extra—the Short money that we have given to the Conservative party. I have to say, though, that the signs of modernisation there do not yet show that we are getting value for money
    Mr. Howard: The deal that the Prime Minister is offering to the unions is that the Labour party gets £6 million from the trade unions, and the unions get £10 million from taxpayers in return. That is not a bad deal. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the trade unions would get "fairness but no favours" from a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude to trade unions has changed not one whit. After all, when in government, he opposed the minimum wage, the social chapter and the right of people to join a trade union, even when they wanted to. I am sorry that he is still stuck in the same old groove. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. Skinner. I heard booing in the Chamber. I will not tolerate that, even if it means suspending the House during Prime Minister's Question Time.

    Social Behaviour
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss social behaviour.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so, but I remember well my last visit to my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Prime Minister accept that the House and the Government have attacked antisocial behaviour very effectively? That is certainly the case in my constituency, but does he agree that there is another side to that coin—that as well as attacking antisocial behaviour we should promote social behaviour in our youngsters? Will he consider the possibility of including social behaviour as a core activity in the national curriculum, so that we can prepare youngsters to take best advantage of the schooling that is on offer? In that way, we could do for social behaviour what we have done so effectively for literacy and numeracy.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Citizenship education became a statutory part of the national curriculum in September 2002. That framework gives us our best chance to teach young people about responsibility, but he is also right to draw attention to our measures on antisocial behaviour. One thing that we know is that the more we invest in young people at the earliest possible age, the better chance we have of making sure that they become responsible adults—hence the importance of programmes such as Sure Start. That is why it is important that, as well as acting to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, we should continue to invest in the education of our young people. That education, of which citizenship is a part, is the best way to ensure a more secure society in the future.
    Peter Bottomley: Will the Prime Minister thank the Foreign Office for its continuing interest in the case of Krishna Maharaj in Florida, and could he suggest—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be on social behaviour.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Chaytor: The Government have rightly attached great importance to the question of fair access to universities through their proposal for the Office for Fair Access, but given that 43 per cent. of young people go to universities yet 100 per cent. go to secondary school, and considering the importance of secondary education in the prospects of young people of continuing to university, is there not an even more powerful case for an office for fair access to secondary schools?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point is partly met by the independent schools adjudicators, who oversee complaints and disputes about admission arrangements. I think the other thing I would say to him is that the more we can encourage, especially in the

    1411
    poorest parts of our country, the development of really good quality secondary schools—the specialist schools—and the city academies are an attempt to do this, and excellence in cities is another—the best chance our young people will have in those schools of getting good quality education, irrespective of their wealth. It is certainly important that we keep under review how we develop that programme to ensure that access is indeed fair.
    David Burnside: May I ask the Prime Minister what is in the best interest of the United Kingdom: the re-election of pro-war President Bush, or the election of anti-war Senator Kerry?
    The Prime Minister: Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have learned enough in my six or seven years as Prime Minister not to interfere in the American presidential election? That decision is, and should be, for the American people alone.
    Mr. Wayne David: The Prime Minister will be aware that the International Monetary Fund has recently revised its growth predictions for the British economy in 2004. Instead of a growth figure of 2.4 per cent., it now estimates growth of 3.1 per cent. Does he agree that that is eloquent testimony to the success of the British economy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. It comes on a day when unemployment has yet again fallen. We now have more than 1.5 million more jobs in the economy than in 1997, when some people said that we would lose 1 million jobs in the British economy. We have actually got record levels of employment, and unemployment is now at its lowest level for well over 25 years and almost 30 years. That is a result of the stable economic policies pursued by the Chancellor, the new deal and the measures that we have taken to ensure that opportunity is not the privilege of a few, but open to the many.
    Matthew Taylor: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the fact that because the council tax is unrelated to ability to pay, he pays the same council tax, earning £175,000 a year, as the security guards who provide security in the House of Commons and are paid less than £17,000?
    The Prime Minister: There is a debate about how local government is best financed, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that when one actually looks at the different systems of local government finance, the first starting point on which everyone should agree is that there is no perfect system. One can point to anomalies in respect of any system, but I do not myself think—although of course we look at this with an open mind—that local people would like to have their income tax decided by local authorities. If that is the Liberal Democrats' policy, I think that they would be as well to conceal it pretty carefully.
    Ms Karen Buck: The Government have been extremely successful, especially in introducing programmes that are targeted at young people who are at risk of
    1412
    offending. Does the Prime Minister therefore understand the disappointment of a number of projects in my constituency that at this late stage of the year are facing significant reductions in their funding under the children's fund? Will he agree, at least, to go back and look again at the children's fund because although investment is important, consistency is important too? The programme has not been running for long and it is important that we give such programmes the benefit of the doubt.
    Hon. Members: Spot on.
    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members say, "Spot on," but as I recall, they opposed the financing. The point that my hon. Friend makes is important. There is a danger for some of the programmes that are not financed on a recurrent basis that funding comes to an end. I will look into the situation in her constituency. Obviously, there is always a limit on the amount of money that can be spent, and we are investing a considerable amount in the children's fund, neighbourhood renewal projects, and so forth. There is a particular issue of what happens when those projects are up and running and doing well and funding is suddenly cut short. That is precisely what we are looking at now, which will obviously form part not just of deliberations on the Budget but of the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The events in Morecombe bay were both tragic and unpardonable, but further to the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), does he recognise that also at the heart of the matter is the pool of illegal immigrants in this country who fall easy prey to the despicable activities of illegal gangmasters? In the light of that tragedy, what action will the Prime Minister take to remove those people from this country?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we do remove illegal immigrants from this country—actually, thousands and thousands a year. That problem faces this Government as it did the previous Government and Governments right around the western world. This goes far wider than the particular tragedy and is not in a sense to be connected with that, but the debate that we have been having on the subject of identity cards is a very relevant question for the future because we will not be able to control the problem with the old methods.
    Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend referred to a decrease once again in unemployment, but there is still growing concern about the number of people on disability benefits who are not getting the opportunities and choices that others receive. What more can the Government do to give people on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance the opportunity to take part in constructive society?
    The Prime Minister: There are two measures in place: there is a tax credit that is available for disabled people to ensure that work pays for them; and there is also, of course, the new deal, which specifically targets some of

    1413
    those who are disabled or on incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right; there are still far too many people on incapacity benefit who could be brought off benefit and into work. One thing that we must do is ensure that they understand the opportunities that are now available and the support through the tax credit system, which will in many instances give them the opportunity to work and make them considerably better off.
    Ann Winterton: With the inclusion of the 10 new countries in the European Union, the United Kingdom is set to lose £3 billion of European regional funding for 2007 to 2013. Do the Government intend to supplement that shortfall to present levels, and will they do so by taxing the hard-pressed British taxpayer even more?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot entirely work out what angle the hon. Lady is coming from. Is she asking us to support the programmes or to ditch them? I thought that it was a matter of common cause across the House that we supported the accession countries entering the European Union. Obviously, as that happens, unless we increase dramatically the overall amount of the EU budget, there will be less for those countries that are already in the EU and are wealthier. Of course we look at specific programmes and whether we need to bridge the funding for them, but it is important to recognise that the alternative is either not having those countries in the EU—that would be a huge mistake for Europe—or pushing up the European budget, which we have made clear, as the Chancellor did again yesterday, we do not favour.
    Chris Bryant: Last year, one in four deaths in England and Wales led to an autopsy, as opposed to one in eight in Scotland and to one in 12 in Northern Ireland. Does the Prime Minister agree that many of those 121,000 autopsies caused unnecessary distress and delay to already grieving families? Is it not time that the coroner service was urgently reformed to ensure consistency across the UK—not least in the reporting of drugs-related deaths?
    The Prime Minister: I understand from my right hon. Friend that proposals on the reform of the coroner service will be published shortly. It may be as well to wait for the outcome of that.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: After months of trying, my constituents, Mr. and Mrs.
    1414
    Keys, secured a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence last week to receive a briefing about the current state of the investigation by the special investigation branch into the death of their son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys and five other military policemen last June. In that meeting, not a word was said about the military policemen having to return ammunition rounds before going on duty or, indeed, losing essential medical supplies, apparently for audit purposes. The Ministry of Defence liaison officer rang late on Friday evening to tell them about that, because it was being broken in the press on Sunday. Mr. and Mrs. Keys, through me, are asking the Prime Minister when they can ever expect to learn the truth about the death of their son.
    The Prime Minister: First, I express once again my condolences and sympathy to the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. May I tell them, through him, that I understand their anxiety, and that it is the reason why there is an inquiry? Once it has completed its work, and we know exactly what happened to those six members of the Royal Military Police, we will obviously be in a better position to communicate with the families on the basis of precise details. However, those six people died in the course of their duty in circumstances in which they demonstrated enormous courage and bravery—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked about medals, but it has already been made clear that we will look at that later when the inquiry is complete.
    May I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that those people died with immense bravery, trying to make Iraq better? No matter what is going on in Iraq at the moment—these terrible terrorist attacks were almost certainly instigated by people outside Iraq and are directed against Iraqi people—it is crucial to the security of the region and the world that Iraq is helped to achieve stability, prosperity and democracy in the long term. That is precisely what those people, including the hon. Gentleman's constituent, were doing, which is why the House, while it should answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman has quite properly asked, should thank that person and all those who have died in the service of their country doing something very important for the future of the world.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statements.

Parliament and the EU
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's plans for enhancing the role of Parliament in European Union matters and in respect of other developments in the European Union. This is set to be an important year for the EU. Ten new members join on I May, and the elections for a new European Parliament take place in June. We also have the initial proposals on the financing of the European Union after 2006, the continuing efforts to reform the European economy so that it can better deliver jobs and prosperity, and the outstanding matter of the intergovernmental conference. By the end of this year, we hope to conclude accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria, and make a decision on whether to launch such negotiations with Turkey. Meanwhile, discussions began yesterday in New York on the scope for a reunited Cyprus joining the EU in May.
Those and other EU developments are of profound importance to Britain and British interests. It is therefore vital that the House, and Parliament as a whole, have an integral role in debating, influencing and agreeing the policies of the British Government. Together with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues, I was concerned to ensure that there was regular and rigorous parliamentary discussion of the intergovernmental conference following the publication of the draft constitutional treaty last summer. We therefore laid a White Paper on the draft treaty before the House last September. Ministers and officials attended a total of 13 sessions with Committees in this House and the Lords on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the IGC, and responded to 16 Select Committee reports. From last May onwards, when the successive parts of the Convention text of the draft treaty were published, we had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floors of both Houses and three sittings of the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference.
That parliamentary engagement in the IGC process helped to develop a better understanding of the issues at stake, and strengthened our negotiating position at the EU table. On energy, to take just one example, the strength of opinion in Parliament helped us to secure an acceptable amendment from the Italian EU presidency. This level of scrutiny and debate on the IGC should, in my view, become the norm for providing Parliament with the opportunity to oversee the work of the European Union and the British Government's role in it. Indeed, given the range of issues that the EU now covers—from trade to the environment, from cross-border crime to consumer protection—it is vital that we enhance national democratic scrutiny in this way.
I greatly applaud the diligent and valuable work of the scrutiny Committees in both Houses. However, I am sure that they would agree that we need a broader and earlier focus, across Parliament as a whole, on the forthcoming plans of the Commission and the European Council, sufficiently in advance that all Members of the House and of the other place have an opportunity to raise concerns and to influence policy before it is set in stone.
1416
First, therefore, starting in April this year, then each January thereafter, the Government will lay before Parliament a White Paper looking at the year ahead for the EU's legislative and other activities. The paper will set out the Government's priorities in the light of the European Commission's legislative and work programme for the year ahead, as well as the operational programme for the forthcoming EU presidencies agreed each December by the European Council. At the same time, subject to your agreement, Mr. Speaker, I plan to make an oral statement to the House summarising the White Paper's main themes. In addition, each July we will publish as a Command Paper an interim report to take stock of progress and to look ahead to the second six-month presidency of the year. Those papers will subsume our existing retrospective reviews of developments in the European Union.
Secondly, to build on the Standing Committee that was set up to look at the Convention, then at the IGC, the Government favour creating a successor Committee whose remit would be extended to cover the whole of the EU's work. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes shortly to present proposals to the Modernisation Committee for its consideration. Our aim is that the new Committee would be open to Members of both Houses, and that Ministers involved in EU work, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other Departments, would give statements, respond to questions and participate in debates. I hope that the House might also consider whether ways might be found to allow European Commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for UK Members of the European Parliament to attend. I look forward to the Modernisation Committee's findings, and hope that it might include in its inquiry the operation of the European Standing Committees A, B and C, which, if I may express a purely personal view, seem never to have worked fully as intended.
Decisions on any new Committees are of course a matter for the House, with the other place. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have discussed the idea informally with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee; indeed, it reflects much of the thinking contained in that Committee's report of 22 May 2002, "European Scrutiny in the Commons". I have also raised the idea with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and discussed it informally with the Chairman of the European Union Committee in the Lords.
Let me turn to a number of other proposals. The first is a more strategic approach to EU business in the form of the three-year strategic programme that was adopted by the European Council last December, which we have made available to the Chairmen of the scrutiny Committees of both Houses. That is designed to overcome the inherent difficulties posed by the existing system of six-month EU presidencies by setting out agreed objectives and priorities for the EU, and time frames for their implementation.
Planning for the British EU presidency in the second half of next year is already well under way. That will give us a valuable chance to keep the EU agenda focused on delivering economic reform, jobs and growth. As he announced in the House on 10 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is

1417
already working with his Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg colleagues, as those countries have the next presidencies, to achieve better regulation in the EU. For Europe to remain competitive, we must make faster progress on deregulation and more flexible labour, capital and product markets. According to the International Monetary Fund. an improved EU regulatory framework could deliver as much as a 7 per cent. increase in the EU's gross domestic product and a 3 per cent. increase in productivity in the longer term.
Transposition of EU legislation into national law also needs attention. The risk of gold-plating the original texts, thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those that their competitors in other member states face, is real. With that in mind, 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer, Robin Bellis, to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation and I published it on 24 November last year. In December I held a seminar to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across Government, the House, the EU institutions and the Confederation of British Industry. I have asked the relevant Departments to report back to me in six months on the steps that they have taken to implement the recommendations. Of course, I also welcome the views of the House.
Britain's national interests are best served by an active engagement with our partners in the European Union. However, just as issues such as trade, the environment and organised crime require effective cross-border action throughout the EU, it is imperative that national democratic bodies are fully engaged on those issues. I therefore hope that the proposals that I have set out today will go some way towards ensuring that the House and Parliament can be more effective in doing that.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advanced sight of it. I, too, welcome the discussions in New York on the reunification of Cyprus, and we wish them every success.
We welcome the concept of enhancing the role of Parliament in European Union matters. However, overall, the Foreign Secretary's statement is gravely disappointing, not so much for what it says but for what it fails to say. The context is not new. The backdrop is the constantly increasing flood of directives and regulations from Brussels, with which Parliament is increasingly unable to cope.
In 2002–03, the European Scrutiny Committee considered 1,327 documents, of which only 3.5 per cent. were referred to the European Standing Committees that the Foreign Secretary mentioned, and only five were debated on the Floor of the House. The test of today's statement is therefore twofold. First, will the measures do anything to stem the tide of European regulations and directives that are imposed on the United Kingdom? Secondly, will they do anything to increase our national Parliament's powers to stop or change them? I fear that, as is so often the case with the Government, despite the fine language, the answer to both questions is no.
We welcome the promise of an annual White Paper. I hope that it will keep Parliament more fully informed of the Government's and the Commission's intentions.
1418
However, will it give Parliament any more influence? Will it in any way echo the Danish principle of seeking Parliament's approval before decisions are made in the Council? Again, the answer appears to be no.
We welcome, as far as it goes, the proposed new Standing Committee, which, from reading between the lines, appears to be some sort of Grand Committee, rather in the old style. Of course increased debating and questioning is desirable, but will the Committee have the power to alter or stop anything? Once again, the answer appears to be no. We all want an end to gold-plating. Although I appreciate the need to take account of our laws, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is taking so long to end an unfair and unsatisfactory practice. Why should action take another six months?
The genuine significance of the statement is the dogs that have not barked. Why did it not include a response to the conclusions of last June's European Scrutiny Committee's report? They are relevant to the subject of the statement, which is greater parliamentary involvement in EU work. Why did the Foreign Secretary say nothing about the need to tighten up the scrutiny reserve procedure against the abuses that continue to undermine Parliament's authority? Why was there no mention of strengthening Parliament's rights, not only to seek a review of EU legislation that offends against the principles of subsidiarity—the so-called yellow card—but to block such legislation under a red card procedure, which the Foreign Secretary has previously said that he favours?
Why is there no move to ensure that major European issues are dealt with on the Floor of the House? Should not at least the European Court of Auditors report and all budgetary matters be dealt with in this way? Why does the Foreign Secretary not address the serious undermining of the authority of Parliament through what is known as the comitology process?
There is a serious and growing democratic deficit in relation to the flood of European legislation. The European Parliament alone cannot fill that deficit. This statement does far too little to enable this national Parliament to do so better. It is an opportunity regrettably missed—even more regrettably in the light of the threat of the constitution, which will make the deficit worse.
The Foreign Secretary's statement is a finger in the dyke when the floodwaters are rising. I cannot help wondering whether its timing has anything to do with the fact that the Prime Minister is about to embark, with France and Germany, on another round of old-fashioned integrationist planning. I am reminded of the saying, "The more they talk of their honour, the more we count the spoons," and I advise my hon. Friends to regard the statement in that light.
Mr. Straw: The statement was about what it said it was about: strengthening the role of Parliament in the European Union. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that at any stage between 1979 and 1997, he and his colleagues in the then Government could have introduced changes of this kind. They wholly failed to do so. I also point out that as a result of a lack of proper engagement in the European Union when his party was in power, we have ended up with some really serious difficulties with the drafting of directives and regulations.

1419
For example, the problems with the Data Protection Act 1998, with which I had to deal in relation to implementation, were caused by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues in government had signed up to lock, stock and barrel between 1990 and 1997, and we are still facing those problems. The same applies to the inadequate drafting and consideration of aspects of the working time directive. The Conservative Government could and should have dealt with those matters, and they failed to do so. I therefore greatly regret the grudging and churlish tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about proposals that are designed to increase the role and effectiveness of this House and the other place in dealing with EU business.
Let me deal with some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's specific questions. He asked whether Parliament should have a greater role than it does now. I very much hope so, and we are open to proposals to strengthen the role of Parliament further. It is for Ministers to propose, and for Parliament to dispose. I referred to the problems with European Standing Committees A, B and C, which were introduced with all-party support in the early 1990s. The idea was that they should better scrutinise European regulations, and I attended them when I was in opposition. The truth, however, is that they are not working, and they do not get proper attendance. We therefore need to look at ways in which the scrutiny of such documents can be enhanced.
I have no fear whatever about Parliament being involved much earlier, not just in the scrutiny of documents but in establishing policy in advance. It strengthens our hand when we go to Brussels or Luxembourg if we know what Parliament wants and what it does not want. That was our experience in respect of both the Convention and, above all, the IGC. I mention just one example of that among many: energy policy. The express strength of sentiment on both sides of the House about the inadequacy of the articles relating to energy in the draft Convention enabled me simply to say to my colleagues in the European Union that we could not tolerate those proposals and that we must have something different, and we ended up with something different. That is the approach that I want for the future.
One of the key proposals that I am announcing today is to extend back in time the point at which Parliament gets involved in the development of EU policy. The European Scrutiny Committees play an important role, but that happens when draft legislation is brought forward. Often, by that stage, issues are set in stone. In relation to the White Paper, the reason why I want a long prospective look to be taken at the European Union equivalent of the Queen's Speech is so that Parliament as a whole can better help us get a grip on issues. We can therefore intervene when policy decisions can properly be influenced, rather than after they have been taken.
Sir Menzies Campbell: I should have thought that no one could do other than endorse, in principle, proposals for better parliamentary scrutiny of European affairs, and a more strategic approach on the part of the United Kingdom Government. The Modernisation Committee will no
1420
doubt seek representations from political parties in the House, and we shall of course respond in detail in due course.
The statement made no express mention of the Prime Minister. Is it expected that he will be an active participant in the procedures outlined by the Foreign Secretary? On Cyprus and Turkey, the Foreign Secretary enjoys my support and that of my colleagues. Turkey's accession will of course have to be subject to its fulfilling all the necessary criteria, including the Copenhagen criteria, but that seems to us to be an effort well worth making.
The Foreign Secretary's proposals doubtless allow for better scrutiny of constitutional change in Europe. I thought he was uncharacteristically coy in saying nothing about the progress of the constitution. Perhaps he could say what discussions he has had recently with the Irish Government, and what progress, if any, he anticipates.
I hope the proposals also allow for greater scrutiny of the European Union's budget, but there was no particular reference to that in the statement. We are at one with the Government in believing that there should be no increase in the central budget, and that Britain's rebate should be maintained; but does the Foreign Secretary agree that the fundamental issue—the issue at the heart of financial considerations of the European Union—remains the unreformed common agricultural policy? Until that is dealt with properly, discussions of the kind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been having over the last two or three days are likely to continue.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. He asked whether it was expected that the Prime Minister would attend the Grand Committee; the answer is no.
Sir Menzies Campbell: Why?
Mr. Straw: I was about to explain. The Prime Minister—this is unusual for Ministers involved in EU business—routinely makes an oral statement to the House the day after, or two days after, every European Council; I refer to the key European Union sessions. He attends those, unlike other members of the Cabinet, who go back and forth to and from Brussels and Luxembourg much more regularly.
The negotiations on Cyprus and Turkey began in New York yesterday. They are likely to prove difficult because the issue is difficult. but I am grateful for the support that has been given by Members throughout the House. We have actively supported Turkey and the start of its negotiations. It should be recognised that Turkey has made significant strides towards ensuring that it can meet the Copenhagen criteria. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the EU 15, and subsequently the 25, towards a date for the start of the negotiations being set by the European Council at the end of this year. I happen to think that that is very important.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that I had been coy about the IGC, and I plead guilty. The reason is that it is impossible to say whether the IGC negotiations will or will not be reopened. I have had many discussions with my Irish counterpart, as the

1421
Prime Minister has with the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and with many other colleagues across Europe. The Irish Presidency is collecting voices on the issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Collecting voices, that is what they say they are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "A big conversation?"] No, I think it is a series of small conversations. Having collected these voices and digested them, they intend then to come forward, with either a sense that the IGC' can be reopened or a sense that it cannot. All I can say to any Members on either side of the House who are of this tendency is that I would not put any money on either result. That is why I was being coy. I hope that that explanation helps.
As for the budget, I am glad to have the Liberal Democrats' support for the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is right about the state of the common agricultural policy, apart from the fact that some important changes in principle have been made to detach subsidy from production. Over time, they will make a difference. However, there is also the issue of the distribution of the cohesion and structural funds, which is bound to have to be considered if we are going to keep the budget down to 1 per cent. of EU GDP, as I believe we should.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I say that I hope that there will be a satisfactory conclusion to the Cyprus problem, which is a blot on our country too, because we were one of the guaranteeing powers for the first Republic of Cyprus? With regard to my right hon. Friend's statements about control for the House, I strongly welcome his decision to have a new strong Standing Committee. Too often, Back Benchers have complained that decisions have been made without their being able to influence policy. The fact that programmes are going to be brought before us that we will be able to discuss, and, we hope, to amend—we hope to change the Government's position on that—is important for our role in Parliament, and strengthens our position particularly. It will also be an opportunity for people to discuss events in Europe properly, so that we will not see the hysteria that we have seen in the past few weeks about entrants from new countries, particularly the vicious and nasty statements in the tabloid press about our fellow European citizens, the Roma.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, and I am grateful for his support. As he will not mind me saying, he is an assiduous attender of all the Committees of which he is a member. We have our responsibilities to involve Parliament better, but Parliament has its responsibilities too. It is a matter for regret that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have failed to attend relevant Standing Committees, even when the business that they were dealing with has been important. I want to make it clear that we regard the role of the House, including this Chamber, and its Committees in EU business as extremely important but I hope that as we get this going, that is reciprocated by better attendance at such Committees.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the reasons why the
1422
European Standing Committees have not received the enthusiastic support that was originally anticipated is that when votes are taken and a Standing Committee decision goes against what the Government want, it is reversed on the Floor of the House? That has been the regular pattern. Does he accept that in the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, which he and I attended regularly, there were no votes? Can he therefore, in the context of what he has just announced, assure us that decisions can be taken and votes will be cast in respect of decisions that come before the new Committee? Will he reaffirm what the Minister for Europe said to me on 15 December in a written answer—that Parliament is guaranteed its supremacy, so we can and will continue to reject proposals from the European Union in this Parliament, and to amend or to repeal European legislation, because that is the prerogative of this House?
Mr. Straw: It is almost an oxymoron—sorry, I mean that it is an obvious point—to say that Parliament is sovereign. Of course that is true. Parliament can pass any legislation that it wants, but that legislation may have consequences; we have had that discussion before. On the issue of votes, the procedure is a matter for the Modernisation Committee, not for me—I am making proposals—but if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, I do not think that he would propose that what happens in Standing Committees should be the last word on votes. It would be very odd if Governments of any party were not able to reverse the vote in a Standing Committee on the Floor of the House. The Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference and the Standing Committee on the Convention worked, not least because there were no votes. However, there was an expression of sentiment, which we took away and dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman said that he and I were assiduous attenders of that Committee. He is right. It is a matter of regret that as far as I recall, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, never turned up to one of the sittings of the Standing Committee on the Convention or the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, notwithstanding his rather grandiloquent remarks earlier.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to ignore the churlish remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary? Not only did he do nothing when he was in office, but he did not even call for the statement. I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. As so much now, right across the board, is decided in Europe, it is important that we have accountability. However, if this Committee is to have the importance that it deserves, it is imperative that Members can attend it and attend this Chamber. Will my right hon. Friend therefore draw the issue to the attention of the Leader of the House, in the light of the possible revision of the House's sitting hours? If we go on as we are, trying to pack everything into the mornings and afternoons, the Committee will not enjoy the attendance that it deserves.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, but, of course, this is a House matter, and in that regard I speak for myself, not the Government.
Mr. McNamara: Do not spoil it, Jack.
Mr. Straw: I think that my views are well known.
This matter will come before the House, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows my opinion and those of many other Members. It is a matter of record that the decision to sit on Tuesday between 11.30 am and 7 pm was passed by only seven votes, and I know of at least eight Members who have changed their minds since then.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As a new member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am horrified at the volume of EU proposals pouring through it each week. A fraction of them are examined, and they cannot be amended in any respect. Since the problem of over-regulation and excessive legislation exists higher up the food chain—in the EU itself—why are the Government arguing in the constitution for more powers for the EU and for more majority voting, which would increase the volume of legislation that the House has to deal with? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the extra powers of the Committee that he is setting up? Otherwise, we shall simply debate again proposals that we cannot block or amend in any respect. What additional powers is he Foreign Secretary proposing for the Committee to reject proposals that the House does not want?
Mr. Straw: I am concerned about the volume of EU proposals and so is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is why, in the pre-Budget report of 10 December, he announced an important initiative, taken with the other forthcoming presidencies, through which we will try to get a grip on the volume of regulations coming out of Brussels. I should point out that the Commission is becoming increasingly aware of this issue, and it is one of the reasons why support for the EU is diminishing across Europe. We must also deal with gold-plating and drafting. Conservatives may want to excise the memory of this, but I should repeat for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit that, when they were in government for 18 years, they did nothing at all about the volume of legislation. However, we are trying to deal with it.
The European Scrutiny Committee does a very good job, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken the trouble to attend its meetings and give evidence; indeed, I am told that I am the first Foreign Secretary to do so. However, the Committee is—to use his analogy—too far down the food chain. We want proposals to be discussed when they are in draft form. Because such proposals are, by definition, simply draft proposals, they are unlikely to be subject to a vote. However, if Parliament is alerted to them, it is possible to call for debates on them in Government or Opposition time. In any event, my ministerial colleagues and I see our role in Europe as representing not just the British Government, but the British Parliament and the
1424
British people. If we get early warning of the fact that the British Parliament and the British people are not going to stand for something, we can go in and deal with it at an early stage.
Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the excellent proposals that the Foreign Secretary has introduced today. They are a response to what Members on both sides of the House have been calling for, and they refocus the Government's European policy on the reform agenda. As he has attended many summits, he will know that it is not just a question of going to the summit and getting the conclusions; what matters is how they are implemented. What is the current status of the proposed second chamber for the European Parliament that the Prime Minister raised the possibility of in a speech in Warsaw three years ago? Does that still form part of the discussion, or is it no longer on the agenda?
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful last question. The proposals for a second chamber were overtaken by those in the Convention.
Angus Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving us advance notice of his statement, and I declare an interest, like others, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I warmly welcome measures that will improve scrutiny and accountability. However, why has no commitment been made to ending the secrecy of relations between the UK Government and devolved Administrations, as outlined in the concordats? That would surely be a good first step towards assisting scrutiny in the House, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, in due time, the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In the absence of complete details about the workings of the planned Committee, will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that the plans are not a cover to diminish the attendance of Ministers at detailed evidence sessions of the European Scrutiny Committee? Does he agree that the Conservatives, who were quick to criticise much of his statement, would have more credibility on the issue if they had a better attendance record at the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference?
Mr. Straw: On the last point, I entirely agree. The attendance record of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen at the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference was lamentable, showing that they were not interested in securing significant change and were simply trying to score points.
On the effectiveness of the body, I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) that I very much hope to be able to make arrangements for EU Commissioners to attend and to make statements of the kind that I am making today. While speaking informally with commissioners about the body, I have made the point that they have a job to do simply in explaining to the British Parliament and people what their job is. If there is a great deal more communication, some of the things that come out of Brussels that cause us concern may be less likely to do so.

1425
On the point about relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, it is a matter not quite of secrecy but of maintaining confidences in our relationships. That is important, and is similar to, if not quite the same as, the way in which we maintain confidences with other nation states. I chair a Cabinet Committee that includes members of the devolved Administrations. It is important that they should be fully involved in the decisions that we make on their behalf as well as on our own, and that requires confidence. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) will know from my work with the European Scrutiny Committee that we are trying to be as open as possible about the work of the British Government, and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament are trying to do the same.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, which should improve the depth, quality and effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny on European issues. The fact that the possible significance of the energy chapter of the proposed European constitution was fully recognised only as a result of the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and others is an example of why such improved scrutiny is desirable.
Mr. Straw: I agree, and I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). One effect of increasing Parliament's role in the process will be to ensure that the level at which EU matters are dealt with inside Government is also raised. Anyone who has been a Minister will know that the fact of having to give evidence to a Select Committee or any other body of the House, or having to taking part in a debate, raises the level and quality of consideration by their Departments. That will be an important side effect.
Mr. David Trimble: The Foreign Secretary referred with approval to how energy was handled at the recent IGC. He said that the views expressed in Parliament greatly strengthened his hand. Would not his hand be immeasurably stronger if there were a clear arrangement, similar to that in Denmark, whereby the Government did not, in the Council of Ministers, commit the UK to any position without the prior approval of Parliament? We have a structural problem in handling these matters. It is welcome to see changes in committees, but we will not change our experience unless the structural problem is dealt with. That problem is that this Parliament is not involved in the decision-making process. Until that is changed, we will not change our experience.
Mr. Straw: I am genuinely open to proposals on that matter. I have seen how the Danish and Finnish systems operate, and Ministers from those countries have a clearer idea of what their Parliaments are, or are not, willing to accept. At the same time, those Ministers must have a degree of discretion because they actively participate in negotiations in the room in the same way as us. I repeat that the more that Parliament is involved,
1426
and the more that we can work out how it can endorse in advance the broad positions to be taken by the Government while still allowing sufficient negotiating room, the happier I will be.
Mr. Tony McWalter: In welcoming these excellent proposals, and following the question from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), is there scope in the new arrangements for European policy to be initiated here? I am thinking of issues such as animal welfare. There is a wide perception in the House that our standards on, for example, pig welfare are much higher than those in the rest of Europe. It would be welcome if the new arrangements allowed us to initiate processes to obtain wider European agreement on such matters.
Mr. Straw: Yes, there is. The earlier there are proposals, the earlier we can get them into draft programmes—for example, into the conclusions of sectoral councils and then into the European Council, and then that can form part of the work programme.
On animal welfare, my hon. Friend may like to know that, with our encouragement, the reference to animal welfare in the draft convention has been significantly upgraded. I was trying to find the exact text and failed to do so, but I will ensure that it is sent to him.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that every Member of this House receives a copy of a draft of every regulation, directive or other legislative instrument that will ultimately come into force and bear on our constituents? Although we can do nothing about such regulations, that would allow us to know their scale and nature. Will he confirm that it is currently impossible to obtain those documents, although I receive a copy of every statutory instrument issued by the Government? Indeed, even the European Scrutiny Committee must consider such regulations in private. If I am wrong, will he tell me how to obtain copies of the regulations? If I am right, will he confirm that that reflects the fundamentally undemocratic nature of our supranational masters?
Mr. Straw: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that such regulations should routinely be sent to all hon. Members.
Mr. Lilley: Yes I do. We should know what we have given away.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's party invited the House to join the European Union, and the basic legislative system under which we joined is still there today. Unless there is a good reason for regulations to be confidential, they should be available to all hon. Members in the same way as other draft regulations, and I shall examine his point.
Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the proposals to the House. Europe will be a very different place after EU enlargement, and we must ensure that we match such changes with changes in our parliamentary proceedings. What specific talks has he had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural

1427
Affairs about factoring in sustainability and the environment in the same way as we factor in human rights issues? How will the new Committee deal with those issues?
Mr. Straw: I have not had specific discussions on that point, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to try to follow through on those proposals.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement as an important step forward, although we believe that scrutiny by and accountability to Parliament must be further strengthened and deepened. May I press him on the membership of the new Standing Committee? How will members be appointed? Can he assure the House that there will be adequate representation for smaller parties to allow them proper input in this important area?
Mr. Straw: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. The proposal—this is a matter for the House and the other place—is that there should be a Standing Grand Committee on Europe. It will be open to any hon. Member to attend and take part in proceedings, so minority parties will be fully represented if they want to be.
Mr. Wayne David: I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. He has been a long-standing and consistent advocate of the greater involvement of this House in the affairs of the European Union. In particular, I welcome the proposed Grand Committee, and I am pleased that he has mentioned the possible involvement of Members of the European Parliament. Will he consider whether Members of the devolved institutions could also be involved? That point is important because much European legislation is implemented by the devolved Administrations.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. The argument for Members of the European Parliament attending the Standing Grand Committee is stronger than that for Members of the devolved Administrations, but the matter is one for the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, not for me.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I put a specific suggestion to the Foreign Secretary with regard to gold-plating? I think that he would agree that one of the problems with gold-plating is that it is very difficult for Ministers to spot the degree to which the officials are proposing implementation in
1428
the UK that goes beyond what is proposed in Europe. I therefore suggest to him what I put into practice when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, namely that every set of proposals for regulations coming to Ministers should carry with regard to each of the counterpart proposals a statement made by the officials as to the extent to which what we are proposing in the UK differs from the main proposals from within Europe, so that Ministers can pick up the discrepancy and judge whether the difference is worth having.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation is accurate; it is impossible for a busy Minister to check on such matters. I commend the report to him if he has not seen it: one of the issues that Robin Bellis examined was the practice in some other countries of "copying out". That practice would involve simply copying out the directives, and if there were an argument it would be resolved by the interpretation of the British courts and the European Court of Justice. His idea is good and, with his permission, I will take the details of how he operated it when he was a Minister and do my best to take it forward.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Prime Minister said on 18 June 1997 that the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the Amsterdam treaty had real teeth and that nearly six years later the Foreign Secretary told the House on 21 May last year that the protocol had in fact not proved satisfactory and that the proposal on the subject in the draft European constitution was pitifully weak, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary intend to do to ensure that in the future subsidiarity is a safeguard of national self-government and not a thin cover for the continuing legislative imperialism of the European Union?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he made that statement on 18 June 1997 about the proposals having real teeth. The only problem—this is not his responsibility—is that the jaw attached to the teeth has not closed sufficiently often. Although the proposals on subsidiarity in the draft convention are not perfect, they would go some way to assisting in the matter. Meanwhile, we have a responsibility as a key member state in Europe—my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer share this view—to get to grips with deregulation in Europe. Obviously, some regulations are very important, but British people and British business would welcome lighter touch regulation to try to turn round not malign forces in Brussels but the engine that produces unnecessary regulation without looking more imaginatively at how the particular task in hand could better be achieved.

Special Educational Needs
1.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Today the Government will publish "Removing Barriers to Achievement". This is our long-term strategy to give children with special educational needs the opportunity to succeed. The strategy, which I promised to the House last September in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", sets out the Government's proposals for working together with local authorities, schools, early years settings, the health service and the voluntary and private sectors to enable children and young people with special educational needs to achieve their potential.
The strategy builds on the current statutory framework for SEN. We propose no changes to that legal framework, but our strategy sets out the ways in which we will give real effect to it. I believe that in recent years we have made good progress in improving provision for children with special educational needs. However, there is much further to go. The Audit Commission's report, "Special Educational Needs—a mainstream issue", which was published in 2002, highlighted a number of real concerns. That report stated that too many children wait for too long to have their needs met; children who should be able to be taught in mainstream settings are sometimes turned away and too many staff feel ill equipped to meet the wide range of pupil needs; many special schools feel uncertain of their future role; and that there are unacceptable variations in the level of support available to families from their school, local authority or local health service. Our strategy seeks to address those legitimate concerns.
We have discussed the matters with a wide range of practitioners and policy makers, as well as with children and young people themselves. We have listened to what they say and I believe that our strategy provides clear national leadership, supported by an ambitious programme of sustained action, nationally and locally, in four key areas.
The first key area is early intervention. We want to ensure that children with learning difficulties receive the help that they need as soon as possible and that parents of children with special educational needs have access to suitable child care. Our strategy therefore seeks to embed in practice nationally the principles of the early support pilot programme; to implement a new strategy for child care for children with SEN; to work with voluntary organisations to establish a national early intervention centre of excellence to raise quality; to encourage delegation of funds to schools; and to cut bureaucracy in SEN provision.
The second key area is the removal of barriers to learning. We recognise that a child's learning difficulties often arise because the learning environment is not suitable. Our aim is to develop inclusive practices to meet the needs of every child so that they have the chance to succeed. Special schools are and will be an important part of our specialist programme and we will encourage them to become part of local communities of schools and to play a key role as centres of excellence and expertise. We seek to remove barriers to learning by, for example, creating a new inclusion development
1430
programme to bring together education, health, social care and the voluntary sector to develop effective approaches to provision for children with SEN.
Initially, the programme will focus on autistic spectrum disorder; behavioural, emotional and social difficulties; speech, language and communication difficulties; and moderate learning difficulties. We will develop practical tools and materials for schools and local authorities, working with the Disability Rights Commission and voluntary sector partners. We will make proposals to improve the quality of education for children with more severe behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. We will improve regional planning of provision and provide practical guidance on reducing reliance on high-cost placements. We will also establish minimum standards for SEN advisory and support services.
The third key area is the raising of expectations and achievement. We will develop teachers' skills to meet the needs of children with SEN and help them to move successfully into adult life. Our strategy puts children with SEN at the heart of personalised learning; delivers practical teaching and learning resources to raise the achievement of all children with SEN; works with the Teacher Training Agency and teacher training providers to deliver initial and continuous professional development, which provides a good grounding in the knowledge of SEN; will measure the progress made by those pupils working below level 1 and collect data nationally from 2005; and will work across Government to improve the quality of transition planning for young people with SEN and expand their opportunities for education, training and work.
The fourth and final key area is delivering improvements in partnership. We intend to build partnership working between education, health, social care and the voluntary sector. We will develop the common assessment framework, multi-disciplinary teams and children's trusts, to deliver joined-up services for children and families. We will align the SEN strategy with the national service framework for children. Above all, we want parents to be confident that their child will get the education they need, wherever they live. There is great variation in the provision made by local authorities for children with SEN, and so we think that there is a need for greater consistency across the country. We will promote that through our network of SEN regional partnerships.
All children should enjoy education that enables them to fulfil their talents and provides a firm foundation for adult life. "Removing Barriers to Achievement" reaffirms our commitment to working in partnership to unlock the potential of the many children who may have difficulty learning but whose life chances depend upon high-quality education. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in providing an advance copy. I welcome both his statement on this important topic and many of the specifics of what he has announced today. What he said about the priority that we should all give to children with special educational needs will unite all hon. Members on both sides of the House.

1431
I wish to press the Secretary of State on a few of the specific proposals. I am sure that those who have campaigned long and hard for the interests of parents of children with SEN will welcome what he said about the need to iron out the sometimes large differences between local education authorities. Given that the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice has made it clear that local education authorities of all political colours—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat—have, at times, not been sufficiently generous or speedy in responding to SEN requests, does he agree that any action that he can take to level up, rather than level down, will be much welcomed?
Does the Secretary of State stand by the letter that the head of his Department's SEN division sent in July last year to all LEAs, warning them not to apply blanket policies of never quantifying special education provision in children's statements? Does he anticipate that the national guidance that he seeks will be consistent with the judgment made by Lady Justice Hale in the Court of Appeal some time ago, which is regarded by many parents as an important legal statement on the issue?
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State had warm words to say about special schools. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that many children with SEN are most appropriately looked after in mainstream schools, but that some would benefit enormously from special schools. Does he share our regret that 79 special schools have closed since 1997, and would it be consistent with the approach that he set out today to consider the case for a moratorium on further closures? My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has been calling for such a moratorium for some time.
Will the Secretary of State also consider the case that many parents have made that greater co-ordination between the various responsibilities of different authorities would be welcome if it provided a one-stop shop for parents? There are merits and advantages in those authorities co-operating in greater partnership, as he specified, but a one-stop shop for parents would be very welcome. In that context, I also wish to press him on an issue raised in the other place by Baroness Warnock—I am sure that he recalls that she was largely responsible for setting up the statementing process—that it is now time for a comprehensive review of the process, because it is too combative. He will know that many parents say that they have to fight for the interests of their children. There must be a better approach. If the Secretary of State can clarify those points, I am sure that his overall approach will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate the general welcome given by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and I confirm his view that the subject is not a matter of party political difference, whether at local government level or across the Chamber. As far as I am aware, politicians and people from all parties are committed to broadly the same approach.
On the three specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I agree that the process of improving services must be a question of levelling up, not down. That has to be the right approach. I focus on quality because we must improve professional practice, so that people can see what good practice consists of and how they may
1432
apply it in particular areas. The regional networks to which I referred will help us to do that in a variety of ways.
I stand by the letter from my Department last July, which stated that there should be no blanket policies. A critical point—I emphasise it—is the importance of judgment. To go down to the position where everybody either is or is not in a special school is a hopeless way of going about things. We talk too much in terms of categories when we are talking about people with special educational needs. The point behind the philosophy that every child matters is that each individual, with their particular special need, is a special person who needs to be taken into account. Obviously, that is difficult to achieve—the task is massive in respect of resources and in other terms—but that must be the right approach, rather than saying that everybody in one category should be treated in way X and everybody in another should be treated in way Y. The point I want to stress is that such an approach requires high-quality judgment in each locality, which is why we wrote the letter about no blanket policies.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point about a coordinating one-stop shop, it is critical that that judgment is made in co-ordination with the health and education professionals concerned, voluntary organisations and parents, too. Sometimes, parents feel isolated from the process that involves their child. That is not best practice, but it happens. I am sure that we have all experienced situations in which both individual parents, concerned about their child, and groups of parents, concerned, for example, about the closure of a special school, are passionately engaged but are left outside a decision-making process from which they feel alienated. The answer is to ensure that there is coordination and judgment.
That is why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked in his second question, that we would have a moratorium on all closures of special schools. We should not adopt that type of blanket position, but should say that in every locality people must look at the particular circumstances and decide what to do. The great shift in the document that we published today is that we talk about special schools as part of a local network of collaboration, through liaison both with the specialist schools' programmes and as centres of excellence working with local schools. The more that we see a special school not simply as serving the children within it but as part of the local educational provision, the better the basis for taking the decisions that have to be taken.
Mr. Phil Willis: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement? Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), we are at one with the right hon. Gentleman in trying to improve special educational needs. Both the previous Government and the present Government have good records on tackling some of the key issues.
I am a little disappointed that there will be no changes to the legal framework, because although the Education Act 1981, pioneered by Baroness Warnock, which introduced the idea of statements, was a major step forward, it is now a hurdle that many schools, and many parents, find it difficult to get over, so I hope that the Secretary of State will revisit that issue.

1433
May I put on record my praise for teachers, in both mainstream and special schools, who work with some of the most difficult youngsters in some of the most difficult circumstances? They do a brilliant job and no one doing such work should regard the statement as suggesting that they do other than an excellent job.
We all found the Audit Commission's 2002 report an incredibly chilling document. Questions must be asked about why Ofsted did not pick up some of the major concerns earlier—I hope that the Secretary of State can respond. What role will Ofsted play to ensure that in future we do not have the Audit Commission reporting that things are difficult?
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not tackled some of the obvious barriers. He referred to the specialist school movement and to church schools. Will he examine how many such schools have children with special educational needs? How many of the children attending those schools receive free school meals and how many of them are in care? Many special needs children throughout the education system come under those three categories and are disappearing from the specialist schools. That is a challenge. These comments are not party political, but we must address the issue.
On early identification, there is no doubt that the first six months are crucial. Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Health to expand birth-to-six screening, especially for cognitive and sensory development? Will he commission research, which could probably be undertaken by the research council being set up under the Higher Education Bill—[Interruption.] You never know. Will the Secretary of State commission research into low birthweight and families at risk? There is a correlation between low birthweight and later special needs problems, and adequate research has not been carried out.
On funding, will the right hon. Gentleman consider following the Dutch model in which children are funded from six months onwards according to their need? That would avoid a bureaucratic process later on and children could get support where and when they need it.
On the inclusion development programme, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a key worker for any child who is diagnosed at six months with a cognitive, sensory or physical impairment, so that there is a one-stop shop for the parents as well as for the professionals working with the child? Will he consider taking appropriate regulatory action to ensure that adults in non-regulated early-years settings also have a duty of care for children with special educational needs? At present, they are excluded from that requirement.
Will the Secretary of State consider guaranteeing that when children enter school—be it at five or at any other key stage—teachers and classroom assistants have appropriate training? Far too often, children with special needs are dealt with by classroom assistants who have no specific training. We would not do that with A-level students and we should not do it with children with special needs.
Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to the issue of children with behavioural difficulties? There is a growing incidence in our schools of children with attention deficit disorders, dyspraxia and autism, which
1434
causes major problems in terms of the inclusion programme, not only for the children themselves but for other children at the school. We have not given sufficient attention to that aspect of the programme, yet it is one of the greatest barriers and threats to inclusion. The Government should play a special role in dealing with that problem.
I agree that special schools have a specialist role, but I urge the Secretary of State to look at the American model, whereby special schools are linked to research departments in higher education institutes. Research excellence is thus developed locally and practice can spread to other schools, especially in mainstream settings.
Respite care is a massive issue for parents of children with dyspraxia, autism and some of the behavioural disorders, but there is a postcode lottery for its provision. Will the Secretary of State pay special attention to resolving that problem?
We very much support the statement, but in the end resources will make a huge difference in ensuring that children who are born with cognitive or other difficulties receive the best that we can give them. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that, in the new comprehensive spending review, this programme, together with higher education, receives special attention.
Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether that was another claim on the Lib Dem 50 per cent. tax rate, but I shall generously assume that it was not.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of points. First, we thought carefully about changing the legal framework. To be blunt, we came to the view that we cannot take that route until we have really developed the approach set out in the strategy, especially early intervention, in a way that gives parents confidence in the robustness of the current system. The existing statementing process is seen by many parents as a means to give them some assurance about the future of their child. To remove that process, or to fiddle with it, would not be appropriate until we have gone a considerable way down the line in implementing the approach that we have taken. That is the reason for our decision.
On the inspection regime, there is a new inspection framework. We have of course looked at the Audit Commission report in the context of Ofsted's comments, and we shall take it further. There is much dialogue about those matters.
On specialist schools, there is one point on which the hon. Gentleman is not right. Many of the specialist school bids that I have seen include a partnership with a special school in the locality. For example, I remember going to a languages specialist school that had a class from a local special school in the language lab, going through the process. We are seeing much more engagement between specialist schools and special schools, in a variety of different ways, which is a very positive thing.
I come on to the hon. Gentleman's point about EBD—emotional and behavioural difficulties—and attention deficit syndromes of various descriptions. It is important to build a better relationship between special schools and mainstream schooling with professional staff and so on.

1435
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about birth-to-six screening, birth weight and the need for research. My view is that we have had a problem with joined-up government, which we are trying to put right. There are three main players: the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the voluntary organisations dealing with the particular area concerned, many of which raise large amounts of money for research. We must get effective co-ordination. We can say that we have been doing that over the past two or three years, but there is still a long way to go. I am in constant dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about precisely that.
I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's point about funding in relation to the child.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the key worker is very important. We shall give that priority.
With regard to adults' duty of care more generally and the question of training, I have to concede that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is a massive issue involving both initial training for teachers and those in other professions, and in-service training and continuous professional development. We highlight this in the document. There is a great deal of work to be done, and we must make steady progress to raise standards across the whole range.
I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's interesting idea of a link with university research departments. There is much to be said for it, and I am grateful to him for the suggestion.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about respite care, too. We are developing a programme with foster respite carers, if I may put it like that, to be able to do work in that field, which will relieve some of the pressures that the hon. Gentleman rightly described.
Resources are always an issue—there are never enough. It is important, first, to secure the best use of resources, which is one of the reasons why the partnership between the different agencies is very important, and, secondly, to intervene as early as possible, because the more we can sort out problems early, the fewer the resource implications further down the line. It is worth investing early in a child's life to make a difference later on, quite apart from the social benefit.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the general support that he has given to the document.
Ms Joan Walley: May I give a warm welcome to the proposals that have been outlined to the House? We need to take action to end the postcode lottery and make sure that there is proper provision across the board.
In terms of awareness, I suggest that when my right hon. Friend makes his forthcoming visit to north Staffordshire with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, he should discuss the statement in further detail with the local voluntary sector in order that it may be properly understood.
What account does today's statement take of people with dyslexia? Is that factored into the statement? Is it part of the proposal?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, dyslexia is taken into account. I have discussed this with the two national organizations
1436
dealing with these issues and dyslexia. Serious investment in training and in information and communication technology can make a difference to special needs education, and I have seen some exciting projects in schools funded by voluntary organisations.
Of course, I shall be delighted to discuss these issues with my hon. Friend's colleagues when I visit Stoke and north Staffordshire.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and any measures that can be introduced to help the group of parents and children concerned, who evoke sympathy across the House.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my experience most parents seem to feel that, in addition to the inherent problems of bringing up children with severe special educational needs, they seem to have to fight battles the whole time to get the help that in theory is available, and certainly should be available, to them? Will he respond a little more fully to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the sense that one is having to fight a battle to get a child statement, because behind it lie limited resources, which those who dish out the statements are effectively rationing? Is that a correct perception? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to change the nature of the process or increase the resources available?
Mr. Clarke: I think that there is a great deal of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's perception. The truth is that, as medicine advances, parents, who are desperately keen to do right by their child, see what is being done elsewhere—in America or wherever—and ask "Can we have that for our child?", and they look to the state to pay for it. There are substantial issues here, as the right hon. Gentleman, with his financial experience, will know. It is not an easy matter to resolve.
Nevertheless, I have two points to make on this matter. First, we must engage parents right at the outset with top-quality professional advice and the best possible experience, working as a team. I emphasise the teamwork aspect. Many of the feelings described by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) come from people thinking that they have been messed about early on, with people taking Gradgrind decisions purely on grounds of money, without looking at the welfare of their child. That may or may not be true, but it is the perception. In my opinion, it can be dealt with only by honest and open discussion at the outset and good advice—and, to be quite honest, also by enabling people to make genuine assessments of the position of their child and the possibilities for the child in the real world. That is very hard.
The second way of addressing the problem that the right hon. Gentleman raises is early intervention. I come back to it again and again, for the simple reason that the earlier one can obtain clarity about this matter, the better one can resolve the problem. People understandably feel terribly upset about the situation that their child is in, quite apart from the genuine pressures. They feel that it is their obligation to fight for their child, and they do it as best they can. Our

1437
obligation is to respect that and try to work with the parents as best we can. That is the only way through that I can see.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the thrust of his proposals, and on his very prompt response to the Audit Commission's findings of roughly two years ago. But I wish to draw attention to the very complex needs of a very small handful of children for whom no proper planning mechanism exists to provide services. In that respect, I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the difficulties of Northern Counties school, an independent special school in my constituency, which has not a single fee-paid child attending, with 80 children drawn from Scotland, Wales and the south of England. They are children with very special and difficult needs, such as cerebral palsy and all its related conditions. Because of the lack of any kind of planning mechanism to guarantee provision of the services for those children, and finance for those services, the school is now faced with closure. In his statement my right hon. Friend mentioned strengthening regional planning mechanisms, but far more needs to be done in that direction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am trying to call as many hon. Members as possible. Shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers from the Secretary of State, would be a great help.
Mr. Clarke: I shall try to be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
First, I shall look into the school that my hon. Friend mentioned. Secondly, I agree with him about planning, at both the regional and the national level. The way to tackle the issue, as I said earlier, is through the joint work of the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the voluntary organisations concerned with the particular type of special need, to establish what needs to be done right across the country.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I broadly welcome the statement, and I am delighted that for the first time there will be a focus on the special needs of all our children.
Will the Secretary of State consider training more specialist teachers, in addition to raising the skills of the very committed band in our special schools at present? May we have an assurance that this strategy will be applied to Northern Ireland as soon as possible? Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to further provision for those children with special needs who are no longer in the group requiring compulsory education?
Mr. Clarke: We have thought about the last point. It is a very difficult problem, which is why we refer throughout the document to the need for proper transition planning. The fact is that many people of school age have a reasonable degree of support, which suddenly goes away when they exceed that age. I take that point completely, and we focus on it in the document.
1438
Secondly, I am ready to discuss with colleagues from Northern Ireland how to establish the principles in the document for Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about training specialists, but I would make one point in qualification. I have seen much evidence that for many special needs a substantial way to attack the problem is to achieve a much wider range of understanding about how to deal with them, both in teachers and non-teaching staff in schools. That is a question not just of the specialist, important though it is; it is a question of getting some level of general understanding of the issue among everyone who works with children with special needs.
Clive Efford: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that it will only have an effect if it not only involves parents but informs them about their children's rights, thereby empowering them? Many teachers throughout the country are coping with children with mild forms of educational disability, with few resources at their disposal. By directing resources to those areas, especially to early intervention, the bigger problems that can develop, which can be more costly and more time-consuming to deal with later on, can be alleviated or completely avoided. Not only should we put resources into the classroom to assist those teachers, but we should address the skills shortage. Many people with language and learning disability skills are much needed in those schools to help the teachers to address those problems at an early stage.
Mr. Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about three things: first, the parent relationship is crucial—it requires more work all the time, which is what we have to establish; secondly, the partnership between the professions is crucial—for example, between speech therapists, teachers and so on; and, thirdly, a general higher level of skills across the whole work force is very important.
By the way, I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in praising the work done by those who work in this area, but they would be the first to say that the more support they can have, the better they can fulfil their responsibilities.
Andrew Selous: May I ask the Secretary of State to share with the House the views and experience of his Department about the appropriateness of caring for children with special educational needs in very small schools? I speak particularly of primary and lower schools. Is it his view or experience that there is sometimes a critical mass of numbers of children in a school whereby children with special educational needs receive more appropriate care?
Mr. Clarke: I do not think that I do agree. I have seen some very small schools that have done very well for children with special educational needs, and one cannot generalise about this issue. I certainly accept that some needs might be so difficult for a school to deal with that one has to look at them differently. So I come back to my remarks to the hon. Member for Westmorland and

1439
Lonsdale in saying that there is a question of local judgment about what is available and how to deal with it, but I would not seek to be prescriptive in any way, by saying that certain types of school cannot handle it or that a certain type of school has to do things in a certain way. Local judgment, based on real professionalism, has to be used.
Roger Casale: I welcome the statement and my right hon. Friend's determination to root out inconsistency in service provision between different local authorities. Will he confirm that one of the services that he will look at is the provision of safe transportation between home and school for children with special educational needs? I have drawn attention to such shortcomings in my area that may be widespread. Will he also ensure that effective remedial action will be taken where his own Department's guidelines or standards that he lays down are not being met, and that he will have powers to ensure that services improve, so that safe transportation can be provided in the future?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has worked very hard on that issue, and I pay respect to him. The fact is that a very high proportion—sometimes as high as two thirds—of a local authority school transport budget goes on transport for children with special educational needs, so very big issues need to be addressed. I agree that we need efficiency in that area. I hope that the draft Bill that we are talking about will enable people to consider more carefully how to get high-quality transport, but I take the point.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State mentioned early intervention and involvement with voluntary organisations. Is he aware of West Norfolk Dyspraxia, which is doing an excellent job, especially with early intervention? However, because of recent cuts in Norfolk Children's Fund, it will either have to close completely or greatly reduce the help that it can give to those children. What advice can he give to West Norfolk Dyspraxia and the many other groups that are helping with autistic, dyspraxic and Aspergic children, who will be hit very hard by those cuts?
Mr. Clarke: I am familiar with that organisation; it has written to me directly as another Norfolk Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and I are looking very closely at children's fund issues because we acknowledge that they are of a type that the hon. Gentleman describes, and I hope that we will be able shortly to say things that will be of assistance.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I join in the general welcome for the statement and particularly in the congratulations given to all the teachers and assistants involved in that world? I have the good fortune to have a particularly fine school in my constituency: Northcote—a beacon school for training and teaching children. However, one of the things that has come out in all the exchanges is parents' sense that they are coming up against a brick wall. They feel that they are not told the truth by officials, who are curbed by
1440
financial constraints that they are not prepared to talk about and they therefore find excuses. Very often, parents arrange private consultations with psychiatrists and psychologists, putting them to a great deal of expense, but that affects only those who can afford to do so. A lot of people simply do not understand, and there is a real need for some sort of independent advice outside the administration of special educational needs, so that parents can feel that they are properly considered and that time is being given. Some parents see their children only getting an hour of speech therapy, when they feel that they need far more than that, as well as better training and so on.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right in the concerns that he expresses. He is also right that the people who have the resources to do so will pursue whatever avenue they can to get the advice that sets up what they feel is the right course of action. I also agree that an independent source of advice is needed, although the tribunal system offers that to an extent at the moment. That is perhaps a last resort, but I will consider how we might improve things. I come back to my earlier answers: the relationships with parents must involve candour at the beginning and early intervention as quickly as possible to deal with the issues. That is the best way forward in my view.
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the Secretary of State's desire to raise expectations and achievement because, for far too long, we have been faced with the attitude of local education authorities saying "This will do", rather than "How can we do the best for our children?" Does he share my concern that the biggest barrier locally to pupils achieving is the lack of speech therapists and occupational therapists? What is he doing and what conversations is he having with his colleagues in the Department of Health to address that problem?
Mr. Clarke: As I said in my statement, the position across the country both on the professions, such as the therapists whom the hon. Lady describes, and on other things is very variable and patchy. So we are seeking, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with whom we are talking about the issue, to analyse precisely where the shortages are, what needs to be done and how to develop programmes to move in that direction, and we will continue to do that jointly.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I, too, warmly welcome today's statement. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that when a mother gives birth to a child with a handicap, it is crucial that the first professional person to advise that mother gives the correct advice? At the time of birth, the degree of the handicap is not known. There have been examples throughout the country where professional advice has been given to a mother when the degree of handicap is not known and the mother has been guided to send the child to mainstream education, although at the end of the day a special school is the only answer to meet that child's need.
Mr. Clarke: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the document that we published today

1441
focuses on the need to raise standards of professionalism at all levels. The quality of the advice that mothers and fathers get in such circumstances is critical. Of course, a lot is unknown at any given point, but what is needed is the best advice on the basis of what is known. We must work to improve the quality of that advice. Again, that is a question of the joined-up approach that I am describing between health and education. We need to ensure also that parents receive consistent advice from different sources that is genuinely high quality throughout. That is exactly what the document is designed to encourage.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I greatly welcome the Secretary of State's good intentions this afternoon, particularly his recognition of the importance of early intervention. Given that recognition, will he take steps to ensure that teacher-training colleges give at least basic minimum training in special needs to every teacher? Often, it is in the early years at primary school that problems are identified, and if a primary school teacher does not have that ability, the problem is left too late, whereas it could be dealt with much earlier. The Secretary of State recognises Baroness Warnock's criticism of the system that she helped to set up many years ago. Will he also undertake to come back and look at this matter in perhaps a year's time, when the system that he talks about today has bedded down, as he wants it to do?
Mr. Clarke: To respond to the hon. Lady's second point first, I will undertake to keep on looking at that matter as necessary, but I do not want to put a time scale on the process. I think that she will acknowledge that establishing the kind of ambitious system that we have outlined will take some time. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) earlier, parental confidence is critical in reviewing the matter to which the hon. Lady referred. We need to be sure that parents feel confident in the system as it is now, before we start to review people's entitlements.
On the hon. Lady's first point, I can confirm, as I said in my statement, that the Teacher Training Agency and teaching providers are considering initial teacher training and continuing professional development to see how we can improve the general quality of the professionalism that teachers have from the outset.
Jeff Ennis: I welcome today's statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of special educational needs co-ordinators is vital in delivering special education provision in every school in this country? How will today's statement assist SENCOs in that key role?
Mr. Clarke: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to say that the role of SENCOs is essential. We plan to assist them in three different ways. First, SENCOs should have better access than exists now to a network of professionals working in different fields, including social services, health, mental health and educational resources. Secondly, SENCOs should be able to access better quality material of various kinds,
1442
as I announced in my statement, so that they can point the teachers in their school to the resources that they need to deal with the issues that they are involved in. Thirdly, as I have described, SENCOs must be able to liaise more effectively with other schools, through the schools' collaboration, to see how progress is being made. On that matter more than any other, everyone will benefit from a strong cross-fertilisation of professionalism and advice. That is precisely what we seek to encourage.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the publication of the strategy, but echo the comments that other hon. Members have made about the lack of therapy support for children with special needs. There can be nothing more frustrating for a parent than to have a statement that suggests the level of therapy support that is required, when that support is not available. Will the Secretary of State co-operate with his colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to develop a national strategy for the recruitment of more occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists, to ensure that those children receive the level of therapy support that they require, and that that is consistent throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Clarke: I have two points on that. First, the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) will be participating in the discussion, and she is committed, as is the Northern Ireland Government, to establishing the kind of coherent approach that the hon. Gentleman has set out. I am sure that she will discuss with political colleagues in Northern Ireland how that can best be done. Secondly, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about therapy, but I want to emphasise one point that I have not emphasised before. Teachers and teaching assistants can play a therapeutic role, even if not to a full professional level, if we can provide them with more training and support. That is precisely what we are doing. We need to improve the skills and increase the amount of support that adults can offer to children in those circumstances, at all levels. That is not a full answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but it should help a little.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Secretary of State's aspirations are laudable and I share them entirely. Does he agree, however, that autistic children, in particular, need continuity of contact with carers and classroom assistants, and that chopping and changing does not do?
In an isolated community such as mine, which has to provide economically from a base of only 130,000 people, many more children have to board to get special educational needs support than in most constituencies. Will he look at the additional costs of that provision for my local authority?
Mr. Clarke: I shall look at that latter point. I am not aware of anything that I can say on it now, but I am prepared to commit to looking at it.

1443
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I agree that consistency is absolutely vital in this matter. I hope that this strategy will enable better consistency, in terms of both a consistent approach among different professions and, as he implied, consistency over time.
Dr. John Pugh: I should like to press the Minister on the part of his statement that mentioned improving the regional planning of provision and reducing reliance on high-cost, often private, placements. There is nothing in the statement about consortiums of local authorities seeking to collaborate to bring down the costs of provision on an area basis. Is that an omission, or is such collaboration implied in the statement?
Mr. Clarke: I am subject to correction on this, but I think that that is in the document. It is certainly implied, and we are in favour of developing the kind of cooperation that the hon. Gentleman describes. That returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) earlier. We need a planned approach, and must look at particular special needs and how we deal with them on a regional and national basis. The framework that we have set out in the document enables us to address such questions.

Special Educational Needs
  BILL PRESENTED
    PENSIONS
    Mr. Secretary Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Malcolm Wicks and Mr. Chris Pond, presented a Bill to make provision relating to pensions and financial planning for retirement and provision relating to entitlement to bereavement payments, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 12 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 57].

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Audits)
2.6 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the audits of regulatory impact assessments.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made an admirable proposal, which was designed to address the problem of the gold-plating of European directives and legislation as they affect small businesses, charities and voluntary organisations in this country. That proposal was to provide those organisations with a right of appeal where legislation goes beyond the requirements of the original directive. This week, I propose to address a different aspect of the same problem, which is widely recognised on both sides of the House: the over-regulation, including burdensome regulation and regulation accumulated over time, that affects not only businesses but charities and voluntary organisations.
My proposal is to provide for regulatory impact assessments to be externally audited to ensure that they are objective, properly prepared and rigorously analysed, and to ensure that, under some circumstances, they can be post-audited once the legislation is in place and operating, to assess whether the original assessment of cost and benefit was accurate. My proposals have the support of the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, many voluntary organisations and many right hon. and hon. Members.
It is generally accepted that there is a problem with the accumulation of regulation in this country. There is not necessarily a problem with each individual piece of regulation; it is very hard to find items of regulation that need to be repealed. However, it is a chronic difficulty of government that we have a machine that produces more and more legislation and an archaeology of decades of legislation that are never removed. As a consequence, the burden on small businesses, organisations and individuals grows and never diminishes. All the efforts of successive better regulation taskforces have failed to do anything other than toothpick away at an effective avalanche of new controls.
The British Chambers of Commerce has estimated, based on calculations using RIAs, that £20 billion of extra cost was placed on organisations in this country between 1998 and 2003. That is not a wild overestimate; it is probably a wild underestimate, because the figure is arrived at by simply adding up the Government's own estimates of cost. Their estimate of the cost is £20 billion, but it is almost universally accepted, including in many quarters of the Government, that on some occasions those costs have been underestimated. It is also true that there may sometimes have been an underestimate of benefits. For example, environmental organisations would claim that many of the benefits of environmental legislation are not properly understood.
They may well have a fair point. However, the point is that regulatory impact assessments are the profit and loss accounts—the budget—for legislation.

1445
Regulatory impact assessments assess, in so far as it is possible to quantify such matters, the cost and the benefit of any legislation. They provide information that should be relied on by Ministers and policy makers in assessing whether the legislation is warranted and what form it should take. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has addressed this problem in a foreword to a glossy pamphlet that I have, in which he says:
"In particular, I want to stress that a regulatory impact assessment is not an add-on to the policy process. It is an integral part of the advice that goes to Ministers."
He is right, but it is also fair to say that it forms an integral part of the advice that comes to the House. Members are entitled to rely on a regulatory impact assessment when assessing the costs and benefits of a Bill, and entitled to believe that it has been rigorously and objectively prepared, without bias and without fear or favour.
The reality, however, is that regulatory impact assessments are notoriously superficial. They are prepared by the same officials who cooked up the legislation in the first place, and the tensions that will arise from that are obvious to anyone. Let us imagine a situation in which a Bill is put forward in the Queen's Speech and a regulatory impact assessment is subsequently prepared—this happens in many cases—that turns out to be unfavourable. It is inconceivable that the assessment would go forward, signed by Ministers, in that form.
There is therefore pressure on everyone to prepare a calculation that ignores many of the costs involved and exaggerates the benefits. That is exactly what will happen under a Government of any complexion. It is the history of these matters. In consequence, regulatory impact assessments lack credibility in the House—it is remarkable how rarely they are referred to in the course of debates—and in the outside world they are regarded with total cynicism. That can be added to the cynicism with which small businesses and voluntary organisations view the whole process of legislation and the activities of the House.
I do not seek to make this a partisan issue, but it is true that the Conservatives probably place greater weight on it than do those on the Labour Benches. However, the Government have made efforts to improve the quality of regulatory impact assessments. The problem has been recognised on both sides of the House. The Cabinet Office has produced a nice glossy brochure on how to prepare a regulatory impact assessment. It is rather like a DIY manual. I welcome it; it is full of good, sensible advice and nice flow charts showing when to start, and so on. That is entirely reasonable. We have also had seminars on regulatory impact assessments for parliamentarians. It is a perfectly reasonable idea to educate everyone in the House—as though it were somehow our fault—as to what regulatory impact assessments are meant to do and how they are produced. Unfortunately, this has not made any difference.
The Social Market Foundation says exactly that. It states that
"there is little evidence that quality has improved."
1446
It goes on to say something that I think will ring true for both the Government and the Opposition, which is that
"in the UK and Brussels they"—
regulatory impact assessments—
"are regarded as a chore".
I have no doubt that that is the case for both Ministers and officials. It goes on to say that regulatory impact assessments are
"in most cases to be produced grudgingly, once a decision has already been taken, and therefore crafted with as little information as possible and as narrowly as possible."
That rings true every time we scrutinise the way in which a regulatory impact assessment has been prepared and who has been consulted. That is why purported consultees say that they were not properly consulted, and that they do not support the legislation as a result. It is therefore not surprising that we have a chronic problem. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the quantification of costs and benefits is patchy, and that 60 per cent. of respondents to its survey believe that the consultation process operates poorly.
I want to refer to two examples in the brief time available to me. The Care Standards Act 2000 had a regulatory impact assessment of £116 million. However, industry estimates conservatively put the cost at £400 million, because many of the costs involved were not taken into account, including the incremental costs—not least to the health service—of the closure of care homes. It is quite clear that that underestimate involved a quantum leap. The estimate relating to the legislation extending the working time directive for junior doctors was ludicrously set under the regulatory impact assessment at £23 million. The NHS pilot schemes alone have already cost £63 million, according to the Government. The total cost to the NHS will run to hundreds of millions. That estimate was therefore born of total negligence. It is a complete misrepresentation of the effects of the provisions, and that must have been apparent at the time.
That is why we need to introduce a form of external validation of regulatory impact assessments to restore confidence in the process. We need to apply to Government the same standards of rigour as we would expect private organisations to apply when dealing with their shareholders and customers. We need to restore objectivity and ensure that both the benefits and the costs are properly assessed. We also need to ensure that a thorough and fair view is given to Members in the House and to the public at large, regardless of the nature of the legislation and of the time required or the extent of the political pressures involved.
The external audit need not be an onerous requirement. Of course it will cost some money, but it will be a matter of spending millions of pounds that could save hundreds of millions subsequently. Such measures would bring back credibility, honesty and transparency to the system, and restore the faith of small businesses, charities and voluntary organisations in the Government and in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archie Norman, Mr. John Maples, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. Francis Maude, Sir George Young, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. William Hague, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Audits)
  REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (AUDITS) BILL
  Mr. Archie Norman accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the audits of regulatory impact assessments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed [Bill 54].

Northern Ireland
2.17 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
The order appoints 25 February 2005 as the date before which the amnesty period must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme. The amnesty provides immunity from prosecution for the offences that might be committed during the decommissioning process. Most of the offences set out in the 1997 Act relate to possession, but others concern offences which may stem from a person's participation in decommissioning, not necessarily centred on the weapons involved, but on the behaviour which may accompany participation. such as the withholding of information, or making arrangements with terrorists.
Section 2 of the 1997 Act, as amended by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act 2002, requires that a scheme must identify the amnesty period and that it must end before 27 February 2007. The purpose of this order is to extend that period until midnight on 24 February next year. The Government want to see the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons as soon as possible. This order is a vital part of the process of delivering on that.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: We have been sitting here since 1997 waiting for the decommissioning of arms. Will the Minister explain exactly why we now need another year? Is there any evidence of good faith from any terrorist organisation, be it loyalist or republican?
Jane Kennedy: The decommissioning process was established under the hon. Gentleman's Government in 1995. Indeed, General de Chastelain has been committed to working on it all through that time. It is clear that we must continue to encourage decommissioning. If we are serious about paramilitaries giving up their weapons, we need to will the means to make that happen. The order does that.
Since the amnesty provisions were renewed last spring, there has been a further act of decommissioning by the provisional IRA. We debated at length the veracity of that act. On 21 October last year, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported witnessing that third IRA decommissioning event, in which weapons were put beyond use. The commission reported that the arms comprised light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions, and included automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive matériel. It also stated that the quantity of arms involved was larger than what was put beyond use in the previous event. That would not have been possible without these amnesty provisions.
David Burnside: At the time of that act of decommissioning, the Prime Minister appeared to have information about the amount of arms, ammunition and explosives that was handed over. Will the Minister tell the House what that information was?
Jane Kennedy: I dealt with that repeatedly at the time. I shall not go back over old ground—we have had that debate. The fact is that arms were put aside, and General de Chastelain and Andrew Sens made it clear that the weapons that were decommissioned were significant, and that many lives were saved when they were put aside. That is important, and it is something that the House should encourage.
Naturally, the Government regret that it is necessary to continue to have such provisions at all. We understand the concerns that have been raised, but it is absolutely clear that, without them, the process of decommissioning that we all want would not be possible.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention so quickly. Would she accept that no matter how often General de Chastelain tells the community in Northern Ireland how significant an act of decommissioning is, such acts are rendered meaningless for many people by the anonymity and confidentiality clauses? What can she say about ensuring that no confidentiality provision should be invoked for a further act of decommissioning? [Interruption.] I apologise for the interruptions from the sidelines on this Bench.
Jane Kennedy: I acknowledged at the time of the previous decommissioning event that it was not sufficient to sustain confidence that the provisional IRA was committed to entirely peaceful means. In a way, we have almost moved beyond the question of arms decommissioning. We now demand of paramilitary organisations that they must put an end to many other activities. Those activities have been listed many times, and the hon. Lady will be aware of them. Training, the procurement of weapons and the targeting of individuals still go on, as do so-called paramilitary-style beatings and shootings of young men in and around Northern Ireland. People continue to be exiled by paramilitary organisations. All those activities must come to an end, and it is right to say that the debate has moved on and now focuses on them.
As I have said, the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is only one element—although a vital one—in the process of taking violence out of politics in Northern Ireland for good. The Government remain committed to securing genuine acts of completion from all paramilitary organisations, so that we can see the restoration of confidence, and thereby of stable and inclusive Government in Northern Ireland, as soon as possible.
I emphasise that we want decommissioning to be undertaken by all paramilitary groups, both loyalist and republican. We also call on those groups outside the peace process to engage with the decommissioning body
1450
to bring about full decommissioning, because we want to see an end to all paramilitary activity and to stem the rise of the mafia-like culture that threatens to replace it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jane Kennedy: I thought that that might prompt one or two responses. I give way first to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that, at this stage of the process, it might be useful to establish some sort of hierarchy of acts of completion? Would not decommissioning be pretty near the bottom of that hierarchy, compared with the beatings and exiles enforced by paramilitaries?
Jane Kennedy: It would be difficult to draw up a hierarchy such as that, and to tell people targeted by a paramilitary organisation that that was less unacceptable than any other form of paramilitary activity. The fact is that all paramilitary organisations should desist and disband: there is no room for them in a democratic Northern Ireland.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Minister said that paramilitary and terrorist groups should engage with the international decommissioning body. Will she say which paramilitary organisations are engaged with that body at the moment?
Jane Kennedy: I do not want to give the wrong figures on this. The decommissioning body is engaged with some paramilitary organisations, but not all—or enough—of them. However, I shall come back to the question later, as I do not want to get the details wrong.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Decommissioning is one half of the equation, and the other is commissioning. Does the Minister have any evidence that the acquisition of weapons from other countries by paramilitary organisations has ceased totally? Have she or her colleagues had any discussions with the Libyan Government about the traditional link between that country and the IRA?
Jane Kennedy: First, it is clear that paramilitary organisations continue to arm themselves. They do so by a variety of means, and they use the weapons that they procure for a range of activities—for terrorist purposes, for controlling their communities, and for criminal activity. There is therefore evidence that they continue to be well armed.
On the second point raised by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I refer him to the answer that I gave at Northern Ireland questions earlier. I said that I expected that the discussions between the British and Libyan Governments would touch on the supply in the past of weapons to the IRA. I am sure that any information that we were able to obtain from that source would be enormously helpful to all of us.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the commitment, perseverance and integrity of General John de Chastelain and his colleagues at the IICD. It is sobering to note that the general's personal commitment

1451
to the process dates back to 1995, when the original group was established under the previous, Conservative Government. I want to express my thanks to them all for what they have achieved in the process to date.
The decommissioning process has begun. It may not be swift enough, but it has begun. We want it to continue and we want it to be completed, so it is essential that we continue to provide immunity from prosecution for those involved.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I do not expect the Minister to have the answer to my question at her fingertips, but I hope that an answer can be given later in the debate. There is a feeling in the community that the existence of provisions such as this order allows the police to stand back from doing the job of seizing weapons and of having them decommissioned in that way. What amount of weaponry has been seized by the security forces as a result of searches since the Belfast agreement process got under way? How does that figure compare with the amount seized in a similar period before the agreement was reached?
Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that I might not have the relevant information to hand. I shall see what I can produce before the debate ends. However, I strongly refute the notion that the police are holding back from looking for and seizing illegal weapons. I know that they have had success as recently as last week or the week before, when they stopped a vehicle in Belfast that contained a rifle and other ammunition. They are to be commended for the actions that they take, because they are dealing with organised, well resourced and disciplined groups of dangerous people. The police undertake a difficult and dangerous task, and I know that all hon. Members support them in that.
Let me quickly answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). I remind him that I have been talking about the involvement of the Provisional IRA and the decommissioning event that took place on 21 October, so there is engagement with the commission by the Provisional IRA. Indeed, last year, the Loyalist Commission, along with Ulster Defence Association representatives, met the IICD, so there continues to be engagement. It is not as rigorous as we would want, and the process is not as swift as we would want, but there is engagement.
I remind the House that if decommissioning is to take place, we need to provide immunity from prosecution for those involved. We do that through the order, and I thus commend it to the House.
2.29 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I regret the necessity to have the debate and to renew the order because, as the Minister pointed out, that very fact means that the decommissioning process is still far from complete despite all the high hopes on both sides of the House back in 1997 and 1998. I believe, as I shall enlarge upon later, that the Government cannot escape a share of the blame for the failure to complete the work of decommissioning. However, I must accept where we are. In making a judgment about the order, it is better to have a decommissioning system—however imperfect it
1452
is—than for no such system to be available. For that reason, I shall not seek to divide the House at the conclusion of the debate.
We are nearly six years on from a referendum in Northern Ireland during which people believed, and were encouraged to believe, that decommissioning would start in that year and be completed at some stage during 2000. It is nearly four years since the Provisional IRA made a statement on 7 May 2000 in which that terrorist organisation promised to put its weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, and to do so in such a way as to maximise public confidence. The pledge was pretty clear, but it has not been kept. Although I am not uncritical of some decisions that Ministers have taken, I make it clear that the official Opposition's view is that responsibility for the failure to decommission weapons and explosives clearly lies with the terrorist arid paramilitary groups that hold those stocks of weapons and maintain private armies.
I acknowledge the difficulties faced by Ministers and the uncertainty of the information on which they have had to base judgments about their policies in Northern Ireland over the past few years. However, Ministers have at times thrown away some of the strongest cards that they had available to achieve the decommissioning of weapons and to bring about an end to paramilitary activity. The most obvious example was the early release of terrorist prisoners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), the then Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, moved amendments to the Bill that became the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 that would have linked prisoner releases explicitly to the terms of the promises that the Prime Minister made to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign in 1998.
That was perhaps the most egregious example of Government misjudgment, but a further example is the special status given in Westminster to Members from Sinn Fein who refuse to take their seats. We had the proposed amnesty, which at least is now held in abeyance, for terrorists who were on the run. However, where do we go from here?
Lembit Öpik: I know the views that the hon. Gentleman holds and respect his right to differ from my position. However, would he at least entertain the possibility that many of those events were matters of judgment, rather than principle? For example, when it came to giving office space in Parliament, my feeling was that bringing Sinn Fein closely into the peaceful parliamentary process would put increasing pressure on it to ensure that the paramilitaries would stay in line.
Mr. Lidington: I accept that those were matters for judgment, as the hon. Gentleman said. My argument to him and others is that, at the time the decisions were taken, there was considerable debate and a division of opinion in the House over the merits of the judgment that the Government, with the hon. Gentleman's support, made. I would argue with no sense of glee but with deep regret that what has happened has vindicated the judgment of those of us who felt at the time that we were granting concessions to republican militants without any certainty that they would deliver on the

1453
pledges to disarm and to end paramilitary activity that they entered into at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 established a framework for decommissioning before either the democratic parties in Northern Ireland or the paramilitary organisations had agreed to any targets or timetables. Those targets came in later, following the Belfast agreement and the establishment of the two-year time frame. So, first, we need a firm sense from the Government that there will be targets and timetables, and that the Government will exert all the pressure they can on paramilitary organizations—republican and loyalist alike—not just to decommission their weapons within a clear time scale, but to cease all paramilitary activity and to dismantle the organisations of terrorism. If those bodies or their political representatives are being honest with us all in saying that they are now committed to constitutional politics arid to exclusively democratic and peaceful means, they have no need of private armies or stocks of weapons and explosives.
Secondly, we need greater transparency. I do not propose to revisit in detail what happened in October, but it is clear that the absence of transparency has led to very widespread mistrust among the majority community in Northern Ireland of the good faith of the republican organisations. I do not know whether the three acts of decommissioning by the IRA so far have diminished its net stock of weaponry, because we do not know to what extent it has been adding to its armouries at the same time. The requirement for confidentiality is not written into primary legislation. My understanding is that that is part of the subsequent decommissioning scheme—the terms of which were negotiated between the present Government and their counterparts in the Irish Republic. It is time that the terms of that scheme, at least in respect of confidentiality, were reviewed. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has such action in mind, and what her assessment is of the views of the Dublin Government about the prospect of greater transparency in the decommissioning process.
Thirdly and finally, we must explicitly link participation in the government of Northern Ireland with the cessation of paramilitary activity and organisation. The Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, has said trenchantly and repeatedly that political parties that are linked to private armies are not fit to serve in a governing coalition in the Irish Republic. We should adopt the same principle in the United Kingdom as that already followed by our European neighbours. That principle, which is good enough for Dublin, should apply in Belfast as well.
2.39 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: There will be very few in the House—in fact, none—who would not welcome the total decommissioning of weaponry and the disbandment of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the same sentiment would apply to the people of Northern Ireland, except to those who have the weapons. There are two reasons for the political stalemate in Northern Ireland. First, attempts to end paramilitarism, both
1454
loyalist and republican, have failed and, secondly, some parties have failed to commit themselves unambiguously to the democratic power-sharing institutions endorsed by the referendums of 1998.
Decommissioning was negotiated into the Good Friday agreement, and was agreed by the parties and endorsed by the public. It is therefore an essential part of that agreement and is important to those participating under its auspices. It is not an optional extra that democracy or the people can afford to lose. At this stage of our political evolution, decommissioning is a demonstrably significant part of the required commitment to peaceful politics that, in turn, are necessary to secure trust between participating parties and communities so that we can achieve progress and make our institutions and Administration permanent. The problem with decommissioning is that, however we legislate for it, it is voluntary. It cannot be compelled under the terms of the agreement, but the police retain powers to seize illegal arms and weaponry.
In response to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), there is a feeling, without any evidence or proof, that people are going soft on taking weapons and ammunition out of circulation. Either that is the case or there is a severe lack of intelligence—that point must be underscored. None the less, decommissioning is a voluntary exercise, and it is difficult to enforce. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 provided a mechanism to facilitate decommissioning that was independent of Government and had such a standing that it was accepted by the public, who had confidence in it. Reference has been made to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning under the leadership of General de Chastelain and the need for more transparency and less secrecy. The purpose of that body was to secure the trust of Government and the community in an independent international body, as it was known full well that decommissioning was not possible in practice if the people who were decommissioning weapons were exposed to the public eye—decommissioning under those conditions is just an idle wish. My party therefore had every confidence that the commission would act on our behalf and ensure that there was proper and meaningful decommissioning.
The primary responsibility remains, as I have said, with those who hold the weapons, although they have not excelled themselves in the five or six years since the agreement. In fact, their contribution, as we have just heard, has consisted of three acts of decommissioning. although the Minister will assure us that the last one in October was a substantive, meaningful decommissioning of light and heavy armaments. Decommissioning must be conducted in such a way that a report by the international commission can be produced to end the mistrust that has arisen. Such decommissioning can only be done by the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, who have the bombs, guns and weapons, and know where they are. We need meaningful dialogue to make such decommissioning imperative under the terms of the 1997 Act.
It is important that the process to re-establish the institutions in Northern Ireland, whether in the north, south, east or west, takes place as quickly as possible.

1455
That is the only way in which to pressurise the voluntary—much as I hate using that word—act that decommissioning has to be. It must be made imperative, for credibility purposes, that the paramilitaries do it. There is an obscene situation on the island of Ireland, both north and south, whereby two sovereign Governments have in their midst a paramilitary army that is fully equipped and operating within their jurisdictions. That cannot, and never should be, acceptable in any democratic institution. It behoves both Governments to pay a great deal more attention to, and thereby to place pressure on, these paramilitaries to perform to normal civilised democratic standards.
The Minister referred not only to decommissioning, but to the other elements of paramilitary activity—extortion, protection rackets, drugs and all the rest of it. She will need to take into consideration a new element—what are euphemistically called the agencies of restorative justice, which is another name for thugs carrying out kangaroo court action in our communities. It is surprising that elected Assembly Members of other parties are now instructing victims of crime in my community, including old people, not to report them to the police under any circumstances, but instead to address the issue to so-called restorative justice bodies. If that becomes endemic, we will, as I have warned time and again in this House, have fascism exploding in our community. I should like to think that the Minister who is responsible for security and justice would pay more careful attention to what is happening on the ground as regards so-called punishment beatings and so-called restorative justice.
For those reasons, and to support the political process, my party will endorse the continuation of the order.
2.47 pm
Lembit Öpik: On 11 February 2003, the Minister said:
"We cannot now carry on with the IRA being half in and half out of the process towards peaceful and normal society in Northern Ireland. If there is real movement, however, we can move quickly to implement the outstanding parts of the Belfast agreement, including the provisions on normalisation. We can implement the provisions in their entirety—not in stages, but together. If we can do that, it is my fervent hope that I shall not be standing here at the Dispatch Box this time next year speaking to the same motion."—[Official Report, 11 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 832.]
We are here 12 months to the day after she made those remarks. Others, including me, made similar hopeful comments, but sadly we seem to be living in a groundhog day environment where we discuss this same piece of legislation every year.
In the euphoria following the Good Friday agreement, there was clearly an expectation that decommissioning could occur by the latest date set down in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. However, as it has taken almost that long to achieve the beginning of decommissioning, it will take longer to achieve total decommissioning. Logically, therefore, the amnesty must be extended.
It is worth remembering that this process goes all the way back to 27 February 1997, before this Government were even in office. It is not a failure—perhaps that is too strong a word—of a party, but a failing of our
1456
Parliament as a whole that we have not found a way to cause the paramilitaries to feel the need to decommission.
The step of decommissioning weapons was a long time coming, and it is impossible to overestimate the significance of the moves that have already taken place. It has always been recognised that decommissioning is a process—no one ever expected the IRA to decommission all its weapons at once. We had some almost comical debates as we imagined large articulated lorries turning up with massive amounts of munitions all in one go. That was not going to happen, so we always expected the process to be staged. However, the Good Friday agreement mentions the total disarmament of all paramilitary groups, for which we obviously aim.
Although the decommissioning that took place before the elections last year was welcome and significant, as yet we are nowhere near the total decommissioning that we all support. At the time, it felt to me—and, I am sure, to others—that some decommissioning was prompted by political expediency because Sinn Fein felt compromised by other matters around the world and revelations about the IRA, and that it responded to the pressure through acts of decommissioning. Nevertheless, the IRA must recognise that, by holding on to its weapons, it is holding matters up in Northern Ireland and working against the interests of the communities for which it claims to fight. The same must also be said of loyalist paramilitaries. We cannot focus solely on the IRA.
That leads to my first question. Has contact taken place between the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and any of the loyalist paramilitary groups? Incidences of loyalist violence are increasing and we cannot expect genuine dialogue on loyalist decommissioning while such violence continues. However, we are aiming to achieve the total decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons.
Secondly, if the interaction between the IICD and the paramilitary organisations is unsatisfactory, what leverage can the Minister apply to the paramilitary organisations and some of their political representatives to make them understand that they are harming their self-interest by not participating actively or more actively with the commission?
David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the result of the recent Assembly elections sent a clear and unambiguous message from the Unionist community in that only one Unionist representative linked to a terrorist paramilitary organisation was elected? The Unionist community said, "We don't want you on our backs; we don't want terrorism and we don't want paramilitary organisations." Unfortunately, a large section of the republican community voted for Sinn Fein, which still has its private army.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Without going into a detailed analysis of the outcome of the election, support for the Democratic Unionist party suggested some frustration with the process among former Ulster Unionist party voters, some of whom probably switched. The Government's postponement of the elections was

1457
counter-productive if they had hoped to assist one party or another. I do not believe that they had a strategy overtly to help the DUP to increase its numbers in the Assembly, though I stand to be corrected if that view is cynical.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so quickly. Does he accept that the Government threw away their major leverage over the republican movement by granting the elections last October? It is a great shame that his party and its sister party in Northern Ireland accepted that decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is democracy."] With the greatest respect to others who sit on this Bench, could I please finish? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must not have sedentary interventions when an hon. Member is addressing the House.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being rescued.
How does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government can now pressurise or apply any leverage to the republican movement to decommission its weapons? I am sorry that his party supported holding elections last autumn.
Lembit Öpik: One word comes to mind in defence of holding the elections: democracy. However much we may like or dislike an outcome, using the date of an election in Northern Ireland to try to achieve a specific result is an unsatisfactory strategy. I sometimes also find it frustrating that the Prime Minister can choose the date of general elections. We must clarify whether the Government achieved the opposite of what they hoped by postponing the elections. I said just that in this Chamber when the postponement was announced early in 2003.
My second point, which brings me back to what I wanted to say, is that the biggest pressure in favour of decommissioning by the paramilitary organisations is the political opportunity presented to Sinn Fein, republicans and loyalist paramilitaries through their political representatives. It is perfectly obvious that were there a significant resumption of violence, for example, by the IRA, Sinn Fein would pay a heavy price for it, and the same is true on the loyalist paramilitary side.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that since the Democratic Unionist party became the largest party in our democracy on 26 November, no concessions have been given to Sinn Fein-IRA?
Lembit Öpik: I can see where the hon. Lady is going with that comment, and I accuse her of being a little cheeky in trying to take the credit for her party on that basis. I shall leave it to her and her colleagues to explain why they feel that that they have had such a significant influence.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The cupboard was bare.
Lembit Öpik: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. The Government's cupboard
1458
of creativity, however, is almost infinite when they put their mind to it, so there may also be other reasons at play.
I am encouraged by the strategic approach taken by the Democratic Unionist party, because I believe and I certainly hope that the expanded DUP will now live up to the opportunity that it has in a democratic context to participate in the resumed Assembly in Northern Ireland. Although it may find it uncomfortable to consider that it may ultimately need to negotiate some kind of arrangement with Sinn Fein, in the context of today's discussion, that kind of dialogue increases significantly our chances of getting the kind of decommissioning that we want. As has been said previously, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. If people feel that genuine concessions have been made in the past, and they are frustrated by that, I simply point out that to a large extent the fortunes of Northern Ireland lie in the hands of the elected representatives.
Clearly decommissioning is therefore in part a consequence rather than a cause of what goes on in the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. It is therefore all the more frustrating that things are not in place and operational at the moment, not least because I seem to spend half my life in Statutory Instrument Committees. I enjoy the company of Ministers and Northern Ireland Members, but 8.55 in the morning is not my preferred time to sit discussing details of orders and so forth. I would prefer to be in my office preparing for government.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who intervened on me previously, also made an interesting comment on 11 February last year, when he intervened on the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who is sorely missed from the Conservative Front Bench, and asked:
"Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is verification? What does decommissioning or disbandment mean when there is no trust in the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland?"—[Official Report, 11 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 815.]
That will be an ongoing issue. I have flagged this up before, and I shall mention it again: one of the problems is that we will never know when full decommissioning has taken place unless we trust the word of the people who have the weapons. Even within that quotation, the lack of trust is evident. One imponderable for a Government of any colour is the fact that the decommissioning process requires a degree of trust that currently does not exist. That points once again to the need to have an effective political structure in which that trust is enhanced.
To respond briefly to what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said on behalf of the Conservatives, I ask myself the question: what would I do to try to generate trust? In the round, we must recognise that providing Sinn Fein with office space and some of the other changes that have been made were an effort to try to build trust between this place and those who probably exert significant influence on at least some paramilitary groups.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I should say that he agreed with me that whether those changes should be made was a matter of judgment; but as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I would probably have made similar decisions. The good news

1459
for the hon. Gentleman is that when he becomes Secretary of State in, say, 2035, he will not be faced with the same problems, because I will have solved them in the preceding Liberal Democrat Administration.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Surely we are not to be left to trust the paramilitary organisations on what they say their inventory of weapons and explosives may have been. We have intelligence services. The Prime Minister now has a new friend in Colonel Gaddafi, who I am sure will give him a full and frank disclosure of all the weaponry that he handed over to the IRA. Jane's Intelligence Review and a number of our leading quality newspapers have published details of the weaponry that is believed to be available to the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitary groups. We do not have to sit back and take their word for it when it comes to what their stockpile may constitute.
Lembit Öpik: I realise that dossiers on weapons are a sensitive issue for the Government, and the whole Iraq business has shown us that there will always be questions about what weapons are owned; but the hon. Gentleman has made a promising observation. If it transpires that the Democratic Unionist party and others could accept a baseline for what exists now, we may indeed have a better opportunity to determine when all that has gone. The hon. Gentleman may want to comment on that when he makes his own speech.
We do not believe that there is any place for illegally held weapons in a democratic society, and we have always called for full decommissioning by both loyalist and republican paramilitary groups. We have supported the progress made so far, but we always hoped that we would be further down the road to total decommissioning than we are now. We recognise that decommissioning is a process and that no paramilitary group will decommission all at once, but now that we have embarked on that process we cannot give the IRA, in particular, any reason not to decommission its weapons. That is why we will support the order.
3.2 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I speak as an English Member representing an English seat, who has never been subjected to the pressure to which Northern Ireland Members on both sides of the House are regularly subjected, both on a personal level and in representing constituents. They have been shot at and had bombs aimed at them; they have lost relatives and loved ones. For that reason I will speak briefly. I will say, however, that I noted that the Liberal Democrats were preparing for government. Given that their contribution today lasted longer than those from the two main Front Benches, I think that should that day ever come theirs would certainly be a policy of jaw-jaw rather than war-war.
Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and address it to the Unionists in the House. We in government are lucky to have the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to present these measures year after year—for they will be presented year after year. She is not only one of our most able Members of Parliament, but one of our bravest. When we had our small problems on Merseyside—
1460
nothing compared with those in Northern Ireland—she was the first on her side of the river to stand up and declare her belief in the ballot box against some of the nasty practices that certain people were trying to inflict on our community in Liverpool and Birkenhead. I must ask this, however: what would happen, and what would change in Northern Ireland, if the paramilitaries—particularly the IRA—did actually agree with this policy and decommission? They have enough financial resources to replenish their arsenals quickly. I suggest that even if they were pushed to the point of being more open about decommissioning, it would make not an iota of difference. I also suggest that they will never do that. They did not do it in the 1920s, and that did not stop a basic form of peace from being established in the Province for more than 50 years.
Therefore, as the Unionist groups are now regrouping in Ulster, I make a plea to them. While it would clearly be enormously difficult to disengage themselves from the obvious agenda of demanding decommissioning, I suggest that another agenda should now take primacy over that. I do that for the reasons that I have just given: supposing the IRA did decommission, it could easily and most ably build up its arsenals, given its financial resources.
What would denote a real change of substance in Northern Ireland—nothing to do with the presentations of guns but the changing of people's hearts and minds—would be to ask those paramilitaries, but particularly the IRA, which is so near government in Northern Ireland, to change their policy on beatings and exclusions. That would be the real test of whether these people were democrats or not. Therefore, the plea I make to the Unionists of both groups is, please do not keep giving the IRA the excuse never to get on to an agenda that would test in the most effective way possible whether it is a changed creature or not.
Lady Hermon: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on the words of the Prime Minister of this country on 21 October last year:
"decommissioning is an important part of the process, because it's not merely that you are putting the actual weapons beyond use, but it has a symbolism, which is that it symbolises the desire to conduct politics only through peaceful means."
Will the right hon. Gentleman either disagree with his Prime Minister or accept that there is a symbolism and that it is hugely important to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Field: I am very fond of the Prime Minister but I would not necessarily go to the stake over all the statements that he has made. Above all, however, I make a plea to my hon. Friends on the other side of the Chamber: when can we expect those on the Unionist Benches to decouple themselves from whatever the Prime Minister wants, wishes, says or signs up to? The plea I am making today is for the brave representatives from Northern Ireland to start making their own agenda and not to have an English agenda foisted on them.
The one way that English voters would see that there was much more than an outward visible change and that that outward visible change had inward meaning would be if the IRA were challenged on its despicable policies of beatings and exclusions. Were it to respond to that

1461
challenge it would mean that it was putting aside the use of terror as a means of controlling many of their voters and many Unionist voters in Northern Ireland. That would suggest that there had been a fundamental change in the attitude of the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. That challenge is not made to them now because both sides, with the help of the Prime Minister, are still working according to the old agenda and rabbiting on that the need is to decommission.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Field: No, I am just finishing.
The paramilitaries will never agree to decommissioning. Why do we not get on to an agenda that is not only relevant to Ulster, but really challenges those paramilitaries effectively?
3.8 pm
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I appreciate the thoughtful contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I know the interest that he has taken in the plight of those who have been excluded from Northern Ireland and subjected to punishment attacks. We on this side of the House appreciate that. Nevertheless, this is about the presence of a private army, or a paramilitary organisation. It is one thing to deal with the symptoms of the problem—that is, exclusions, beatings and so on—but at the heart of the issue is dealing with the actual source of the problem itself. We have said clearly that there can be no place for a private army or a paramilitary organisation in a democratic society. Ultimately, that is the position that we are seeking to achieve.
That we are again in this House debating the extension of this order highlights the failure of the Government's policy. They have singularly failed to make any progress in removing all the illegally held arms from Northern Ireland. The Government would rather trade concession after concession to those who hold illegal weapons in some faint hope or aspiration that they might decommission. But the policy of appeasement has failed, and it is time for a fresh approach.
The Belfast agreement stated that decommissioning was to be completed within two years of its ratification. In 1999, when devolved institutions were established, the Prime Minister stated:
"Within weeks, they must actually decommission. The process is verified by an independent commission, headed by…General John de Chastelain. Decommissioning then continues up until May 2000. It then has to be certified as complete."
It is now February 2004, and we are nowhere near the completion of the decommissioning process. The difficulty with extending the amnesty provisions year after year is that we send the signal to the paramilitaries that we are in no hurry—that we will simply renew this provision annually, in the vain hope that some day, some year, they will deliver. That approach is folly.
1462
The Government have tried with their concessions. There was Weston Park, and then they gave offices in this House to Sinn Fein. They agreed to further concessions on policing, and to scale down the security infrastructure. Worst of all, they granted a commitment to an amnesty for so-called on-the-run terrorists. I am not sure that the Minister fully appreciates the hurt that the proposal has caused. I spoke just last evening to a lady who lost her husband as a result of the Enniskillen bombing. She rang me because she wanted to know what was happening about the amnesty for on-the-run terrorists, and to express her hurt and concern that the person who murdered her loved one and the others who died in that tragic incident might not undergo the full process of justice in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that next week, on 17 February, we mark the 26th anniversary of the IRA bombing of the La Mon House hotel, in my constituency, that the leader of the Belfast brigade at that time was none other than Gerry Adams, and that the victims and families of those who survived have demanded an independent public inquiry? To date, that demand has fallen on deaf ears. Does my hon. Friend agree that the direction that this Government are taking is questionable? A lot of patience and tolerance has been shown towards the terrorist, but there is no recognition of the hurt felt by the victims who demand public inquiries.
Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention. I commend her work in representing the views of the victims, especially those of the La Mon bombing. The difficulty is that the Government's approach has been to grant inquiries when it is a question of putting the police and the Army in the dock, but to avoid the need for inquiries when it is a question of putting the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association in the dock. Why? It is because their policy is to turn a blind eye to paramilitary violence and excesses.
It is time for that policy to end. It is time for a new approach, and that is what we in the Democratic Unionist party are advocating. We believe that, rather than rewarding the terrorists for making some gesture on decommissioning, what we actually need is a clear mechanism to ensure that they do not access and benefit fully from all the democratic institutions until such time as we have completion—and by that we really do mean completion.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) earlier spelled out the need for completion before there can be any question of Sinn Fein being in an Executive. Yet he was prepared to go back into Government with Sinn Fein last October on the basis of just one more gesture on decommissioning. His only difficulty was that that was not transparent. We do not need lectures from him about making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Time after time after time, he has entered Government on the basis of false promises, false hopes and false expectations.
Mr. David Trimble rose—
Mr. Donaldson: I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman; he will have every opportunity to make

1463
his contribution. He needs to decommission his revisionism. We remember what happened over the past five and a half years, and it was not about acts of completion but accepting futile gestures from the Provisional IRA.
Lady Hermon rose—
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) also mentioned that people had no confidence in what the IRA has done, and she was absolutely right. Yet she supported her party going back into Government with Sinn Fein-IRA on the basis of the acts of decommissioning that it engaged in. We will not take lectures about concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA from her or the right hon. Gentleman.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister, who on 14 May 1998 said:
"Those who have used the twin tactics of the ballot box and the gun must make a clear choice. There can be no fudge between democracy and terror."
A week later, in the Belfast Newsletter, the Prime Minister said:
"Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruiting and all the structures of terrorism".
It is time for the Prime Minister to insist that his own tests are met.
It is time for acts of completion, as the Prime Minister told the House of Commons. He defined an act of completion as
"not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
That is the policy of the Democratic Unionist party, and we endorse the Prime Minister's position. We require acts of completion by the IRA.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that quotation defined acts of completion to do with the cessation of violence, not necessarily the full decommissioning of all the weapons used for violence?
Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but this is a matter for political judgment for the political parties in Northern Ireland, and we have made our position clear.
I acknowledge that most of what I have said has been directed towards republican weapons. Let me be clear: illegal weapons are unacceptable, and if they are held by so-called loyalist groups as well as republicans, those groups, too, must decommission their weapons. It is not a one-sided process; decommissioning must take place on the part of all the paramilitary terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) warned the Government in last year's debate that extending the duration of the legislation once again
1464
would be untenable. We reiterate that the Government must impress on the paramilitaries the fact that the time for amnesty has ended and that they will not be given any more concessions for doing what they ought to have done already. It is time to spell it out to paramilitary organisations that, unless they stop all their criminal activities, the full rigour of the law will be meted out to them.
This is not a time for further amnesties and concessions; it is time for the Government to get tough on the paramilitaries if we are ever to be rid of the violence and the exclusions and punishment attacks that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead rightly mentioned. We want Northern Ireland to be liberated from those things, but we do not believe that what the Government propose here or the rest of their current policy will achieve that. For that reason, we will oppose the order.
3.19 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I parenthetically observe that it is a trifle unfortunate that, having made a personal attack on me, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) declined to take an intervention, in the course of which I would have made the point that his comments were not true. I shall not elaborate on that point, and if he repeats the charge, I shall endeavour to intervene again and we shall see whether he displays greater courtesy.
Reference has been made in the course of the debate to what happened in 1998 and 1997, but the issue did not begin then. Indeed, the Downing street declaration was made on 15 September 1993, after which the then Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Dick Spring, said that the next step was to seek the handing in of weapons by the republican movement, so the issue has existed for 10 years.
I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It is a truism that the decommissioning of mindsets is more important than the decommissioning of weapons, which is why so many people in Northern Ireland have focused on whether republicans are prepared to say that the campaign in all its meanings is over. It is a matter of historical record that Governments—plural—decided to focus on that particular measure because there could not be arguments about whether it had happened. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of ending exilings and beatings, but hitherto it has not been easy to attribute responsibility for those matters. We hope that the independent body that has been established to monitor paramilitary activities will bring about much greater transparency on paramilitary activity and consequently greater pressure on paramilitaries.
I want to make a few points, and I shall make them as briefly as I can. My first point is simple and is addressed primarily to the Government: is the achievement of decommissioning still a Government objective? With respect, the Secretary of State was not explicit in his response to me at Northern Ireland questions, so I hope that the Minister can be explicit. Is the Government's attitude passive? Are they merely hoping that decommissioning will happen at some stage and making provisions such as this to facilitate decommissioning if

1465
the paramilitary organisations want it to happen, or are they actually trying to pursue and achieve that objective? That question is crucial, and it addresses the Government's attitude and mental state.
Other parties must also consider whether the achievement of decommissioning is an objective. Those parties that have introduced proposals that would bring an Assembly involving Sinn Fein into existence to exercise power without decommissioning are making a huge concession to republicans. In a speech earlier this week, my fellow Assembly Member, Sir Reg Empey, advised the Sinn Fein leadership to grab the Democratic Unionist party proposals because they offer better terms to republicans than they would get from the previous policy of this Government or from my party.
Mr. Donaldson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trimble: I shall extend to the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy that he extended to me, but if any of his friends want to intervene, I shall take an intervention. Nobody else wants to come in; that is interesting in itself.
David Burnside: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ulster and the cause of the Union would be better served on decommissioning and all other subjects if we had one united Ulster Unionist party?
Mr. Trimble: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that our position would be better secured if there were single-minded consistency on those matters. Like me, he has been involved in the past in united Unionist approaches and he will remember when, unfortunately, he and I found ourselves excluded from those arrangements—but that is to delve deep into history. I recall that matter fondly and I am sure that he does, too.
Mr. Frank Field: Many of us on the Labour Benches also think that the democratic voice of Northern Ireland would be stronger if there were one Unionist party rather than two. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whoever the democrats facing negotiations in Northern Ireland, their position would be strengthened if they did not face an Irish Prime Minister who has one view about those near to arms being part of the Government in Northern Ireland but has made it plain that he will not have such people as part of the Government in southern Ireland?
Mr. Trimble: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, although I think that it was progress when the Irish Government clarified their position. Until then, there had been a degree of ambiguity about their intentions in that respect, so I am more inclined to build on that clarification as movement forward in the direction that he suggests—that the same principle should apply elsewhere. Of course, his party leader might reflect on whether that principle should also apply in the United Kingdom, so that the message goes not only to us but to his right hon. and hon. Friends, too.
I was questioning whether it was part of the Government's objective to achieve decommissioning and the question that obviously follows is, what are the
1466
Government doing to achieve it? That is crucial. I do not want to go back over our arguments in October and November, but I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said earlier.
We are deeply disappointed at the failure of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. We had great hopes for it at the outset, but although we are so far into the process, the IICD continues to be passive. As I pointed out at some length last November, it was in a position of considerable power and influence, yet declined to exercise it. That failure at that stage has produced a situation in which we consider the commission—regretfully—in slightly different terms from before.
Other pressure points are available, however. In some quarters, it is believed that the reluctance of republicans to decommission, and to do so transparently, largely stems from those elements in the republican movement who are deeply involved in racketeering and want the cover and weapons of the private army to pursue their criminal objectives. If that is the case, and there is every reason to believe that it is, other agencies of the state should be particularly active in the matter—a point that has been made regularly about the Assets Recovery Agency.
I appreciate that the agency was responsible for the recovery of a significant sum of money recently, but that was from loyalists. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). There appears to be reluctance in some quarters and in some Government agencies to act in a way that might cause discomfort to the republican movement. That appears to be the case for the Assets Recovery Agency, too, and it is something that the agency should take energetic steps to dispel. The Government should reflect on that point.
David Burnside: Will my right hon. Friend be more specific? The Northern Ireland Office is not prepared to rock the boat with the army council of the Provisional IRA, led by Slab Murphy sitting alongside Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, because it would rock the peace process.
Mr. Trimble: I am not sure of the full reasons why some agencies, and perhaps even some elements of Government, behave in a way that gives rise to the impression that my hon. Friend describes. I am not sure that they intend that result.
I suspect that in some cases, particularly with regard to agencies, those involved are anxious to do what they think the Government want. They may not have any instruction, advice or hints of that nature, but they are anxious to anticipate what they think the Government would want. I hope that they get that wrong.
Whatever the reason, in my view there is no cause for anyone to be concerned about whether their actions imperil what is called the peace process. As I pointed out elsewhere just the other week, republicans did not call a ceasefire out of the goodness of their hearts or because they had had a conversion. They called it because circumstances left them with little alternative. That should be the basis on which the Government approach the matter. They have approached it as if all the cards, or most of them, were held by other people, rather than

1467
themselves. That is not the case. The Government should and could put on much more pressure on these matters.
This is a technical measure. If there is to be decommissioning, as we hope there will be, the order is needed. But this process has been going on for 10 years. One has to question the extent to which the Government are committed to it. I shall listen carefully to what is said in the reply. While, strictly speaking, we would favour this technical measure because it is needed, the debate gives us an opportunity to display our displeasure. So we shall listen.
3.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: In view of the lack of time, I shall be ultra-brief and very selective.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and regard the order as a monument to a failure of policy. It is just one manifestation of a wider approach to the problems of Northern Ireland that has become so discredited over the last years. Not only has that approach failed to deliver, but many of us predicted that it would fail to deliver.
I find it hard to imagine a more depressing or shameful sequence of events than successive Westminster Governments' abject mishandling of the decommissioning issue and the contributing role played by successive Irish Governments and the Ulster Unionist party. The entire so-called peace process was built on the mistaken and discredited belief that, by granting concessions to them, those who should rightly be marginalised by civil society could be brought centre stage and participate in democratic government.
The Minister would have us agree that we should accept the order because without it there would be no reasonable prospect of further decommissioning and no final act of completion. That is a fallacious argument. It is to continue to slide down the slippery slope of surrender and appeasement.
This is the sixth time we have been asked to renew the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. It has delivered virtually nothing of significance. Quite simply, it is the wrong approach. The provisional republican movement and others have had their opportunities to demonstrate their commitment to exclusively democratic means. They have rejected those opportunities, and they have failed to deliver. The Act should be allowed to lapse. In the event of the provisional republican movement or others indicating a change of heart, its powers could be re-enacted in a few hours if the Government and the House wish.
To accept the order is to send out entirely the wrong signal. It is politically and morally wrong for the Government to perpetuate a position of conciliation, as the order does, when terrorist organisations are persistently and consistently choosing to maintain and practise the option of violence.
3.34 pm
Mr. Gregory Campbell: Over a period of 10 years now, the communities in Northern Ireland have become accustomed to hearing
1468
promises and assurances that the decommissioning of weapons would, first, begin, secondly, continue and, thirdly, conclude—and they have waited and waited. In 1998, the Belfast agreement was signed, and they received further assurances that the decommissioning of illegal weapons from both republicans and loyalists was essential and would be concluded by 2000. That time has come and gone, and still there has been no progress whatever.
I listened intently to what was said by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I hold him in high regard, and I very much appreciate his views on this and other subjects, but I disagree with his belief that there will be no decommissioning. If there is a strictly accurate understanding of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland—whether loyalist or republican—it shows that the republican violence has as its goal a political objective. Loyalist violence, which is equally abhorrent, unacceptable, immoral and unjustifiable, has as a different objective the prevention of a political accommodation coming about with the IRA. However, if those in the IRA receive, as they have done in recent years, concessions towards their political objective, they will move because they see their political objectives being realised. That is the history of the past six years.
The more the present Government accommodate the desires and objectives of the Provisional IRA, the better those in the IRA will respond. Why would they not? If they previously engaged in a campaign of murder, mass murder, intimidation, threats and arson to gain political objectives, gaining some small steps in that regard, and they can gain more concessions by retaining the threat of violence by retaining their armoury intact, while the Government hold out the carrot of the prospect of progress towards their objective via the 1998 agreement, why on earth would they not hold out the prospect of some movement? Whether that prospect is illusory remains to be seen. However, that is what we have seen over the past three or four years.
Those in the IRA make tentative steps and involve themselves in token gestures to pocket more concessions. That has been at the back of the on-the-run saga and the other concessions that the IRA is waiting to pocket yet again. At the moment and for the past 10 years, they have had the best of both worlds; they have given the intent of moving into democracy, while retaining the right to return to violence and to use violence. The community has said, "No, you must disarm. You must engage in acts of completion, and you must disappear." That is what the community now demands in Northern Ireland.
We have to be in a post-IRA era before we can engage in meaningful discussions that will lead to an Executive being formed, with all the main parties involved. If we do not get that, we will obviously have to look at other methods. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) indicate his involvement and explain what he had intended should be the case. Yet many people in Northern Ireland see that, on three occasions, he was prepared to enter into the Government of Northern Ireland with those who represent terror, with nothing more than a promise of possible decommissioning.
Mr. Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he makes a very important point. Not only

1469
have the Government played a major role in the concessions to the IRA, but the IRA could not have achieved what it has without the explicit acts of the Ulster Unionist party under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and the role that he has played will go down in history as one of arch-capitulation to the IRA over the past 10 years.
Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, I am reminded of an interview and a quotation that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann gave in September 1998, when he said that we have to stand "rock solid" and that
"decommissioning must start before an Executive is formed."
I could not agree more with those comments, but the right hon. Gentleman did not stand by them.
Mr. Frank Field: Would not the future of Ulster be better served if its Members did not keep looking backwards and giving such quotations, but accepted the judgment of the ballot box, which makes it quite clear what ordinary voters think, and moved the agenda on?
Mr. Campbell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but we have to remember what the ballot box declared on 26 November. We must move forward, and we believe that the way to do that is, in the case of all the paramilitary groups, not to ask them to give up their weapons, nor for the rest of us simply to hope that they will give up their weapons, but for it to be made clear that there is no alternative but for them to give up their weapons. Then we will all move forward on a basis of some sort of stability and with the hope that we can make progress. Progress must be made.
I do not believe that the current position, which the Minister has described, is likely to lead to that progress being made, because we have been waiting and waiting. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) pointed out that 12 months ago, the Minister said that she hoped not to be back here today; but here we are. Will we be back again in 12 months' time—or in two, three or four years' time—still awaiting the movement that will not come about unless we apply the pressure that will ensure that it does?
3.41 pm
Jane Kennedy: I can tell the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that I do not have to hand the figures that he was seeking earlier, but I shall write to him with the detail and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
This has been a typically thoughtful, challenging and—for the Government—punchy debate, and I have listened to the many points made. I can well recall making the comments that I made last year, and I shall not repeat them this year—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), says from a sedentary position that she hopes that she is not here this time next year.
It is important that we constantly bear in mind the bigger picture and the objectives that we are striving towards, which I know are shared on both sides of the
1470
House. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned the confidentiality that surrounds the acts of decommissioning. It is enshrined in the scheme published back in 1998, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) referred, and it is probably still the case that we would not get acts of decommissioning without the confidentiality arrangements. However, they impact significantly on people's confidence and trust, and on the veracity surrounding the decommissioning process.
We can sometimes, on these occasions, become stuck in a doom-laden debate about the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, but my normally happy disposition leads me to remind the House that matters have improved and that there has been progress in Northern Ireland recently. Economic progress is self-evident: employment is at an all-time high, and Belfast city centre is a joyous place to visit these days, full of life and activity. Young people can go about their business there and visit restaurants, pubs and clubs without the constant fear that they have experienced in the past. It is true to say that a whole generation has grown up in a more peaceful environment.
David Burnside rose—
Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to give way because I have given time during the debate, but I shall do so just once.
David Burnside: I thank the Minister, and I shall be very brief. The majority of people in Northern Ireland would like to agree with her happy, optimistic view of the future, and that is how we should all look forward. However, does she not realise that it is the base of criminality growing in the loyalist and republican communities, which cannot be touched, beaten or destroyed, that has disillusioned people so much with the whole decommissioning and political process called "the peace process"?
Jane Kennedy: I do understand that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of it. It is because I am aware of that matter that I bend so much of my energies to working with the law-enforcement agencies to interrupt and prevent the development of that sort of culture.
In a light moment, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about going back to his office to prepare for government. I pay tribute to his diligence. If I were in his place at five to nine in the morning, I would have gone back to my breakfast. I shall have to read the Hansard account of the debate, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about trusting the paramilitaries, was inviting us to do so.
Lembit Öpik indicated dissent.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. The fact is that we cannot trust the paramilitaries. That is why we have the IICD, and why the role that it plays is so important. I think that that was the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) challenged the Government, quite properly, about what we are doing to maintain pressure on

1471
paramilitary organisations, and especially on the paramilitary organisation that has the greatest responsibility in these matters, given that its political representatives have participated in a power-sharing Government in the past. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government believe that we must maintain the pressure, and that we must therefore continue to provide the means by which decommissioning can be carried out. We are, with the IICD, resolutely determined to continue to complete decommissioning by all paramilitary organisations. One of the ways to achieve that is through dialogue, but there are many other ways. They include using the powers of law enforcement to interrupt, arrest and challenge the activities of the organisations on the ground.
All paramilitary organisations must give up violence completely, in a way that satisfies everyone and enables the people of Northern Ireland to move the democratic process forward. Every party that wants to be in government must abide by the same democratic rules.
I end by reminding the House of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who said that decommissioning was not an optional extra. He is absolutely right. Decommissioning has to happen, and we must continue to work towards making it happen.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
The House divided: Ayes 446, Noes 16.

Division No. 52]

[3:46 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ainger, Nick

Blizzard, Bob

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Blunkett, rh David

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Boateng, rh Paul

Alexander, Douglas

Borrow, David

Allan, Richard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ancram, rh Michael

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Brady, Graham

Darwen)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Breed, Colin

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Brennan, Kevin

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

Bacon, Richard

E)

Bailey, Adrian

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Baird, Vera

Wallsend)

Baker, Norman

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Barker, Gregory

Browne, Desmond

Barnes, Harry

Browning, Mrs Angela

Barrett, John

Bryant, Chris

Barron, rh Kevin

Burden, Richard

Battle, John

Burgon, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Burnett, John

Beard, Nigel

Burnham, Andy

Beckett, rh Margaret

Butterfill, Sir John

Begg, Miss Anne

Cairns, David

Beith, rh A. J.

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cameron, David

Bellingham, Henry

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bennett, Andrew

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Bercow, John

Fife)

Berry, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Best, Harold

Caplin, Ivor

Blackman, Liz

Carmichael, Alistair

1472

Casale, Roger

Flook, Adrian

Cash, William

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Caton, Martin

Foster, rh Derek

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Challen, Colin

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Barnet)

& Rye)

Chaytor, David

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Chope, Christopher

Francois, Mark

Clappison, James

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Gardiner, Barry

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Garnier, Edward

Pentlands)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Chryston)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Gilroy, Linda

Clelland, David

Godsiff, Roger

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Goggins, Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Goodman, Paul

Cohen, Harry

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Coleman, Iain

Grayling, Chris

Collins, Tim

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Colman, Tony

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Connarty, Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Conway, Derek

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cooper, Yvette

Grogan, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Gummer, rh John

Cotter, Brian

Hain, rh Peter

Cousins, Jim

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cranston, Ross

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Cruddas, Jon

Hammond, Philip

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Hancock, Mike

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hanson, David

Cummings, John

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Abingdon)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Curry, rh David

Hawkins, Nick

Dalyell, Tam

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Darling, rh Alistair

Heald, Oliver

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Healey, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

David, Wayne

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Hendrick, Mark

Stamford)

Hendry, Charles

Dawson, Hilton

Heppell, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Heyes, David

Denham, rh John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Dismore, Andrew

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Holmes, Paul

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Dobson, rh Frank

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Hopkins, Kelvin

Doran, Frank

Horam, John (Orpington)

Doughty, Sue

Howard, rh Michael

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Drown, Ms Julia

Sefton E)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Urmston)

Edwards, Huw

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Efford, Clive

Humble, Mrs Joan

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Evans, Nigel

Ingram, rh Adam

Fabricant, Michael

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Jack, rh Michael

Westminster)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jamieson, David

Flight, Howard

Jenkin, Bernard

Flint, Caroline

Jenkins, Brian

1473

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Michael, rh Alun

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Miller, Andrew

Hatfield)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Mole, Chris

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Moore, Michael

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Morley, Elliot

Jowell, rh Tessa

Moss, Malcolm

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Mountford, Kali

Keetch, Paul

Mudie, George

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Mullin, Chris

Kemp, Fraser

Munn, Ms Meg

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Inverness)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Norman, Archie

Kidney, David

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

King, Andy (Rugby)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

O'Hara, Edward

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Öpik, Lembit

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Lamb, Norman

Owen, Albert

Lansley, Andrew

Page, Richard

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Paterson, Owen

Lazarowicz, Mark

Pearson, Ian

Lepper, David

Perham, Linda

Leslie, Christopher

Picking, Anne

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Pickles, Eric

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Pickthall, Colin

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Plaskitt, James

Lidington, David

Pollard, Kerry

Lilley, rh Peter

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Linton, Martin

Portillo, rh Michael

Llwyd, Elfyn

Pound, Stephen

Loughton, Tim

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Love, Andrew

E)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Prescott, rh John

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Prosser, Gwyn

McAvoy, Thomas

Pugh, Dr. John

McCabe, Stephen

Purchase, Ken

McCafferty, Chris

Purnell, James

McDonagh, Siobhain

Quin, rh Joyce

MacDonald, Calum

Quinn, Lawrie

McDonnell, John

Rammell, Bill

MacDougall, John

Randall, John

McFall, John

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

McGrady, Eddie

Raynsford, rh Nick

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Redwood, rh John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McIsaac, Shona

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McKechin, Ann

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

McKenna, Rosemary

Bellshill)

Maclean, rh David

Rendel, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

McNamara, Kevin

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

McNulty, Tony

M-Kent)

MacShane, Denis

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Mactaggart, Fiona

Anniesland)

McWalter, Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Mahmood, Khalid

NW)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mandelson, rh Peter

Rooney, Terry

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Rosindell, Andrew

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Ruddock, Joan

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Atcham)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Salter, Martin

Martlew, Eric

Sanders, Adrian

Mercer, Patrick

Sarwar, Mohammad

Merron, Gillian

Savidge, Malcolm

1474

Sawford, Phil

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Sedgemore, Brian

Tredinnick, David

Selous, Andrew

Trickett, Jon

Shaw, Jonathan

Truswell, Paul

Sheerman, Barry

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Shepherd, Richard

Kemptown)

Sheridan, Jim

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Short, rh Clare

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Simmonds, Mark

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Skinner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Walley, Ms Joan

Lunesdale)

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Waterson, Nigel

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Watkinson, Angela

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

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Kincardine)

Watts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Soley, Clive

White, Brian

Spellar, rh John

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Steen, Anthony

Whittingdale, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Wiggin, Bill

Lochaber)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Willis, Phil

Streeter, Gary

Wills, Michael

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Winnick, David

Stunell, Andrew

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Sutcliffe, Gerry

C)

Swayne, Desmond

Wishart, Pete

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Woodward, Shaun

Syms, Robert

Woolas, Phil

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Worthington, Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Yarmouth)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Young, rh Sir George

Teather, Sarah

Younger-Ross, Richard

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thurso, John

Charlotte Atkins and

Tipping, Paddy

Vernon Coaker

NOES

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Burnside, David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Trimble, rh David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Hermon, Lady

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Hogg, rh Douglas

(Macclesfield)

Hunter, Andrew

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Tellers for the Noes:

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Nigel Dodds and

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Mrs. Iris Robinson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Regional Assemblies
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to the fifth allotted Opposition day. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the Government's proposals for elected regional assemblies as set out in their White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice grant the proposed assemblies limited powers, many of which are taken from local government; further notes that the Deputy Prime Minister has made statements suggesting that elected regional assemblies may acquire additional powers not reflected in the White Paper and that he intends that elected regional assemblies should open up the debate about the Barnett formula and public spending in the regions; and urges the Government to publish a draft Bill and to clear up this confusion by the end of June so that Parliament can debate the proposals in good time before the summer adjournment.
  The motion sets out a simple proposition—when there is a decision to be made about the way in which we are governed, the debate ought to take place on the basis of a clear indication of what is at stake; the time scale; and the powers of the institution that we are debating. That will enable debate to be clear, above board, transparent and honest. The way to achieve that is to publish legislation as early as possible. In the course of debate in the House, legislation is amended, but those amendments are themselves subject to detailed scrutiny and analysis.
  At the moment, there are proposals for regional assemblies, and there is a great deal of activity in pursuit of the case for or against them. However, we still do not have proposals about what the assemblies will actually do. If the powers of the proposed regional assemblies are to be closely based on the contents of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", it is difficult to see why the legislative propositions cannot be published at an early stage. If the powers are to differ substantially from that outline, the need for legislation is even more urgent, as our debate would be based on a false premise.
  We may have the proposals in July, hard against the summer recess. All Governments are desperate to get their business finished before the recess. There is not exactly a panic, but there is an urgency to getting business done. We come back for some slightly token sittings in September, which tend to be taken up with statements and other matters, before going into the party conference season. The referendums are supposed to take place at the end of October or in November, so there is a genuine danger that those legislative proposals will not receive effective debate in the House before people vote.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that in certain circumstances, if he had the right information, he would be minded to support elected regional assemblies?
  Mr. Curry: Until I have the right information it is premature even to ask such a question, because there is
  1476
  no basis on which I can come to a conclusion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's is likely to be no, because I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to concede to any regional assemblies the powers that would make debate worth while.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what powers would need to be devolved to win his support for elected regional assemblies?
  Mr. Curry: No, I am going to tell the hon. Gentleman what the Government need to spell out so that people can have a debate about their proposals. I believe that that there is very good answer to the problem—pass power down to the people. Indeed, I thought that nowadays the whole political tenor was about the new localism, empowering communities and pushing power down to the people, not pushing power up to a new tier of politicians—for which the demand in my constituency, and I suspect in others, is difficult to detect.
  Joyce Quin: In the past, before the right hon. Gentleman took on his current responsibilities, the Conservatives were very much opposed to regional assemblies. Is he saying that he is now open-minded on the subject because he is waiting for further information?
  Mr. Curry: I want information because a debate is taking place. The Government are spending public money on inciting people to vote in referendums, and it is a good idea that they should know what they are voting about—although I realise that the Government may find that a sophisticated concept. The Government initiated the process that leads to referendums on the basis of the most derisive show of interest imaginable—in Yorkshire, about 1,200 favourable responses from a population of 5 million were interpreted as enthusiasm for a referendum. The Deputy Prime Minister issued his blatantly biased "thumbs up, thumbs down" leaflets, with the whole argument skewed in favour of one side—that campaign cost £500,000 of public money—and toured the regions setting out the Government's position in a series of one-sided debates organised by the Government offices for the regions.
  The boundary committee set out preliminary suggestions for local government reorganisation in the two-tier areas, with some extremely curious anomalies. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, because it is close to home for him, it recommended a merger between the authorities of East Yorkshire and Selby—but Selby is part of North Yorkshire, which is two-tier, and East Yorkshire is unitary. So in Selby, people will have a referendum on whether they wish to join East Yorkshire, but those in East Yorkshire will not have a referendum on whether they wish Selby to join it. That is entirely anomalous; the proposals are riddled with such anomalies.
  Yes and no campaigns have been established in each region. The yes campaigns, at least, have the cash to set up offices and to hire staff. The Government overruled the advice of their own Electoral Commission and

  1477
  ordered postal ballots in the local and European elections in June in two regions where they were specifically advised not to do so—Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west. The commission said that the right conditions existed in the north-east and the east midlands, but recommended against in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west. This is clearly a dry run to whip up a vote in the referendum.
  A debate is under way, although I do not think that it is a subject of everyday conversation among the crowds at Gallowgate or the Stadium of Light.
  James Purnell: Does the right hon. Gentleman support regional government for London, and if so, why is it not good enough for the north-west and Yorkshire?
  Mr. Curry: We would not have set up regional government for London. The taxpayers who now face Mr. Livingstone's precept will be interested to find out whether the Minister for Local Government is going to cap Mr. Livingstone—after all, he has threatened to cap councils with a precept lower than the one Mr. Livingstone is talking about. Few people would think that the government of London is such a riotous success that it needs to be emulated in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Neil Turner: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that if the Conservatives ever got into power they would abolish the Greater London authority?
  Mr. Curry: The question was: would we have set it up? The answer is no. We will make our position clear when it comes to the election.
  Mr. Mark Field: Surely the point that my right hon. Friend is making is that if we are to have referendums, the people must be able to base their decision on the full facts. That should have applied four years ago in London, and it must apply in all the other regions if we are to have meaningful referendums that allow the people to have their say.
  Mr. Curry: It may be worth pointing out that the turnouts achieved in the referendums—even in London—are not such as to suggest that the people have overwhelming confidence in what they are being asked to vote about.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend speaks of the numbers involved in turnouts. Does he think that the lack of interest in the whole issue of regional government in, say, East Anglia, shows that people do not want an extra layer of government, do not want to know anything about regions, and think that this idea was dreamed up by a Government who have themselves created a democratic deficit?
  Mr. Curry: In my surgeries, I have not been overwhelmed by people making spontaneous demands
  1478
  for regional government. The idea has been dreamed up by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's enthusiasm for the process is palpably weak.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have a dream.
  Mr. Curry: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has a dream. We are all entitled to our dreams, but the Prime Minister gives the impression that his enthusiasm is kept strictly under control as part of the process of sharing the Deputy Prime Minister's dream.
  The common thread is that a debate is under way. However, the only place where there is no debate is Parliament. The debate will be without purpose until we know what the assemblies are going to do. It is a sort of blind date without Cilla Black.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Another dream.
  Mr. Curry: Even at my age, I can think of more exciting dreams.
  For the overwhelming majority of people in the three designated regions, the assemblies will mean a new layer of politicians, partly funded by the council tax. In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister wrote:
  "These proposals will not mean creating more bureaucracy."
  However, Unison apparently favours them, and Unison campaigning against bureaucracy seems implausible. The foreword continues:
  "In regions where people vote to have an elected regional assembly we will move to wholly unitary local government to ensure that Government remains streamlined."
  The notion that the Government are streamlined is curious, but I am willing to be informed about that.
  The Prime Minister has lost his bearings. In Yorkshire and Humber, the only two-tier area is North Yorkshire. That means that 90 per cent. of the people who live in Yorkshire and Humber already live under unitary councils. For them, a regional assembly is a new tier of government. There is no point in pretending otherwise. The Prime Minister may even have heard of Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Kirklees and Doncaster, some of the unitary councils that make up Yorkshire.
  In the north-west, two thirds of the population live in the great metropolitan areas of Liverpool and Greater Manchester. For them, an assembly will mean another layer of politicians. In the north-east, about which the Prime Minister might be expected to have an inkling, two thirds of people already live in the unitary councils of Tyneside, Teesside and Wearside. For them, too, a regional assembly means an additional set of politicians.
  What sort of politicians are we considering? They will be remote figures, elected by proportional representation. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister and I can agree on our dislike of proportional representation in general. I feel that his roots may be deep enough in old-fashioned Labour to be suspicious of that method of election. The politicians will be without constituency, mandate or identity. They will

  1479
  embark on a sort of Mary Celeste; on political ghost ships, condemned to sail the sea in a desperate hope of finding a port where they can finally be still.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that is better to have an elected extra layer of politicians or an unelected layer of bureaucrats?
  Mr. Curry: If it is so important to bring the quangos under political control, why will only the people of the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humber enjoy the wonderful privilege of regional assemblies? Why have the Government not concluded that the quangos are so onerous and such an affliction that people should be relieved of them in the south-west, East Anglia, the west midlands and the east midlands? They have not done that and they cannot therefore be so worried about the burden of quangos. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister's valedictory vanity is determined to impose regional assemblies on parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. George Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and, indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who used to be the leader of Manchester city council, that the electoral system in the north-west is almost certain to allow a British National party representative on the regional government? Would that be a good advertisement for the region?
  Mr. Curry: Whenever members of the BNP stand for election, it behoves everybody to look hard at what they are saying and to refute every single point that they make. Their campaigns are based very largely on lies and exaggerations, and nothing could be more dangerous than saying that we either ignore them or give them a breath of oxygen. I think that they should be given so much oxygen that they suffocate in their lies and misrepresentations.
  Lawrie Quinn: From our perspective in north Yorkshire, if we are to deal with parties such as the BNP, the way we do that is through all politicians calling for a maximum turnout in all elections. Will the right hon. Gentleman do so at the Dispatch Box, and ask everyone who can do so to participate in the referendums, too?
  Mr. Curry: I am entirely happy to do that. All of us are concerned about the level of turnout in some elections and the disaffection with politics. That may be partly because people are fed up with the number of elections. It is crucial, however, especially in cases in which such an issue is at stake, that people express their point of view. Certainly, I want people to vote; I just want them to vote no, as a matter of fact.
  Andy Burnham: On the question of the BNP, is it not the case that the only other political party, alongside the Conservative party, that opposes regional government is the BNP?
  Mr. Curry: That is one of the daftest remarks that I have heard in this Parliament for a long time. It is not
  1480
  worthy of the hon. Gentleman. I will take no lessons from him in opposing the BNP or anyone who is fundamentally anti-democratic.
  Mr. George Osborne: May I clarify the point that the no campaign in the north-west is the only campaign supported by Labour MPs, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives? It is an all-party campaign supported by all the parties in the north-west. What the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was saying is therefore completely erroneous.
  Mr. Curry: It is erroneous. It is true that the no campaign in the north-west has all-party support, and I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister had a little altercation with the former leader of Manchester city council when he was debating in that great city.
  Mr. Edward Davey: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming a grandfather yesterday. Secondly, in relation to the previous intervention, I know from meetings at which I have been present how hard he and some of his colleagues are working against the BNP. That should be put on the record.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, first, for the personal remark, and secondly, for the political remark. Both are matters of fact.
  How will an assembly be financed? We know that it will be financed by Government grant and by a further raid on the council tax, or income tax if the Liberal Democrats were to have their way. We will have precepts for parishes, precepts for police, precepts for fire and rescue services, and precepts for regional assemblies. The public who, as we all know, are cheerfully happy to pay up the current levels of council tax imposed by the Government will get another little supplement to their council tax if they vote for these assemblies. At least with the fire and police services, people know what they are supposed to be there for.
  What are the regional assemblies there for? The leaflets make them sound like powerhouses, yet how much public money do they control? It is about 2 per cent. of regional public spending. All this—with set-up costs and running costs of £30 million and £20 million a year—for sixpence in the pound. Will regions with an assembly be able to claim more money? Will they be able to change the balance of funding between the regions and parts of the United Kingdom? Will they be able to challenge—dare I say it?—the Barnett formula, because the Deputy Prime Minister has at least been giving the impression that if people vote for regional assemblies, there might be some rebalancing, to use the fashionable word, in relation to funding. I can find no evidence that that will be the case.
  Will the assemblies bring power closer to the people? The answer is no. They are an out-of-date, bureaucratic, unimaginative idea. The political debate is about empowering people in their communities—the Prime Minister talks about giving them control of their lives. In this case, however, the Government seem to want to disarm the citizen, remove power from the community, and push power upward, not down. The local councils will go, and be replaced by PR politicians. How many will represent North Yorkshire? We might get two, and Northumberland will probably qualify for one.

  1481
  I should be interested to know what bets the Deputy Prime Minister would lay on the level of turnout in the second set of elections to regional assemblies, if they were ever to come about. I suspect that the turnout in the European elections will be positively euphoric by comparison. People are being sold an illusion rather than the reality.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I wonder whether the Conservative party will support my private Member's Bill, to be dealt with on 27 February? It proposes the setting of a 50 per cent. threshold for turnouts. If a turnout were below that, the referendum result would not be valid.
  Mr. Curry: I did not know about the hon. Gentleman's Bill. I am usually deeply suspicious of private Members' Bills, but I feel a sudden warmth towards this one.
  In his foreword to the White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote:
  "we know that in some regions, the north-east for example, many people believe that only an elected regional assembly will allow the region truly to take control of its destiny and enable it to move up the economic and social prosperity ladder."
  The idea that the assemblies, with their small raft of circumscribed powers, will take control of anyone's or anything's destiny is sheer fantasy.
  We were told that the regional development agencies would close the gap between the regions. I recall the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—who is present—saying at the Dispatch Box that if the RDAs did not close the economic gap between the regions, they would have failed. And have they? No, they have not. We know that they have not.
  The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): They will.
  Mr. Curry: That is all very well, but how long do we have to wait for them to do it? It has not happened so far.
  If destiny is at stake, why do the citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom—the south-west, the west midlands, East Anglia—not have that sense of destiny being within their grasp? And if the assemblies are needed to control the quangos, why do those regions not suffer from the burdensome oppression to such an extent that they clamour for the assemblies that will introduce a democratic mandate and relieve them of that terrible weight?
  Mrs. Shephard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the size of the clamour from East Anglia? I believe that there have been some 547 responses.
  Mr. Curry: I did not realise that there had been such an avalanche of responses from East Anglia. It clearly represents a proportion of the population that might in any other circumstances be regarded as de minimis. The Deputy Prime Minister, indeed, might regard it as derisory. If it were a turnout in the poll it would be so
  1482
  derisory that he might even decide that the poll could not stand. But we do not know what a derisory turnout is in regional referendums, because the Deputy Prime Minister will not tell us.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has drawn an analogy with Scotland and Wales. Scotland has legislative powers and a very expensive, and as yet unfinished, Parliament building. It controls health, education, a significant part of economic development, and rural policy. We see the divergences on either side of the border growing daily. I assume that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will shortly announce the way in which the single farm payment will work in England. It is entirely possible that Scotland will adopt a different route; we have already observed that Northern Ireland and Wales are likely to do so. We accept that—it is one of the consequences of devolution—but it indicates that devolution is to a body with substantive powers that can actually be measured. Whether better welfare is delivered to Scotland or Wales is open to dispute, but the possibility is there.
  The Welsh Assembly can at least decide on the manner of application of national legislation. English regional assemblies will have none of the abilities that I have mentioned. So how will this manifest destiny be fulfilled? I simply do not understand how that can be done by controlling the market town initiative, or advising the cultural consortium in Yorkshire and Humberside on how it should go about its business. We all agree that the regions need better, more integrated economic development; we all agree that they need to catch up; but the idea that that will be delivered by regional assemblies is surely part of a fantasy world.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has done his best to inflate the importance of regional assemblies in his regional tours, in between having cheerful altercations with some of his colleagues. We are not yet—although we seem to be not far from it—at the stage where he is telling us that the assemblies can probably declare war. The actual role that emerges from the document is described almost invariably in the language of oversight, scrutiny, advice, request, consultation, influence, coordination—a permanent supplication for someone else's attention. When we look at them in detail, even the few identifiable powers are very circumscribed. Everywhere, the Government look over the assemblies' shoulder.
  Let us take the regional development agencies. One of the principal arguments is that the powers now exercised by the RDAs and supervised by the government offices should fall to regional assemblies. The assemblies must have regard to Government guidance in preparing their strategies. The Government will retain powers to ensure that RDAs and the assemblies address national strategies. The assembly must consult the Government on regional economic strategy. The Government can require changes and—this is the real killer—the regional assembly must consult the Government on individual board appointments to the RDA. That is the dimension of the autonomy. The regional assembly cannot even make a single appointment to the board of an RDA without consulting the Government—and that is supposed to be introducing some new democratic mandate.

  1483
  It is the same story for transport. The regional assembly can advise. It has powers to make proposals. It can be consulted. The only clear competence appears to be responsibility for allocating the rail passenger partnership grant. Only in the housing sector is there a ghost of a role, in the allocation of support for capital investment.
  The Government talk of new powers but when, and where from? The suspicion is that it will always be from local government and another shift upwards, not devolution downwards, of power.
  The real question is: what is at stake? What is the elector going to choose between? Where will the political choices lie? How will voting make a difference? It is the oldest question in politics. Does it matter? What is at stake? Do things change as a result of the vote? How will candidates define themselves in terms of political choice, or choice in relation to issues? There is no answer to that. They will not be able to define themselves. People will not have a choice. We will end up with assembly members with no mandate, no definable constituency, no accountability and no role, permanently packing their bags for a journey they never make.
  Those old stalwart watchers of the local government scene, George Jones of the London school of economics and John Stewart of Birmingham university, wrote in July 2002 at the time of the publication of the White Paper:
  "While this portfolio"
  of responsibilities
  "appears impressive, the responsibilities are only for preparing strategies rather than for taking action. Unless the regional assemblies are given considerable freedom to set their own strategies and to ensure their implementation they will merely be talking shops. The public will soon realise the assemblies have no real power and turnout will drop."
  A little later, they wrote:
  "The choice is between a body with strategic responsibilities but no powers of enforcement or a body with powers to enforce turning into what is effectively a supervisory body. Neither the regional advocates nor the white paper have resolved this dilemma."
  Therefore we need to know what is intended. I am happy to engage in debate.
  Mr. David Clelland: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, having reminded himself of those remarks, would like to confirm that that is also his view. Was it not he on the Radio Four "Any Questions?" programme who said that if these bodies had more power, he would be more sympathetic?
  Mr. Curry: If the bodies had significant power, at least there would be a sensible debate about how Britain was managed. I have said that repeatedly. What we do not have is a proposition, or any likely proposition, that is anything other than a token gesture to regional assemblies on the basis of an entirely false premise. So this debate is an entirely false one. People are being asked to vote for a pig in a poke that will not work. If I have to choose between that and devolving power closer to people in their own communities, giving them the ability to grasp real powers locally through representative government, I would make that choice. That is a better choice for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in the Welsh
  1484
  Assembly these days the biggest talking point is whether it should acquire more powers for itself and seek more powers from Government? Is it not likely that if these shadowy new regional assemblies are ever set up, the first thing they will try to do in the early years is to acquire more powers? What possible use will that be to the people whom they are supposed serve?
  Mr. Curry: They may well do so, because as it stands they will have practically nothing to do. Goodness knows how many days a week they will actually sit, what they will find to do, or how they will earn their pay. But the question is: where will they look for those powers? They will absorb them from local government, and that tier of government will become more remote.
  No one deities that the questions of political structures, of how we are governed and of how we secure regional economic development are vital ones, but the debate is still taking place through a glass darkly, even though the Government have the means to bring it into the open. The way to do so is to let us have real proposals soon, and the place to do so is in this House of Commons, where MPs are elected to real constituencies through real elections, in which real choices are placed in front of the electorate.
  4.30 pm
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes the Government's proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in their White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; further notes that the White Paper also set out the way in which the Government intends to build into its policy development the opportunities offered by the creation of elected regional assemblies to further decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; notes that the principal confusion about the proposed powers and role of elected regional assemblies appears to be on the Opposition benches; and condemns the continuing attempts by the party opposite both to deny people a say in how they want to be governed and to denigrate the value of that choice."
  I begin by offering my congratulations, with some envy, to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has become a grandfather. I look forward to the day when that might happen to me.
  I note that the Opposition's motion calls for clearing up "confusion" about elected regional assemblies. However, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the most confused that I have heard in my 30-plus years in the House of Commons. On the one hand, he said that the proposals were not clear enough, but he then picked out what he disagreed with and spelled out what he meant. What he really meant is not that the proposals are not clear, but that he does not agree with them. On the other hand, he said that he wants more powers—he did not spell out what they were—in order to carry out the promise that he has made for many years: a promise based on his belief in regional government, if it is "effective" regional government. I have read what he has said on the subject carefully, and perhaps I might refer to it.
  I am not surprised that the Conservatives are confused, because when it comes to devolution, the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether he is coming or going, as he made clear in his contribution. His approach is confusing not only for him but for his colleagues, as we discovered during interventions on his speech. It was not clear whether he was asking for more powers, or whether he supported the proposal. We will discover the answer as the debate progresses, but his approach is certainly confusing for the country at large.
  The right hon. Gentleman makes similar accusations against us, but he needs to make reasonably clear what his party stands for. If he wants to debate this issue, we need to know the essence of the difference between our two parties. In 1998, he told this House the following:
  "The arguments for devolution are well made…at Chequers"—
  he went to Chequers—
  "I argued the case for a federal structure in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 786–87.]
  Two years later, in York, he said:
  "In its potential to restore some vigour to local democracy, and to offer a constitutional settlement, regional government deserves real consideration."
  We understand the difficulties associated with the right hon. Gentleman's current job, but if that is his position—clearly, it is—he should tell us what extra powers he wants, rather than being so critical of us. He understands what we are doing, even though he says that he is confused, but surely he should make clear his own view, which he has yet to explain to the House.
  So despite the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the regions, it would seem that he wants to deny the people of the three northern regions the chance to vote for their own elected regional assembly and to take their own decisions. That is what this debate is about. Whatever we may say about the offer in terms of regional government, we are giving the people of the regions the chance to take a decision. The say is theirs, not ours. This is their chance to take a decision, just as the people of Wales, Scotland and London did. We are entitled to give the northern regions the same chance.
  Geraldine Smith rose—
  Mr. Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if people should have a choice on a matter so relatively small as the regional assemblies, the country ought to be given a choice in respect of a new European constitution?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: One can deploy that argument, and it has been deployed here before. We are prepared to have referendums—
  Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: May I reply to this point first? We are prepared to have referendums in respect of certain constitutional changes. We have made it clear that we think that the changes to regional government
  1486
  are necessary, and we will give a referendum. The idea is well established in Scotland, Wales and London, and it is exactly what we have to do for the English regions. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith).
  Geraldine Smith: The Deputy Prime Minister talks about giving the people of the north-west a choice. Yet only 2,900 replies were received from the whole north-west to the document people were asked to respond to. I carried out my own consultation on antisocial behaviour in my constituency and got 4,500 responses. If he can get only 2,900 from the whole north-west, is it not clear that there is no demand from the public for regional government?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, it certainly is not. There were 2,900 responses, but many of them represented petitions, and the total number involved was 50,000 throughout three areas. I have heard people in the House claiming authority for polls conducted on just 500 people. I am glad my hon. Friend had 4,500 replies to her antisocial behaviour survey, but since she is keen on manifesto proposals, particularly on the top-ups, I have to point out that this was a manifesto proposal, too. I hope on that basis that she will join me in this debate.
  Geraldine Smith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No. Sit down, and let me get on with it.
  Geraldine Smith: On that point.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I have given way. [Interruption.] Yes, I am.
  We are saying that we should give the people in the three regions the opportunity to have a debate.
  The Opposition have changed their mind so often on devolved government that we are all confused about where they stand. Let me remind the House that the previous Tory Government scrapped elected government for London, the old Greater London council. They did not consult or ask; they just nationalised it and took it over. It was the Conservative party—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a bit of a record, but let me just get through this.
  The Conservative party fought devolution for Scotland and for Wales every step of the way. Now, it seems, they support Welsh devolution and Scottish devolution, and they have a candidate fighting to be Mayor of London, so I assume they are not going to abolish the Greater London authority. If devolved—
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Give me a second.

  1487
  If devolved government is good enough for the 15 million people who live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, it is surely good enough for the 2.5 million people who live in the north-east, the 5 million in Yorkshire and Humberside and the nearly 7 million in the north-west. The Conservative policy is confused and inconsistent.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What we are interested in knowing is what powers the assemblies will have. The right hon. Gentleman said, for example, when he toured the north-east, that police would be taken under the control of the regional authorities, but that has been denied by other parts of the Government. What is the answer?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is not true. We are not putting police under regional assemblies. What we have said is that the Home Secretary is talking about having bigger police authorities because some of them are too small. There is a regional dimension, and decisions may be faced eventually, but that is not the position at the moment.
  The nine English regional development agencies have been a great success.
  Mr. Streeter: What?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has congratulated the Yorkshire agency on doing well, which might interest the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) who seems to be contesting that, too.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon can see that after three or four years of operation, the RDAs have been successful in the short term. I ask him to consider how much they reduce regional differentials. In the 1970s, we established the Scottish Development Agency, which was opposed by the Tories until they eventually came round to accepting it. The differential between the Scottish economy and those of a number of English regions has been reduced purely because—certainly, it has been an important factor—of the development agency. The Tories will keep the agency in Scotland, and they will keep one in Wales. I assume that they will keep one for London. So what is their position on RDAs? Let me quote their manifesto:
  "We will abolish the Regional Development Agencies that the Government has introduced and scrap Labour's plans for the new Regional Assemblies."
  Is that still the position? They will not do that in Scotland, where they will keep a development agency. They are keeping an agency for Wales. It is only the English regions that will have their development agencies abolished. Where is the logic in that? The question is quite clear; it is not confusing. Either they do it or they do not.
  I want to know exactly where they stand. Last October, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that his party no longer favoured outright abolition of the RDAs, but that he wanted to "engage" with them. That is an interesting point. Does the hon. Gentleman want to keep them, get rid of them or "engage" with them, or what? There is a clear position on the Labour Benches:
  1488
  we will keep the development agencies because they cart play a major part in reducing differentials between economies.
  Mr. Graham Brady: If devolution for Scotland has removed the economic differential between Scotland and England, what is the argument for maintaining the Barnett formula?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised the Barnett formula, so we can talk about financing. All sorts of assessments are constantly made about the financial arrangements between nations and regions, and the argument continues. If this debate were to occur in the northern regions, the Barnett formula would certainly come up because people think that it is unfair. If one examines departmental distributions and the new deal and housing programmes, however, it is not as unfair as people think.
  My Department must examine the balance between the Government's contribution and a council's contributions to council tax. We constantly review all sorts of financial arrangements—indeed, the Liberal party proposes the introduction of a regional tax. The Government are constantly examining the situation and are obliged to distribute resources fairly between nations and regions. That approach is right and it will continue.
  The Opposition were against the local authority-led regional chamber of assemblies, which has an important role in planning and scrutinising the regional development agencies, and proposed to abolish it. Indeed, more than 150 Conservative councillors are members of the regional chambers. However, the chairmen of the board in the South East England regional assembly and the South West regional assembly are Tories elected by majority Tory councils. It is difficult to listen to Conservative Front Benchers say that they will not co-operate. Have they agreed that the assemblies will be abolished? The Conservative party has promised to abolish them and we want to know its position because it seems confused.
  The previous Government created the Government offices for the regions. When the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to quangos, I presume that he did not mean that the Government offices for the regions are quangos. The Government offices for the regions contain civil servants from different Departments and must make decisions about many things. When the Government appointed the Government offices for the regions in 1994, they recognised the need to have a regional dimension to Government decision making—they were right and I fully supported them. The trouble is that they did not add democratic accountability and the offices remained part of the civil service.
  Under its previous leader, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Conservative party wanted to abolish the Government offices for the regions, but he found that he was abolished before it could be done—now he is reduced to strutting the boards of empty theatres while his replacement dreams on.
  I remind the House that in 1974 the Opposition created the metropolitan county councils of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Tyne and Wear,

  1489
  West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire and that they went on to create the counties of Cleveland, Humberside, Avon and Berkshire—they abolished them when they came back into government, which was confusing. A lot of trouble would have been avoided if they had consulted people first and got the right answer rather than setting them up and then abolishing them. No wonder there is confusion in the Conservative party.
  The little known fact is that we have regional government in this country today—it is there; it is operating. It was established by a Conservative Government in 1994, and I was fully supportive of it. The Government offices for the regions develop strategies to deal with economics, planning, transport, culture, housing, sustainable development, waste, rural action, skills, employment and skills and the European programme. Those strategies are decided by civil servants in our regions without any democratic accountability. We will not set up talking shops to discuss strategies because they already exist. The problem is that people in the regions are not co-ordinating such strategies or getting them working. We have regional government; we do not have democratic accountability.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does the White Paper say that the Government offices will be handed over to regional assemblies? No, it does not.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The White Paper does not say that because Governments will want to keep their civil servants involved in such matters. [Interruption.] We are not declaring a federal state. The framework is for the United Kingdom, and constant discussion even goes on in Scotland, Wales and London. Even if more power or more resources are discussed, we are not developing a federal government. We are developing a United Kingdom framework in which there are English regions and states, which will have their own secretariat, power and resources.
  Geraldine Smith: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I will not. I notice that when the Leader of the Opposition had his press conference, he had a load of bowler-hatted civil servants in the background to show that he wanted to get rid of bureaucracy. Well, he created most of it when he was in Government, and that is without mentioning the poll tax.
  Geraldine Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have told her that I will not give way to her.
  The Leader of the Opposition has made a point about the role of the state in his statements over the weekend, in his speeches about having a dream and in an article in the Yorkshire Post, in which he wrote:
  "we have a State…that is too unaccountable."
  He should know, because he was part of the Government who created most of it. Most of the quangos and the Government offices that are not
  1490
  democratically accountable were created by the Leader of the Opposition and the Government he belonged to. Now he has the cheek to tell the public that he will get rid of bureaucracy. What we want is more democracy and less bureaucracy. That is not confusing: that is our clear position.
  Mr. Streeter: The Deputy Prime Minister has just told us that the new elected regional assemblies, if they ever come into existence, will not oversee the Government offices for the regions, so they will not deal with the democratic deficit. The people who will vote on elected regional assemblies later this year need to know what powers they will have over strategic transport, because that is an important issue.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is an important point and I will come to it in a moment. I am not ducking it, because it is at the heart of the debate—as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Just hang on a sec, because I want to finish this point. In the elected regional assemblies, the people will elect the politicians who will make the big strategic decisions that affect their lives. We do not doubt that strategic decisions will be made. I have given the House the headings of plans that are being made day in, day out. Politicians in the regions who are elected by the people should have the right to decide the issues that affect their people. That is a simple democratic principle.
  Mr. Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Hang on, I shall give way in a minute to whoever it is—
  Mr. Prentice: On that point—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister will give way when he is ready to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I thought it was him. I have my friends: I have my enemies.
  Look at the kind of decisions that the Mayor of London and the GLA make. I assume that the Conservatives do not propose to abolish the GLA. Our regions will have more powers than the GLA, as the Mayor has made clear on the issue of housing. He wants similar powers to those that we propose for the regions. The Conservatives have a candidate for Mayor, and as far as I am aware his manifesto does not suggest that the GLA should be abolished. If those powers are all right for London, why are they not all right for the northern regions? We would give them the same powers and resources and put them in the same situation.
  The people in the north, where we will hold the three referendums, should have the same opportunity as the people in London. It is not my decision: if the people do not want an assembly, they will vote against it—[HON.

  1491
  MEMBERS: "Yes, they will."] Well, we shall see. The Conservatives said that about Scotland, Wales and London. They used the same arguments, but in the end they had to crawl on board in agreement. Nor do they have the guts to abolish those devolved bodies. If such a system is all right for London, why is it not all right for the three northern regions? That is a simple enough question.
  The House knows about the wide range of quangos that spend money in the regions. There are 180 in the three northern regions alone, at the last count—that is quite a few to look for—with more than 3,000 board members selected by civil servants. Elected regional assemblies will take power from central Government, not from local government, and they will give people a new political voice. Local authorities will continue to be responsible for local services. We are not making any changes to that situation. I notice that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that such powers should be exercised locally, which is a shifty little move away from regional government. Local government is the new locus that we talk about, and there is an argument for powers to be moved there. However, regions can make decisions that local authorities do not have the power to make, because they do not cover the whole area. That is why we end up with regional bodies. That is why we have regional civil servants, because local authorities cannot make such decisions on their own. They do not have the resources or the powers to operate outside their boundaries, and that is why we inevitably end up with a regional dimension.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend ready to give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister indicated assent.
  Mr. Prentice: The turnout in London was 36 per cent. It was 51 per cent. in Wales and in Scotland it was higher, at 60 per cent. Are there any circumstances in which the Government would set aside the result of the referendum in the northern regions because the turnout was widely regarded as derisory?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: There are no such circumstances. The only time the House did that was at the time of the Scottish devolution Bill, under the Cunningham amendment, and it was absolutely disastrous. There is no doubt that when people had the chance to vote, they voted overwhelmingly for Scottish devolution. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point about the number of people who participate and that should be of concern to the whole House. That is why we want postal balloting.
  Everyone knows from the evidence of the pilots that where there is a postal ballot more people turn out. Sometimes the turnout is as much as 50 per cent., which is very high. Those who say that people do not vote because they are uninterested in politics have to answer this question: why does turnout almost double, with increases of as much as 50 per cent., as soon as we change the voting method? That suggests that the answer is making the voting system more acceptable to the electorate—although not necessarily the politics.
  Mr. George Osborne: Last year, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire said
  1492
  that if the turnout in the referendum was derisory he would set aside the result. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be contradicting him. Can he explain that?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry, I did not pick up that point, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a proper answer. In principle, as I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we are not planning to include a condition on the proportion—[Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire will be able to reply to the point when he sums up the debate.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: If there was a threshold below which the result would not be accepted, would not that give the antis a deliberate tactic to persuade people not to vote? If more people voted, turnout would go above the threshold and the antis would lose the vote.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. George Cunningham's amendment was designed primarily to do that—it was an obstacle to deny the people of Scotland the chance to make a decision that the House would then make for them. People who suggest such provisions are usually against things, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) would agree—he comes from the same stable.
  On 18 December last year, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon told the House that the assemblies would be able to do practically nothing and he confirmed that in his speech today. However, at the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition, in one of his "dream" speeches said:
  "The regional assemblies…will take crucial decisions."
  Who is right? I wish that the Opposition would make up their mind. Will the assemblies make crucial decisions, or not? Will they be talking shops, or will they actually make decisions? The members of the dream team on the Opposition Front Bench should get together and work out the answer, because they are causing an awful lot of confusion.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The question that the Deputy Prime Minister poses is one that many people in the business community are putting to me. They do not have doctrinaire views on the issue, but they are willing seriously to consider a regional assembly if they can be satisfied that it will make a difference on things that matter to them, such as skills—through the Learning and Skills Council—and transport infrastructure. Can the right hon. Gentleman go further and give them the assurance that the assembly will be able to do the things that they care about?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: That is an important point. The assemblies will have real powers, such as planning, and I shall come to that in a minute.
  The Opposition need to work out where they stand. I believe strongly that regional assemblies offer a great opportunity for bringing more jobs and growth to the north. We are offering an alternative to the status quo. Those who do not want change have to answer for the

  1493
  status quo. If the north had had the average growth of the English regions, it would have meant a difference of about £30 billion. Do those who defend the status quo want the regional disparities in our economy to continue to grow? They need to make that clear.
  We believe that the assemblies will create extra jobs and prosperity and reduce the north-south differential. A recent publication on core cities by Professor Parkinson pointed out that a regional dimension is essential so that those cities can operate more powerfully. We tried to reflect that in the recent publication "Making It Happen—The Northern Way". We are trying to put Government social and economic investment into the development of a new growth area. We believe that we can achieve less bureaucracy and more democracy.
  Regional assemblies will be small and efficient. Each will have between 25 and 35 members. And each will be elected by proportional representation. I am not in the PR camp, but I brought it in for London. I am bringing it in for a very good reason—not for the Liberals, though I understand why they might welcome it. On strategic matters, with smaller groups one needs consensus, which means having a different way of voting. That is important in big regions particularly where political representation may dominate and there may then not be the proper balance of discussion on strategic issues, which are so crucial to the region.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is being too modest about his conversion to proportional representation. In a speech on 22 January in Manchester he said:
  "Proportional representation will bring stability and greater consensus to the system, both vital for a more strategic approach."
  The right hon. Gentleman was so right, and I hope that he is converted on the case of PR more widely.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I can guarantee that if one mentions PR in the House the Liberals will jump up in their dozens wanting to say something about it.
  I do not deny what I said then, and I have just repeated it. Consensus and stability, particularly on strategic decisions, are absolutely critical. I do not accept the same argument at a further stage, but I leave that aside for the moment. I am being driven bit by bit down this course. One has to do what is right, and it is my job to make a decision and be accountable for it.
  There has been a great deal of talk about the cost. We have said that it will be 5p a week for each household, but there will be offsetting efficiency savings. There is a figure of £25 million at the establishment, but the figures will have to be finally decided when the boundary committee says what the organisation of local authorities will be. Some applications have been for the county to be the unitary authority. I think that is the case in Durham and to a large extent in Cheshire and Lancashire. The situation will be different if it is necessary to establish a number of unitaries. As that matter is out to consultation, we cannot say exactly what the final cost will be. We shall come out with a final cost before the referendum, so that we can say what we believe the cost of the changes will be.
  1494
  The cost that we have quoted now came from the boundary committee, which has produced costs showing that there can be considerable savings. But let us come to that when we have more detailed information, which will be based on the kind of local government structure that there is to be in the first tier.
  In the White Paper we set out the minimum powers that elected regional assemblies will have. They will have responsibility for regional and sub-regional issues that the local authorities cannot handle on their own. We need to take forward jobs and growth, the promotion of social justice and improving people's quality of life. Most of the decisions are directed at those areas.
  The assemblies will also have specific functions to help deliver their own priorities and decisions. That is an important issue, and we should not dismiss it. They will make decisions about housing, transport, land and planning in the region, strategic issues at present dealt with by civil servants. The assemblies will produce the regions' spatial strategy, which puts all these matters together, as we have just announced in our "Northern Way" document.
  The elected assemblies will also take over from Whitehall responsibility for the regional development agencies, which in the three northern regions have a budget of almost £700 million. This means that the RDAs will be business-led, which business likes, but democratically accountable, delivering the assemblies' priorities for jobs and growth and implementing the strategy that the elected members for the region decide.
  Mr. Mark Field rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have to make headway.
  The assemblies will also have an important role in improving skills by working in and with the learning and skills councils. They will take responsibility for investment in housing—this is a change that we have made—and influence the billions of pounds being invested in the northern regions under the sustainable communities plan, which we highlighted in the recent "Northern Way" programme.
  Elected assemblies will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport on the allocation of funding for local transport in their regions, working with the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made it absolutely clear on 19 January that he wanted more public transport decisions devolved to the regional level.
  The situation is evolving, which will have to be reflected in the Bill when I bring it to the House. I shall come to that a little later.
  The assemblies will also have responsibilities for public health and bio-diversity, as well as being responsible for regional arts, sports, museums and promoting tourism. Those powers are not set in stone. I was asked whether the situation was changing, whether I was saying in the regions things that I have not said in the White Paper. It is true that the powers have been taken further than in the White Paper, but we said in the White Paper that the assemblies would evolve over time.
  Already, we have announced that the elected assemblies will be responsible for the £500 million that is spent in the north on regional fire and rescue services

  1495
  every year. We did not say that in the White Paper; we have learned over a period, and certainly during the dispute, that fire services should be delivered locally, but that we certainly needed a strong regional dimension to common procurement and the use of equipment, as well as when responding to major emergencies and to the responsibilities under the civil resilience programme, which deal with terrorist attack. All of that cannot be done by a local authority. Indeed, at the moment, any of those incidents are subject to a gold command procedure, where people get together and reach an understanding. That is not equivalent to a regionally agreed strategy, but it allows people to operate outside their areas of operation. To that extent, the regions will make that arrangement better.
  Let me say that the assemblies will also have new power from central Government, just like the Mayor of London—again, this was not said in the White Paper, but it is policy now—to direct local planning authorities to reject planning decisions that contravene their regional spatial strategy. We will give them the power to reject that planning application. Indeed, the Mayor of London has that power. If people want to have a regional strategy and planning applications go against those regional plans, as determined by an elected authority, it makes sense that those people should have the power to veto such decisions. That power was not mentioned in the White Paper, but we have now made it clear that we will allow local planning authorities to exercise that veto.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that
  "sensible Governments do not want great public debates".—[Official Report, 18 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 905.]
  Well, after his contribution today, I imagine that he would not want to get into them anyway. So he does not believe in talking to the people. Perhaps if the Conservative party had talked to the people, we would not have had to correct so many mistakes so quickly, such as the poll tax, which cost £30 billion and involved many civil servants—such confusion, such cost and an increase in bureaucracy. We will take no lectures from the Opposition on how we should handle decisions in the regions
  We believe in asking the people what they think, so my ministerial team and I will hold hearings in the three northern regions over the next few months. We will discuss with the people the powers that we have proposed for the elected assemblies, and we plan to publish a Bill before the House rises in July. I take on board that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that that should happen in June, but he only said that because he believes that we already know what those powers are. As I said, an active discussion is going on with the people at the moment, and we will present and reflect those views in our Bill.
  We believe that elected regional assemblies offer a great opportunity for the northern regions. We want to take power from Whitehall and give it to the people of the regions. We want greater prosperity, more growth, more jobs and more investment in our regions. Elected regional assemblies represent a new form of government, which is smaller, more focused and involves elected and non-elected stakeholders in decision making; a new vision, strengthening the
  1496
  prosperity of the north, increasing employment and reducing the present and continuing economic and political deficit in decision making; and a greater democratic accountability, providing more democracy and less bureaucracy. They will give the regions a greater sense of pride and a new political voice, but it is up to the people to decide. It is not Parliament's decision. It is not the Government's decision. It is the people's decision—their say, their choice. Just as we did for the people of Scotland, the people of Wales and the people of London, we are now offering that choice to the people of the north.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Deputy Prime Minister gave a barnstorming performance today, and I look forward to campaigning with him for a yes vote in the referendums in the three northern regions. I agree with much of what he said. I was also pleased to see him in thoughtful mode today. [Interruption.] That was not meant as a backhanded compliment. He is right that we need to try to find out whether extra powers can be given to regional assemblies, and those powers should be announced before the referendums.
  The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Liberal Democrat Members support regional devolution, but want a much deeper, richer form of it. I am afraid that that is why I have to tell him that, because of the careful wording that the Conservatives have proposed today, but for very different reasons from theirs, we will support their motion. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister should wait because we will support his amendment to it. [Interruption.] Both the motion and the amendment are totally supportable, and say different things. The Conservative motion says that the Government must publish their plans before the referendums. That is what we have argued for, as the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire knows, because he and I exchanged letters on that very point. He promised the Liberal Democrats in our negotiations on the paving Bill that the Government would introduce a draft Bill, and we want to ensure that that promise is honoured. That is why we can support the Conservative motion. However, the Government are absolutely right in their amendment, because we need to go much further and ensure that the false arguments that the Conservatives are raising in many other forums are dealt with. The Deputy Prime Minister made a good start on that today.
  If we do not get more powers for the assemblies we will be in danger of losing the argument. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows from his discussions in the regions and with his own colleagues—as many Labour Members have made clear today—many people are not convinced by the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice". That is why the Government need to go further. As the White Paper stands, not enough powers are coming down and too many are going up. Moreover, even the powers that the elected regional assemblies will have are circumscribed by the targets that they must meet, the Secretary of State's ability to override decisions and the absence of any executive powers for the assemblies. The fact that many of the policies and strategies that the regional assemblies will create will have to comply with national policy will circumscribe

  1497
  some of the powers and flexibility that they are supposed to have. We are seriously concerned about that point, and the Deputy Prime Minister must move on it.
  We shall support the Government in the referendums because the current proposals are a starting point—a building block for future, richer devolution. That is important. We also support the Government because, as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly and powerfully said, we have regional government at the moment; this debate is about accountability and democracy.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats support the referendums, but the Liberal Democrat group on Cheshire county council, and therefore the Liberal Democrat county councillors in Cheshire, opposes the referendum and is urging people to vote no.
  Mr. Davey: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is wrong. There are Cheshire Liberal Democrat county councillors who very much support regional devolution.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's problem is that he is not enthusing the pro-devolutionists with his proposals. The pro-devolutionists in my party and his are not exactly champing at the bit over these powers. Worse than that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) implied in his comment on the business communities, those people who are agnostic and non-doctrinaire about regional devolution are unconvinced. Worse still, the opponents of regional devolution are being emboldened by the strategy's weakness. The Deputy Prime Minister is in danger of giving the worst possible start to the referendums. He should move on this, and he needs to persuade his colleagues to do far more. Otherwise, we are in danger of missing a major opportunity.
  What should the Deputy Prime Minister do? He began to sketch out some thoughts today, which were very helpful, and I am sure that people will want to read the record. He mentioned that the Secretary of State for Transport is beginning to think about the potential for devolution. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his speech in Manchester the possibility that learning and skills councils could be devolved. He has also mentioned the three hearings that are to take place.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: On learning and skills councils, I was simply trying to give an idea of how regional thinking is developing and evolving. We made it clear in the White Paper that decisions in that regard were made nationally and locally, and that we would leave that new form of organisation alone. However, it was pointed out to me when I visited one of the regions that its training and skills agency had already appointed civil servants as regional directors who had to make regional decisions. I was just making the point that there had been that development in the field of training and skills.
  Mr. Davey: May I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go even further on that? Just appointing a new civil servant at regional level and making them accountable to the elected regional assembly is not good
  1498
  enough. We want powers to come down from Whitehall. We need powers over skills and training to come down from the Department for Education and Skills to the regions, so that they will have real money and real executive powers. If the Deputy Prime Minister adopts that train of thought, and takes that direction, he will get much more support.
  Mr. Brady: Has the hon. Gentleman heard the complaints from learning and skills councils around the country that the Government are already reluctant to devolve any power to them? The Government seem determined to hold on to the power centrally in the national Learning and Skills Council and to have no intention of giving power down to the regions.
  Mr. Davey: That is right. Some of us who want to encourage the Government in the direction of more localism and regionalism feel that sometimes their moves are too superficial and that the reality does not match up to their rhetoric.
  Following the last comprehensive spending review, I was pleased to see the introduction of pilots between the regional development agencies and some of the local learning and skills councils to see how the councils could work at regional level. The proposals need to go much further. The councils are to be asked to develop frameworks for regional employment and skills actions, but that is not sufficient, because they will have no executive powers, and no real thrust. There will be no real money behind the proposals.
  If the Government, before they publish the draft Bill, and way before the referendums, were to get the agreement of Ministers at the Department for Education and Skills that the whole budget for the learning and skills councils would go to the regions, they would win huge plaudits. The councils would complement the role of the RDAs and they would get massive support from business. Her Majesty's Treasury has published papers about the productivity gap between the regions, and the Chancellor seems to be thinking along those lines. Given the economic analysis that lies behind a lot of the Deputy Prime Minister's thinking, this would be a logical step for him to take. I would like to encourage him and offer him support towards making that move.
  Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman understand my impatience with the highly intelligent and extremely able people from business, the universities and various parts of the public sector who seem to be doing exactly what he is doing, namely waiting for the Government to come up with various initiatives? Surely he can see that this is a time for vision and for people with a real idea of the way in which the regions could develop to seize the opportunity that is being made available here, to engage with the yes campaign and to insist on more powers for the regions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn the art of making shorter interventions, especially when time is limited for these debates.
  Mr. Davey: In answer to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I thought that that

  1499
  is exactly what I was trying to do. The Deputy Prime Minister keeps saying that things are evolving, but we are arguing for a quicker, more visionary evolution, so that we can establish these powers before the referendum. We want to win the support of the people, but at the moment they are pretty agnostic. They are thinking, "These assemblies could just be talking shops if we aren't careful." The Deputy Prime Minister talked about a whole range of strategies that the elected regional assemblies will be able to develop, but there will be no budgets behind them. The assemblies will not have any executive powers in that regard. The powers that they will have will relate to being consulted and to advising other people, not actually to doing things. I thought that government was about doing things, not just about creating strategies for other people to implement.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a meeting took place last week at which revised housing targets were set for the east of England. As a result, the number of houses to be built in Essex up to 2021 was increased from 110,000 to 131,400, very much against the wishes of the people of Essex. That was a regional level decision. Do the Liberal Democrats support that new housing target for Essex?
  Mr. Davey: The problem that we have with the regional housing boards is that they are not democratic. They cannot therefore take into account the views of the people of Essex, for example. Our argument about these regional tiers of government is that, if they were made more accountable, the people could ensure that they answered for the decisions that they took.
  Mr. Francois: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point, but do the Liberal Democrats support that new target—yes or no?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He wants to ensure that the voice of the people of Essex is heard, but will he support an elected regional assembly in that part of the world?
  I turn now to transport. The most dispiriting aspect of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" was its failure to devolve powers in respect of transport. I understand that there are people in the Cabinet and at other senior levels of the Government who believe that many aspects of transport powers should be devolved. That would make huge sense, given the other economic functions involved.
  The first element of transport policy that I want to look at is roads. The Highways Agency already operates and produces plans on a regional basis. It would therefore be relatively easy to reorganise the functions of its officials as part of the draft Bill. That would make sense, as the agency would then be able to link in with the regional planning boards and regional development agencies, and with the sustainable duties to be placed on the elected regional assemblies. Transferring trunk road powers from the Secretary of State to the elected regional assemblies would send a clear signal that the Government were committed to devolution.
  The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed offers an example. There, people have been fighting for many years to secure the
  1500
  dualling of the A1, a move that has been resisted by successive Secretaries of State here in London. An elected regional assembly with powers over trunk roads would mean that the people of the north-east would be able to get the A1 turned into a dual carriageway. That would be a good example of devolution representing the interests of a region, by making sure that the things that people want to get done do get done.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: How would a region raise the money for that? Does the hon. Gentleman advocate a regional income tax as well as a local income tax? Is he arguing that there should be legislative as well as administrative devolution, on a par with what is happening in Wales?
  Mr. Davey: No, I am not in favour of legislative devolution. However, my party is very much against regional council tax precepting. We think that it would be much fairer and more efficient if the money were obtained through the income tax system. We want the block grants that are spent by Secretaries of State to be given to the regional assemblies, so that they can decide priorities. That is what happens in Scotland and Wales, and it works. I presume that the hon. Gentleman supported Scottish and Welsh devolution, although, as he does not often agree with his own Front Bench, he may not have done. We believe that the block grant money could be used in the way that I have set out.
  Mr. George Osborne: I am not following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Decisions to dual the A1 or expand the M6 have to be taken by national Government. The costs are so huge that no regional block grant would be big enough. He is therefore erroneous in saying that a regional government could decide to dual the A1.
  Mr. Davey: First of all, I did not mention motorways, only trunk roads. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that dualling the A1 is the same as making it a motorway he clearly has no knowledge of road transport policy. Moreover, the costs involved are not so great as he seems to think. If the budgets come down from Whitehall to the regional assemblies, they can make decisions about priorities. That is what devolution ought to be about.
  Other aspects of transport policy could be devolved in due course. I do not suggest that this is the right time to devolve the strategy governing the rail industry. The Government are in a mess on the matter, and have put the industry in turmoil, but it could happen in time. The Strategic Rail Authority is already organised on a regional basis, so it is possible that it could be properly regionalised in five or 10 years.
  Other transport policy powers could be devolved to the regions. The lesson is that organising transport policy in Whitehall has not produced happy results. The Deputy Prime Minister must know that, as he had enough problems sorting out transport policy across the country. The problem is that, in many cases, Whitehall does not know best and it has too many other things to do. Giving away powers so that other elected bodies can deal with some matters would ensure that the country's transport policy was far more effective overall.

  1501
  I have mentioned two matters—the role of the learning and skills councils, and the Highways Agency's potential in respect of transport—that the Government need to consider before producing the draft Bill. The environment is a third area worth looking at. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs contains a number of quangos, some aspects of whose work should be devolved, either to regional government or, at a lower level, local authorities. We know that Lord Haskins was pointing in that direction in his review. Aspects of the work of the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Agency must be prime targets for regionalisation, or even localisation.
  Some of the money that is spent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on area-based initiatives, for example, should be given to regional assemblies so that they can decide their priorities on economic regeneration. If the Government did that, how attractive would it be to people in the regions? The chances of winning a yes vote in a referendum would be massively improved.
  I wish the Deputy Prime Minister well in his battles in Whitehall and his ministerial colleagues. He might be reluctant to reopen some of the negotiations that must have been held before the White Paper was published, but from his sojourns throughout the three northern regions, he will know that a real political dynamic exists and that he must reopen the negotiations to ensure that what the Government offer is richer.
  I also wish the Deputy Prime Minister well in the major public hearings about which we are learning, but to take the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), I hope that he will allow the House to debate in Government time how we should devolve more powers. I hope that we will hear in the reply that when we get an announcement on the basket of further powers to be devolved, a statement will be made in the House and a proper publication will be produced prior to, or to coincide with, publication of the draft Bill.
  I thought that it was brave of the Conservatives to initiate this debate. We discovered from the Deputy Prime Minister and Labour Members' interventions that they have not exactly sorted out what they want to do. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has some problems in trying to balance his views with those of his party. His position is distinguished and well thought through, but the problem is that it is diametrically opposed to that of the party for which he speaks. When we debated the matter during the Queen's Speech debate, it was interesting that he said:
  "if the regions were offered devolution in the same way as Scotland, we would be bound to consider that"—[Official Report, 1 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 247.]
  The Conservative party seems to be showing an almost Disraelian attitude to regional devolution under the right hon. Gentleman. He wants to outbid the Labour Government and go even further. I hope that he will come forward with detailed policies and try to persuade
  1502
  the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) of that, because it really would represent a contribution to the debate.
  Geraldine Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the matter should not be turned into a party political issue? Does he accept that there are different views on both sides of the House? I appreciate that the Liberal view is to support both sides, but that is nothing new for the Liberals.
  Mr. Davey: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Lady, just as the Deputy Prime Minister wishes that he had not given way to her. I am afraid that we have a clear position: we support much stronger devolution, and we are on the Deputy Prime Minister's side, as far as he goes, but we want him to go further. We are very much against the position adopted by the hon. Lady.
  I have succour for the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon because some thinkers in the Conservative party actually agree with him.
  Mr. Dawson: Name them.
  Mr. Davey: I will name them. A gentleman called Denis Whelan wrote a policy brief for the Bow Group in May 2002 called "Devolution All Round: A Manifesto for 2005", which makes interesting reading. Its executive summary says:
  "Although the Conservative party may be quick to criticise the new White Paper on regional assemblies, there are plenty of reasons why it should embrace devolution to the English regions as the centrepiece of its own campaign at the next general election. Such a change is worthwhile on constitutional grounds alone, and—much more importantly—is politically workable and consistent with core Conservative views on the reform of public services, liberty and Europe."
  So some people in the Conservative party are, like the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, genuinely trying to engage in the debate. The document from the Bow Group is interesting because it suggests devolving powers to the regions on transport, and even says that policing powers could be devolved to the regional level.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that Sir Cyril Smith, who is supporting the no campaign in the north-west, is a rather better known figure and therefore carries more weight?
  Mr. Davey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now approves of my former hon. Friend, who is a powerful exponent of many views. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has is that his boss does not agree with him. We on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and in the parliamentary party are united. The Tories are totally divided on the issue, and that is why they take such an incoherent position.
  This has been an interesting debate. We have seen how utterly confused the Conservatives are; they cannot tell us which powers they want to devolve, whether they want to devolve them, or what their strategy is. The Government have shown that they are still thinking, which is very welcome. They should be open-minded. The debate has misfired from the Conservatives' point of view because it has given the Government a chance to show that they are open-minded and thinking. It has

  1503
  given hon. Members on both sides of the House a chance to encourage the Government to think more widely and to go for outright regional devolution. If they do so, their chance of winning the yes vote next October will increase massively. All power to the Government's elbow—they should go much further, and then we can really devolve power in this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who not only made a powerful speech in favour of regional government, but has pursued the issue vigorously since the 1970s and is now—I hope—bringing it to fruition. I congratulate him on that; it is a major contribution.
  I am concerned about the mass of quibbles that were the only arguments that the Conservative Opposition could mobilise against the proposals. I thought that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was going to bring a new decisiveness to the Opposition, but all he has done is quake more vigorously than the old Opposition. Essentially, all his points were quibbles. He said that there would be more politicians—if they were like him, that would be a bad thing. Politics is about politicians. This country has fewer politicians per capita than any other system, particularly the federal systems of Australia, Canada and Germany. We need a useful training ground for politicians, and local councils that are in tight chains and controlled from London cannot provide it.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposed system would cost more. Democracy does cost; that is an unfortunate fact about it. It is more expensive than a dictatorship or allowing bureaucracy to make decisions. We are about making institutions and bureaucracy that already exist accountable to the people. I therefore cannot understand the Opposition's quibbling nature. Let us have something clear-cut. They are either for the proposal or against it—not on the one hand possibly and on the other perhaps, with no decision.
  I am a passionate advocate of regional government. The politics of government of this country has been dominated for far too long by London, and local government has been transformed into a system of transporting begging bowls by train or plane up and down the country—begging for decisions that should be made locally to be made out of London. The great wen has become more and more dominant in our lives, and it is right to give more powers, institutions and accountability to the regions, so that local people can control matters locally and Government can be made accountable. We should bring democracy closer to the people. There is a craving in modern society to be listened to, and the proposal is a way of satisfying that craving.
  Increasingly, there is a regional basis to modern life. One has only to consider the M62, which in a sense is the village street of the new north. It unites the social,
  1504
  business and cultural capitals of the area into one developing corridor. Life is no longer lived locally: people travel further to work; they travel from Grimsby to Hull and Sheffield to go to the theatre; they travel all the way to Hull, Sheffield and Huddersfield to go to university; and they shop at Meadowhall. Nowadays, great regional shopping centres are an important basis of life—in the north-east, people shop at the Metro centre. It is right to recognise that, increasingly, we live on a regional basis. Regional institutions alone can manage a big enough framework, have the authority to make a difference to people's lives, and give us effective accountability and controls. We should therefore pass functions down from London to them. and make those functions more accountable to the people of the area.
  I am glad that throughout the north people are working together on this issue, because that is the part of the country that I come from and am proud of. However, it has been badly treated by successive Governments, so we should give it a voice. We get a bad deal in the north and receive less public spending per capita than any other part of the country. London gets all the big spending projects, such as the Olympics and the dome—it is welcome to the latter. We have suffered far more grievous blows from the decline of our basic industries than the south has, and we have higher unemployment, and lower levels of investment, education, skills and training. All those issues have to be tackled. We need a platform from which to fight back and address the north's demands and needs.
  We have seen what synergy has produced in Scotland, where the regional development agency is powered by democracy in the form of the Scottish Parliament. We need and want such development in the north, because we have seen the beneficial effects in Scotland. Given those genuine demands, the Tory position is pathetic. It is rather like the old Mort Sahl joke from the 1950s—old Republicans and, perhaps, old Conservatives believe that nothing should ever be done for the first time, whereas modern Republicans and, presumably, modern Conservatives, believe that it should be done, but not now. That stems from fear, and the Tories have a history of such behaviour—they opposed the Scottish Development Agency, Scottish devolution, Welsh devolution, the London assembly and the Mayor. They oppose the introduction of such measures, then quickly accept them. They will do exactly the same with regional government for the north, unless the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon wants to tell us that they will abolish the London assembly, devolution in Scotland and Wales, the Scottish Development Agency and regional development agencies. As he does not want to do so, the same difficult learning process—the Opposition are the SEN material whom we have to teach—will take place on regional government.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that he might support regional government if it had more power to make a difference. His constituency predecessor, Mr. Watson, echoed that argument in the no campaign in Yorkshire. They say that they would support regional government if it had more powers, but I do not believe that they would. Regional government should have more power, but do they not accept that there is a case for creating regional government to which we can attach more powers as it proves itself, as the

  1505
  people accept it and as it creates a useful role for itself? We must build the base before we can concede those powers, and that is what the Government propose to do.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No, time is pressing, as it is for other speakers.
  I am in favour of the Government's proposals, as I believe that the north needs the same powers as Scotland. I believe that we should have powers over the police, the health service. education, and learning and skills, and I should like to see the introduction of a regional tax component. I admit that that is the ultimate aim, but we must start to build the structures before we move towards a larger perspective. If the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon would support regional government with more powers, I do not understand why he is not participating in the consultation that the Government and Labour Members are holding on the powers of regional assemblies. I believe that the most convenient consultation for him is in Calderdale, and I would welcome him there. I shall hold a similar consultation in Grimsby, where he would also be welcome. He could come along and tell us what the powers should be. That would be a useful contribution to the debate, in contrast to his extensive quibbles this afternoon.
  It is sensible to have regional government and to let the north lead the way, because it is an area where all three entities have a sense of regional identity and pride—perhaps not as strong overall as it is in the Geordie nation, although Yorkshire is a pretty proud county. If we are allowed to lead the way, we will set an example that the east midlands and west midlands will want to follow, and so it will spread down the country—development that progresses from north to south instead of being imposed from south to north.
  The process will not be easy, because it is difficult to break Whitehall's grip on anything, or to get Departments and civil servants to transfer out of London to bring jobs to the regions. Nevertheless, we have to make the attempt, because the north needs that stimulus and those powers. This provides a platform on which to fight back. On that basis, I say more power to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and more power to the assemblies—let us support them and tell our people about the advantages that they will bring.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchel) said—it is very difficult to make Whitehall let go of powers. Any optimism about being able to grab such powers in future is therefore utterly misplaced.
  I must, however, challenge the hon. Gentleman's attempt to rewrite history in relation to the Conservative party, which is not, and never was, a stick-in-the-mud party. He will remember 1979 as well as I do. The start of Mrs. Thatcher's Government started the revival of the north—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may laugh, but let me
  1506
  tell him that in my years of experience of this Government, the more noise Labour Members make, the weaker their case.
  The revival of the north commenced as the old industries died and were replaced by the new industries that are benefiting the area today.
  Mr. Jenkin: Did my hon. Friend read what the director of CBI North East, Steve Rankin, wrote in an open letter to the Deputy Prime Minister in The Journal? He said:
  "You must admit that the North-East has changed dramatically for the better over the past quarter of a century and that there are sound policies in place".
  That past quarter of a century includes 18 years of Conservative government.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did read that, and it is completely true.
  Mr. Neil Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: In a minute.
  I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that we introduced organisations such as the Tyne and Wear development corporation that were amazingly successful—one can see the results in the city of Newcastle today—and that we did it in the teeth of opposition from Labour Members, who believed that the old local government structure was the right way to deliver improvements in the north-east, and resisted our new, modern method, which was ultimately so successful. The conservatives with a small "c" are to be found on the Government Benches, not on these Benches.
  Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: Not for the moment.
  The more bluster that we hear from Government Front Benchers—today we heard some vintage bluster from the Deputy Prime Minister—the more we realise how weak is their case. The Deputy Prime Minister is in danger of presiding over another constitutional cock-up to follow the Lord Chancellor's dismissal on the back of an envelope, the muddle over the setting up of the supreme court and the muddle over House of Lords reform.
  It all started in December 2002 with the first public consultation. Since then, we have had an Act of Parliament, a White Paper, regional roadshows, decisions on postal voting in the referendums, decisions about cash for the campaigns and the establishment of a boundary committee to consider how to dismantle the local government structures in, to cite my local area, Northumberland and County Durham. However, we have had no real meat in terms of details about the referendum vote in October. Having listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's speech—I shall read it very carefully in Hansard, although I imagine it will take a bit of editing—I am frankly none the wiser about what will be in the Bill in July and what will be voted on in October. Regional assemblies have been a live issue for

  1507
  so long that it is wrong that the public, who have to decide on the matter, have no idea where genuine power lies and how much power there will be.
  If someone approached me and said that a major effort would be made to devolve powers from Whitehall to local levels, I, like many hon. Members, believe that we could have a sensible debate. However, that is not on offer. The Liberals, in their wonderfully optimistic way, appear to believe that once regional assemblies are in place, they will grab all sorts of powers, as if they would have the money and power to dual-carriage the A1 in Northumberland. They will not do that. We know perfectly well that the Home Secretary will not give up powers over the police and that the Secretary of State for Health will not put his job on the line when delivering targets to a regional government. Whitehall will not give such powers to regional assemblies.
  The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned—if I understood him correctly—118 quangos in the north with 3,000 board members. He appeared to imply that regional assemblies would take power over them. Does that include national health service trusts? Will such matters form part of the so-called new regional assemblies' bailiwick? We called the debate because we wanted some information about what would be discussed and what we should campaign for between now and the autumn, when the referendum will take place. However, we are none the wiser.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has travelled around the country making all sorts of promises. He hinted that regional assemblies would mean an end of the Barnett formula, which is amazingly controversial in the north-east of England because we feel that it discriminates unfairly against us. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore been whispering to people in the north-east, "'Ere mate, once you get this assembly, it'll be all right. We can scrap the Barnett formula." However, he will not say that north of the border; he had better not let Scottish Labour Members of Parliament know about it.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned giving regional assemblies powers over the police. I have a letter from the North East assembly, which is called "The Voice for the Region" and is a prototype regional assembly. The letter gives a report of a meeting between the Deputy Prime Minister and business people. It states:
  "Mr. Prescott also highlighted examples of moves towards devolved decision-making in both the police and fire services".
  The right hon. Gentleman therefore tells local people things that he knows he will ultimately not implement because he will not have the power to do so.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has also hinted that learning and skills councils will be organised on a regional basis. Our learning and skills council in Northumberland is effective and well run. We do not want to lose that local body and have it placed on a regional basis. It deals with problems in Northumberland that, in some ways, are different from those in other parts of the region. Some are unique to Northumberland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned the letter that Steve Rankin, the director of CBI North East, sent to The Journal, which
  1508
  decently published it, because the Deputy Prime Minister failed to invite him to the business meeting and he believed that he had to respond.
  Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman may be a little confused. Steve Rankin was present at the business meeting that the Deputy Prime Minister conducted in Newcastle two or three weeks ago, during which some members of the business community expressed strong support for regional government.
  Mr. Atkinson: Perhaps the article is out of date. It states:
  "The CBI's invitation to the meeting must clearly have gone astray, so I shall not be there."
  Perhaps Steve Rankin got an invitation as a result of the article. If it was lost in the post and he subsequently went to the meeting, I apologise. However, the article is sensible and it is worth quoting to show hon. Members the views of a leading member of the business community. It states:
  "All that is on the table is the proposal for an elected regional assembly, without any convincing evidence that Ministers and Whitehall civil servants are prepared to decentralise any significant decision-making to the region. The Treasury, in particular, remains reluctant to relinquish any of its spending powers to regional bodies. So what we are left with is the democratic rump."
  That sums up the views of the business community. We have structures but no sensible powers for the direction of the regional assembly.
  My last point is that the campaign for regional government is causing serious collateral damage to the region, because of uncertainty about the direction in which it will go and what powers it will have. All sorts of vested interests say that the north-east has real problems to which the solution is a regional assembly. Clearly. however, these talking shops will have little ability to solve our regional problems. We should be highlighting the positive aspects of the north-east region. Whatever Labour Members say, the days of coal, shipbuilding and heavy industry have gone, and we are building a new economy in the north-east based on many local businesses that have grown up, are successful and are becoming successful. We have important companies such as Northern Rock, Sage, and a well-known national baker, Greggs. We have universities, with more than 35,000 undergraduates and more people employed in academia in Newcastle than in shipyards.
  The economy is therefore changing, but what we get is people highlighting the problems all the time. There is a campaign for the learning and skills council to be taken over because we have the worst record on skills, education and training in the country. As a result, the negative things about the region are highlighted all the time. What makes me angry is that those disadvantages, which we are struggling to overcome, are being highlighted on a false premise that the solution is to set up another talking shop—in our case, a 25-member assembly—which will have the powers to put that right, when we know perfectly well that it will not.
  The people of the north-east are being conned—the regional assembly will not help them, it will not help to solve the problems of the region, it will cost them a considerable amount of money, it will change the local

  1509
  government structure in a damaging way, taking local decisions away from people, and it will provide no benefit in the long term to the economy of the region.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Neil Turner: It is a sad fact that the more the Conservatives talk of freedoms for local government and so on, the more they oppose those freedoms. We saw that in their opposition to this devolution of powers, and we saw it in the powers that they took away from local government when they were in office. We saw it in their opposition to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London Assembly and even foundation hospitals. Now we see it in their opposition to regional assemblies.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) commented on the regional development agencies and why they were opposed by people in the north-east and the north-west. We did not oppose the idea of regional development agencies; we opposed the fact that they were not accountable to anyone in the regions in which they were set up. The whole argument about regional assemblies relates to the democratic deficit and the need to provide accountability
  Mr. Atkinson: I want to make it clear that I was talking not about the regional development agencies but about the regional development corporations, which were slightly different.
  Mr. Turner: I agree, but that reinforces the point, because the regional development corporations were much less accountable than the regional development agencies, which at least have some accountability to the regional assemblies that were appointed.
  This country's constitution is an unwritten one. One of the great benefits of that is that incremental changes can be made to it on a basis that suits the changing needs and requirements of society. I therefore welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals to allow additional powers, and I hope that the eventual Bill will include a clause that will give the Deputy Prime Minister, or whoever is the Secretary of State at the time, the ability to devolve more and more powers down from central government to regional assemblies. What we should be doing is making sure that we can prove that the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber can make a success of their powers and can move forward to gather more powers as they are more successful.
  The motion shows not just that the Conservatives are opposed to regional assemblies but how old-fashioned their thinking is. They are living in a time warp in terms of the way in which powers are looked at. They seem to think that powers are as they were previously, when there was no crossover or connection between various organisations and local authorities, and no co-operation. That is not the case. The whole point about our excellent councils is that they do cross over with and talk to other organisations, both within the council and outside, which makes them much more effective. The
  1510
  world has moved on, and the regional assemblies will be able to be much more co-operative and partnership-orientated than they would have been in the past.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The motion does not say that the Conservative party opposes elected regional assemblies—mainly because its Front Benchers are confused about their position.
  Mr. Turner: That may well be true, but no one would think, having listened to the speeches we have heard, that the Conservatives were other than opposed to the idea. Certainly all the Conservative Members from whom I have heard have been campaigning for a no vote, at least in the north-west.
  Strategic bodies such as regional assemblies must consider local needs. As the White Paper says, they must take account of planning, housing, transport and so forth. That does not subvert the role of local authorities; it enhances it. Just before Christmas, I received information from the Government office for the north-west about the capital programme for council housing allocations. I do not think decisions like that should be made by bureaucratic organisations such as the Government office. I think they should be made by a body that is accountable to people in the north-west.
  The point about the Government office in the north-west is not just that it is not accountable to those people. It is, in fact, accountable to Whitehall—to civil servants who are answerable to Ministers. That removes it a step further. Bureaucrats who have no idea of the difference between Wigan and Wigton, or between Stockport and Southport, are making decisions about the north-west. A regional assembly that is rooted in the north-west will understand its problems, and will be able to make decisions about priorities.
  It would be wrong of me to suggest that I do not want more powers for the regional assemblies. I think that virtually everyone who supports the principle of regional government wants them to have more powers. Nevertheless, I think that we in the north-west should prove that we can make a success of things before earning those extra powers. Powers in themselves are not necessarily the important, defining issue. Manchester city council, for instance, failed in its bid for the Olympic games and was understandably dismayed, but not disheartened. It learned from its failure, realised where it had gone wrong, and made a successful bid for the 2002 Commonwealth games.
  Manchester has no more powers than any other unitary district council, and has fewer resources than some. It looked beyond its own boundaries: it presented other members of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, businesses, universities and voluntary bodies with its hugely successful plan for the Commonwealth games. In that instance, it was not power but vision that was important. The council's determination to work with all its partners made the games a success.
  I believe that there will be a yes vote in the north-west, for a number of reasons. We are proud of our history. Our region was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, which shows that we have the ability and the skills to ensure that we are part of the new economies.

  1511
  We are proud of our cities. Manchester is a hugely developing city. It is regenerating itself. Liverpool is to be European city of culture. We are hugely proud of that and of the way in which it has gone from the devastation caused in the 1970s and 1980s to the kind of city that it is now.
  We have vitality. The north-west's music industry is tremendous. The arts in the north-west are bursting with vitality. We have the capacity and capability to ensure that our world-class universities, businesses, entrepreneurs and work force become leaders of the new economy, just as we were the leaders of the old economy.
  More importantly, in the north-west, we have a vision. We know where we want to go. We have the determination to make that vision a reality. More importantly still, we have the confidence to ensure that we forge our future in the north-west and make it a place in which children will be proud to be brought up. The best way of achieving that is to ensure that we have the capacity and ability, through the structures of the north-west—the regional assembly—to turn that into reality.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: This has been an interesting debate, not least because the interventions by the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) on the Deputy Prime Minister showed that it is not a party political debate, as Government Front Benchers would have us believe. In the north-west last summer, I got together with the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and other Labour Members to create a no campaign. Indeed, we got together with the Labour leader of Lancashire county council and other local authority leaders from the Labour party. The reason we were able to create a broad coalition, which has not been replicated on the yes side to any degree, is that people have a number of concerns about regional government in the north-west.
  Some, like me, I fully confess, are against regional government. I represent a county seat in Cheshire. We do not want Cheshire to be abolished. We do not want its identity to be abolished. We do not want decisions to be taken away from the rural community in Cheshire and taken into metropolitan areas. However, the reason why the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East and for Manchester, Blackley object to the proposal is that they want to see a city government form of region for Liverpool and Manchester respectively. Indeed, some people have joined our campaign because they do not think enough powers are being devolved.
  Mr. Dawson: Can the hon. Gentleman please explain to me, as one Member from a rural constituency to another Member from a rural constituency, what the particular advantages of city government for Liverpool and Manchester would be for the people whom we represent?
  Mr. Osborne: With the greatest respect, it is of no great interest to my constituents how Manchester or Liverpool govern themselves. That is an issue for the people of Manchester and Liverpool and their representatives, not an issue for the people of Cheshire.
  1512
  We have come together, as a broad no coalition that is relatively well funded and organised at this early stage, to oppose the Government's plans and the yes campaign. We were prepared to have an argy-bargy with the yes campaign and to trade literature with it. We were less prepared for the extraordinary Government propaganda campaign that has started, funded of course by the taxpayer.
  The campaign is exemplified by the leaflet that I have here, and I believe that similar leaflets have gone out in other northern regions. It is called "A new opportunity for the North West" and was sent to me by the director of the regional government office. It purports to be an information leaflet but it is the most biased, one-sided piece of propaganda that has been produced by a Government Department in living memory. It is extraordinary.
  The picture on the front cover is of four people in Blackpool. There are two rather surly looking men with hats on with their thumbs down and two smiling young ladies with their thumbs up. That sets the tone for the argument throughout the rest of the leaflet.
  For example, there is a section on a new form of government. It says:
  "You could vote for a new form of elected government in the North West, a regional assembly that would:
  give your region a voice".
  Excuse me, but I thought that our region did have a voice—through its Members of Parliament. I am bound to say that the vast majority of those Members are Labour Members, but if the Government do not think that that has resulted in the north-west's having a strong voice in Parliament, I suggest that the problem lies within the Labour party and its Members of Parliament. I feel, as do other Conservative MPs, that we provide a strong voice for the north-west in Parliament, and I know that the Labour MPs involved in our campaign feel that they can do the same.
  The leaflet continues by stating that a regional assembly would
  "be more inclusive—you could get involved".
  That strikes me as very interesting. How can a regional assembly be more inclusive? Under the Government's proposals, Cheshire could have just two representatives, each of whom would represent 300,000 people. In the process, the Government could abolish a system that involves 50 councillors. How can it possibly be more inclusive to have two representatives representing a third of a million people each?
  The leaflet continues:
  "Why have an elected regional assembly? Currently, responsibility for issues such as jobs, housing, and transport in the North West is split between many different—largely unelected—organizations…The Government believes that the people who have responsibility for such important issues should be democratically elected by, and accountable to, the people who are affected by their decisions."
  I agree, but that accountability comes through the Minister. The Minister—like the Deputy Prime Minister and all Ministers who sit on the Government Front Bench—is responsible for such matters. They are accountable because they are elected through the House of Commons at general elections. That is accountability. It is just wrong to say that there is no accountability for regional organisations. Such accountability flows through Ministers, in the way it has traditionally done.

  1513
  The leaflet also sets out some of the functions of a regional assembly. Such functions are at the heart of the reason why we have initiated this debate, because many of them remain opaque. However, let us see what the Government say those functions will be:
  "Developing the economy of the North West would be at the heart of the assembly's work."
  Of course I want the north-west's economy to be developed, but I do not see how having a regional talking shop will do that, and nor, indeed, do any of the regional business organisations. That is why the regional CBI has opposed it and the chambers of commerce have opposed it. [Interruption.] It is clear that there is doubt among Labour Members, so let me tell them what the Warrington chamber of commerce, in partnership with the North Cheshire, Wirral and North Wales chambers of commerce, said. They advise the Government
  "to abandon this project before it wastes a great deal of money on a level of government that few people want and even less people need."
  Overseeing skills will be another function of the elected assembly. I have done some research, and the results were quite interesting. The Deputy Prime Minister had a meeting with the yes campaign in the north-west in December. Unfortunately, the minutes of that meeting were leaked. They record the following:
  "In terms of the additional powers over regional skills and training function, Mr. Prescott said that this is an ongoing issue as the Department for Education and Skills would like to keep skills training where it is".
  What a surprise.
  I was a little surprised by the argument advanced by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Wigan (Mr. Turner). In essence, the hon. Member for Wigan conceded that very few powers are currently being given to regional assemblies, but he said that we could build on them and thereby get a foot in the door. If he seriously thinks that Whitehall is going to concede more powers to regional assemblies over time, I am afraid that he is mistaken. That is not the way Whitehall works. What will happen, of course, is that the powers will be sucked up from local government as regional government establishes itself. I offer the hon. Gentleman some candid advice. If he wants to argue the case for more powers for his regional government, he should do so now—before the referendum and before the Bill—so that he can establish them now. There is no sign that Whitehall departments are going to concede those powers.
  The leaflet says that housing, planning and fire and rescue services would also be the responsibility of regional government. Local government currently holds most of those powers, so this is not devolution but sucking power up. Fire services in Cheshire are currently organised by the Cheshire fire authority. Under these proposals, the powers will be sucked up into a regional assembly. There are also powers over public health, culture, tourism and sport, and the environment.
  Anyone reading the leaflet would assume that the implication is that the regional assembly will have lots of money to spend on sports facilities, cleaning up the environment, health services and so on. Of course, that
  1514
  is not the case. There will be no more than a power to sit on consortiums and forums, to issue consultation papers and strategies and to be consulted and consult. This will not be about spending real money on real things, which is what people would expect and what, if they read this leaflet, they would be led to believe.
  Lord Rooker gave the game away last year in the other place. On 28 April, he said there would be no new powers and no new money for regional government. That is the truth. What there will be, of course, are extra costs.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend telling me that Lord Rooker's comments about no new powers and no new money have not gone into the leaflet given to the general public? Is that not an extraordinary omission from what is supposed to be a piece of Government information that dispassionately explains the facts?
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have read the leaflet from cover to cover and back again, and, for some reason, nowhere in it are Lord Rooker's comments to be found. Then again, nor do certain comments made by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire appear in it. There is nothing on the turnout issue, on which I pressed the Deputy Prime Minister. The leaflet asks how the referendums will be decided, and says that it will be by a simple majority. I can see the local government Minister nodding at that. Last year, though, when he was asked what would happen if the turnout was derisory, he said that the result would be set aside.
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I never said that the result would be set aside. I pointed out that the referendums were advisory and that the Government would not be bound to implement proposals if the turnout was derisory. I stand by that.
  Mr. Osborne: I am delighted that I gave way. It is interesting to have that remark on the record once again. I suggest that the Minister should inform the Deputy Prime Minister of that—[Interruption.] Maybe he has, but the Deputy Prime Minister did not seem to know it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us later what he would consider to be a derisory turnout. Indeed, will he support the private Member's Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? Perhaps the Minister thinks that 50 per cent. is too high a figure, and that that would not be a derisory turnout.
  Mr. Raynsford: It is a threshold.
  Mr. Osborne: In that case, perhaps the Minister will tell us in his wind-up speech what a derisory figure would be. It would be interesting to know whether the Government would not proceed with regional assemblies if the turnout was too low, which is certainly what the Minister has just said.
  The leaflet was produced at considerable public expense, costing £500,000. The chairman of the very successful yes campaign for the Scottish Parliament, Nigel Smith, told me that the entire literature budget of that campaign was, to his recollection, not as much as

  1515
  that. Yet the Government have already spent that, long before the referendum has arisen. Luckily, there is an organisation—North-West Says No—that brings together Members of Parliament from the Labour party and the Conservative party and local government people from the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour parties. It also has the heavyweight support of Sir Cyril Smith, who is well known in the region. I am convinced that, as we point out that the assembly will be an expensive talking shop that does nothing to bring new jobs and investment to the region and nothing to improve transport links, but merely undermines local democracy and accountability, we will carry the day.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: To listen to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), one would think that regions were of no importance to the governance of our country. In fact, the importance of regions has been recognised throughout the last century by all political parties and Governments. It was, as has been said, a Conservative Government who went further than any other in recognising the importance of regions by setting up the regional offices. They recognised that they could not run all the regions from Whitehall. Our argument with that is that it was not a democratic way of running the regions. The debate is not a party political one that has simply to do with Labour's regional policy. All Governments have had regional policies of one sort or another.
  Two main arguments appear to be emerging in the north-east as the campaign gets under way. First, the no campaign say, "We don't want any more politicians." I must point out to those who use that argument—I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—that compared with other democracies we are poorly represented by elected representatives in this country. Notwithstanding that, because there are more than 300 councillors in Northumberland and more than 400 councillors in Durham, if the people in the north-east vote for regional government there will obviously be a reduction in locally elected councillors, so there will be fewer politicians, not more. Those who argue that they do not want more politicians should vote yes in the referendum because regional government will result in fewer politicians.
  The second argument concerns powers, and it has formed part of today's discussion. It is odd to argue against regional government because it is not powerful enough. That is like a homeless family being offered a home but refusing to move in because it does not have a porch, a conservatory and a swimming pool. When people move into a property, they wait until they feel comfortable and then they begin to add to it up, and the same is true of regional government. When regional government is set up and people see what it can do and how it can work, regional government and central Government will talk about increasing powers.
  I do not share the scepticism of Conservative Members that powers will never increase because Whitehall will never let them go; the Government have already moved towards letting powers go. If people are ever foolish enough to vote for a Tory Government, they may find that powers are withdrawn from the regions and local authorities and returned to London,
  1516
  but some Governments—this is one of them—will devolve powers to the regions. I sympathise with the points made by some of my hon. Friends and the Deputy Prime Minister and would like to see some of the powers outlined in the White Paper extended in the draft Bill before the referendums.
  It is important for my region that the learning and skills councils are brought under the purview of regional government. It is nonsense that regional government should be responsible for economic development but not have that vital link to skills, training and learning. There are problems in the region in relation to skills and training such as the skills gap and low productivity. The unemployment rate is very high in the north-east, and we have a poor culture of lifelong learning, low educational and career aspirations, skills shortages in certain areas, an underperforming labour market and low demand for higher skills. Developing higher skills is a crucial factor in improving economic growth in the north-east, and I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us more in his winding-up speech than the Deputy Prime Minister told us the other day about the possibility of learning and skills councils coming under regional government.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does that not underline our point? The hon. Gentleman is asking for information about the powers that the assemblies will have, and he has listened to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has not told him the answer. Our point is that people are not getting a clear picture of the powers that the assemblies will have.
  Mr. Clelland: We have a clear picture of the initial powers because they are contained in the White Paper, so there is no question about that, and those of us in the yes campaign are already campaigning on that point. We have been promised that the draft Bill will be produced before the summer recess, and it will provide a further example of how the powers might develop. Other hon. Members and I are trying to beef up the powers so that when we get the draft Bill there are extra powers over and above the White Paper, which will undoubtedly help our campaign.
  I should like powers on transport to be devolved to regional authorities. Our transport priorities in the north-east would certainly be different from those of central Government and the Highways Agency. We want devolved powers so that we can tackle problems such as the A1 north of Newcastle—although I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that we need to be practical and that things cannot happen overnight. However, the A1 improvements would have a much higher priority under regional government, as would the completion of improvements to the A69 and the urgent work needed to relieve congestion on the western bypass.
  Of course, devolved transport powers would cover not only roads, but the rail infrastructure, buses and the integration of our transport system, which, like learning and skills, is extremely important to the developing economy of the region. I hope that the powers set out in the White Paper will be extended under the draft Bill. Even as currently proposed, they are a step forward that the country needs to take to become a more modern and vibrant democracy. The choice for the people of the regions is simple, as I shall tell the people of the north-

  1517
  east: do they want the concentration of power in London to continue, or do they want some of that power in their region where they can have an influence on it? The question is simple and I think that when people are given the opportunity to vote on regional assemblies, they will vote yes.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), not least because he has long been a consistent supporter of regional government. He expresses his views on the subject honestly and trenchantly.
  However, the hon. Gentleman has also done much to make the argument for our proposal. He said that the initial powers were set out in the White Paper and explained that the draft Bill would shed a little more light on them. However, he then said that he hoped there would be more in the draft Bill than there had been in the White Paper, which implies that he believes it preferable for the powers of a regional assembly to develop and increase over time. That is precisely the proposition, which is, I think, irrefutable, set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) at the outset of the debate: the people who, in the autumn, are to be given theopportunity—albeit not one that they particularly wanted—to vote on the question of regional assemblies ought to know exactly what they are voting on.
  There was no suggestion from the hon. Gentleman that, if there was a significant change in the range of powers for regional assemblies following the referendum, he would expect a further referendum to be held. There would be no further consultation of public opinion as to whether those powers should be increased or changed.
  The Government claim to be strong supporters of regional government—the Deputy Prime Minister has certainly been campaigning for it for a long time—and they are prepared to ensure that referendums are held in three regions in the autumn, despite poor expressions of interest from all three during the consultation process. However, as the Government are not prepared to give either the House or the people of the three regions any detail about what the regional assemblies would be empowered to do, we are entitled to ask why they will not give that information.
  The most charitable interpretation is that the Government do not want to say definitively what the powers will be, as they might change during the passage of the Bill. The Bill that will be considered in the summer will of course be only a draft; there is no guarantee that it will even have been introduced in Parliament by the time the referendums are held. It is thus possible that, through no fault of the Government, the powers might be different after the referendum. That reason might fall into the category of Government incompetence; they do not know what the powers will be, because they cannot control the process—they have been unable to pass the legislation.
  Another answer might be that the Government cannot agree among themselves what the powers should be. There is a strong suspicion that the Prime Minister is
  1518
  not really interested in regional government and does not support it, but is merely humouring the Deputy Prime Minister. He is getting the Deputy Prime Minister out from under his feet by sending him off on tours around the regions. That has a ring of truth about it. If it is not incompetence, perhaps the reason is confusion in the Government, and they simply do not know what they want to do or cannot agree.
  There is the third and more worrying possibility that the Government know precisely what they would like the regional assemblies to do, know what their powers should be, but do not want the public to know. That would be a deliberate act of deception. I prefer to take the more charitable view, but we are left wondering.
  What we have to suspect, though, is that the Prime Minister knows that he does not want significant powers to go to the regional assemblies, because that has been the pattern of his behaviour through the whole of the Government's devolution strategy, if it can be called a strategy. Their plan has been to devolve powers, whether to London or Wales, and then busily set about trying to claw them back or to make sure that they can control the people elected to run the bodies in question: throwing Ken Livingstone out of the Labour party and then taking him back in; trying to decide who should be the First Minister in Wales.
  A picture of confusion emerges. The Deputy Prime Minister, in a classic performance, a great performance very much in keeping with his tradition and style, did nothing to dispel any of the existing confusion and actually sought to advance it during his speech. It was remarkable that he accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon of being confused on the subject, saying that it was the most confusing argument he had ever heard. The words "kettle", "pot" and "black" came to mind, though not necessarily in that order.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has been selectively advancing the argument that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. He apparently believes that that might be one of the advantages of moving towards regional government. When I challenged him on the matter, the result of my intervention was interesting. I asked him to give an argument for keeping the Barnett formula, given that he had said that Scottish devolution had removed the regional economic disparity between Scotland and England, but he carefully refused to give me any answer. He said that the Government and his Department were constantly reviewing all kinds of financial arrangements. When I sought to intervene again to establish very clearly whether the financial arrangements that the Government were constantly reviewing included the Barnett formula, he would not take my intervention. I very much hope that in winding up the local government Minister will respond on this point: do the Government welcome a review of the Barnett formula or not?
  Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend suspect that what the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to do was to float the idea in the north-east, generate lots of local excitement that the Barnett formula might be

  1519
  removed in advance of the regional referendum, and then do absolutely nothing about it after the referendum takes place?
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I think that he is falling into the trap of imagining that this was a deliberate strategy on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman merely opened his mouth before engaging his brain, and the first thing that emerged was what appeared to be an argument that was popular where he was at the time.
  We need to know, and people on both sides of the English-Scottish border need to know, whether the Barnett formula is being reviewed or not.
  The Deputy Prime Minister also confirmed that the powers that he and the Government have in mind for regional assemblies have changed since the White Paper was published. As one example he cited the power to veto local planning decisions. Labour Members try to advance the argument that regional assemblies will increase democratic accountability, and then one of the principal changes that have taken place already, before we have the draft Bill, reduces local decision making and accountability, taking those powers away from local people to a more remote tier of government.
  Of course Ministers are very fond of claiming that such change will not increase the number of tiers of government. The Minister is nodding in agreement while he sits on the Treasury Bench, yet it is absolutely certain that, for my constituents, who currently live in a single-tier metropolitan borough authority, his proposals—if he has his way—will lead to an extra, unnecessary tier of bureaucracy, costs and politicians. The fact is that that unitary authority has been able to function effectively. It worked very well, until Labour took over the administration of Trafford borough council in 1996, and it will improve again in June, when Labour loses control of the council. There is nothing wrong structurally with that unitary authority and that single tier, which works extremely well.
  Obviously, colleagues who represent constituencies in shire counties are free to believe that the alternative is a better structure, and I am happy with that. Those of us who represent constituencies with unitary authorities, however—single-tier authorities—believe that they are perfectly efficient structures for local government, but, if the Government have their way, we will be faced with an unnecessary, additional tier of bureaucrats and politicians that we simply do not want.
  I should like to touch on another issue briefly. During the opening speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) referred to the possible effects of using proportional representation in any assembly election and the danger that that might provide an opportunity for minority parties—some of them are particularly unpleasant, such as the British National party—to gain a foothold in the assembly. The Minister shook his head and vehemently disagreed with that suggestion, but I have not yet heard him give any reason why he is confident that the PR system, if it is put in place, will not allow for that possibility. I would welcome a response on that point. I would also welcome his comments on the danger of fraud if we opt for postal ballots, particularly given today's revelations about the integrity of the electoral roll in some areas.
  6.27 pm
  Andy Burnham: We have heard Opposition Members advance some interesting arguments today, but the one that I will take away involved the image of the great Tory revival of the north. May I offer a genuine and warm invitation to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) to come to Leigh at any time to deliver that speech? We will see what reaction he gets if he does. The fact that they have all glossed over is that we live in a country where health, wealth and life chances are unevenly spread, both by social class and geographically. Over the years, many people have been motivated to come to the House to do something about that. Some people have come here because they want to keep things that way. Sadly, that group has held sway.
  In truth, there are complicated reasons why Britain is still an unequal country, but it is a fact that children born today in Liverpool or Manchester can expect to lead shorter, unhealthier lives than those born in towns across the south. They can expect to earn less and to have less chance of going into higher education. Whatever the detailed reasons for that, without doubt, the underlying essential truth is that, for centuries, political power and resources have been disproportionately concentrated in the south of this country, leading to a southern bias in decision making and helping to create an entrenched north-south divide.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Andy Burnham: Time is short, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Today, we are debating a proposal to begin loosening that grip on the levers of power and to take power away from Whitehall and place it in the hands of elected people in the regions. Those who oppose that have sought to engender cynicism about politicians and politics. Opposition Members have not used them, but people on the same campaign will use phrases such as "jobs for the boys" and "gravy train"—we can hear it all now. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) should understand that that is easy pub talk and that it is far harder to make a case for change, but we will do just that.
  Tomorrow, the yes for the north-west campaign will be launched in locations across our region. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said that there was no great rising up of enthusiasm and no great cross-party support. He should just wait and see. He should look in his local paper tomorrow, or watch the television when he gets back tomorrow evening. There are some serious business figures involved in that campaign.
  Mr. George Osborne: It is cross-party.
  Andy Burnham: The Liberal party is fully involved in the campaign. Let us just wait and see. I put this point directly to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, as he laughs. In arguing for the status quo, he comprehensively fails to illustrate how the systems of government and public administration of this country have served the people of the north-west—including those in his constituency—and elsewhere. The

  1521
  Conservatives cannot do that, because on any objective analysis, it is those structures that have created the divided country that we have today.
  Let us focus on health inequalities, which are probably the best indicator of the failure or success of public policy. The determinants of health involve not only the share of health resources but—according to Donald Acheson's 1998 independent inquiry into health inequalities—education, employment, average income, housing, transport and other environmental issues.
  It is 24 years since Sir Douglas Black published his ground-breaking report on health inequalities. If the system of government that we had in this country had worked properly, we would have seen a steady narrowing of those inequalities in response to that report. Instead, the chief medical officer's annual report for 2001 came to the shocking conclusion that communities in some parts of the north-west and north-east of England had death rates similar to those that prevailed in the 1950s. I do not understand how anyone advancing the case for the status quo could fail to see the importance of that statement—[Interruption.] It is to do with regional government, because every one of the responsibilities that we are proposing to devolve to those bodies—housing, skills and so on—has an effect on public health.
  That shows how the country is divided at the moment. It is perhaps less the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but people not far from there have a lower life expectancy than elsewhere, and it behoves all of us to do something about that. Those Members opposed to the proposals need to tell their constituents what plans they have to give the north-west a bigger share of the resources and a greater ability to do something about these important issues for themselves.
  Every day, unelected people in Government Departments take decisions on behalf of our constituents. I would like to give the House a flavour of my time in Whitehall. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where I was an adviser, is possibly the most London-dominated of all the Departments. I remember well sceptical voices there expressing doubt about Manchester's ability to stage the Commonwealth games. In culture and the arts, London dominates absolutely. Money is given to regional projects if they fit the assumptions of the capital élite, and the view has prevailed for far too long that England's heritage lies in the pretty market towns rather than the industrial north. That view has only recently begun to change, with the extension of the blue plaque scheme to the regions. Regional programming is the strength of British broadcasting, yet the London-based broadcasters often only pay lip service to their regional commitment.
  These are all examples of decisions taken in Whitehall that affect our constituents, and it is about time that they had a chance to express their views on such issues themselves. People of my generation recognise the north-west as the place that they come from; they have a growing sense of regional identity and share culture,
  1522
  music, humour and passions. It is about time that we let them organise for themselves the way in which they express that regional identity.
  In contrast to the cynics, I believe that a regional assembly could refresh our political culture. A real problem for politicians on both sides is that our political structures are not doing their job. Our councils are sometimes seen as parochial and unable to effect change, and we are sometimes seen as being too remote from the people we represent. That has played a part in disengaging people from politics. If we get the new regional assembly, it could generate new interest in public affairs, and bring in different kinds of decision making. These proposals should go hand in hand with the reform of the House of Lords, which could be indirectly elected from regional lists. If that happened, the voice of the regions would start to boom around the country. That is exactly what a lot of people are very afraid of.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: I am delighted to have a few minutes to oppose the motion moved by my good parliamentary neighbour the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). We need a bit more white rose and a bit less Whitehall. I shall refer to two specific examples arising from the experience that I have gained as a constituency MP in the Yorkshire and Humber area. Regional government would have made a difference in both.
  The hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) placed much emphasis on the economy and business. They asked whether regional government would make a difference to economic development. Interestingly, the regional organisation of the CBI in my area is neutral on the matter. It can see pros and cons, and is open to argument. That is important.
  The hon. Member for Hexham mentioned the decline of the coal and steel industries. People in Selby know all about that. The first example that I want to mention has to do with the European spallation source project. It is the principal long-term project of Yorkshire Forward, and is based in my constituency. I shall not explain it in detail, but it involves a neutron scatterer. The project—a massive science park—would amount to a £1 billion investment. It is backed by Yorkshire Forward and the blue-chip institutions that make up the white rose consortium of universities.
  I tried for a year to secure a meeting with a Minister about the project. I like to think that I am a reasonably assiduous MP. I vote with the Government—on the whole—and thought that a meeting would probably be granted. In the end, a Yorkshire Forward official, Tom Riordan, had to come down here. An alternative site for the project in Oxfordshire is much beloved of Whitehall civil servants. Only after Tom Riordan criticised their attitude, in the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee, did the meeting take place.
  The business magazine Insider published a list of the 100 most important people in Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is not here at the moment, so I can tell the House that he is No. 2 on the list. The managing director of Yorkshire Forward is at the top, and Tom Riordan—that very good servant of

  1523
  Yorkshire Forward—is at No. 4. Not one local politician is in the top 10. I am at about No. 453. That not one local politician is considered to have influence on economic development is a terrible thing.
  If we had a Yorkshire regional assembly, the meeting that I was trying for would have happened an awful lot sooner, and the case that we could have made would have been much stronger. I spent a year trying for a meeting, and the Government are now responding and considering the case that I want to press. However, the delay should not have happened. We need a body with region-wide responsibility to act in such matters.
  My second example has to do with transport. The CBI in Yorkshire has pointed out that only £70 of every £100 spent on public transport in England as whole is spent in the Yorkshire and Humber area. I attended a meeting last Friday in the grand surroundings of Hull's guildhall. The company First York won the trans-Pennine rail franchise, but it has cut the service between Hull and Manchester airport. It sent its regional public relations people to tell the various Members of Parliament and council leaders who attended the meeting that the company was not about to change its mind. If we had a regional assembly with powers to make representations to the SRA, and with powers over rail passenger transport grants and local transport plans, the company would have been forced to send representatives of much higher status to the meeting.
  I turn now to some of the points made in the debate. How much money would really be controlled by a regional assembly? In Yorkshire, £500 million would be controlled directly, and £1.1 billion indirectly. That sounds a lot to me, and it is much more than I have ever controlled as a politician, but the Opposition say that it is a small percentage of total public expenditure overall. We do not want to control defence in Yorkshire or transfer payments; we want to control the things that influence our economy.
  The role of strategies is much mocked. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke from experience about culture and sport. I wish that Yorkshire could have a regional strategy for sport, controlled by Yorkshire politicians. We love sport in the region, although we are doing terribly badly at cricket and football. The only thing that we have to boast about is Doncaster Rovers—[Interruption.] I suppose I could also mention Hull City and Bradford Bulls in that context, but a strategy at grass-roots level to rebuild Yorkshire sport would be a great help.
  I could talk about the local government changes in north Yorkshire. They are as complicated in Selby as the Schleswig-Holstein question in the thirty years war or the Alsace-Lorraine question in the first world war. However, I do not have time.
  In conclusion, I think that the hearings initiated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister represent a great opportunity. Many of us will make the case for learning and skills, and a little more might be given in respect of transport. When it comes to the great northern vote, I hope that the people of Yorkshire and Humber, for those reasons of economic development above all, will vote yes. An additional reason why they will vote yes is because the last thing that we want in
  1524
  Yorkshire and Humber is for the north-east—the Geordies—and the north-west to have regional assemblies, and for us to be left without one.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have had an interesting and illuminating debate, and anyone who reads it will realise why so many hon. Members have become enamoured with the idea of elected regional assemblies. They think that they can pick any failing in their constituencies and anything that has gone wrong in their region and pin their hopes on a regional assembly curing all. They say that the projects mentioned by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), life expectancy, health and housing will all be cured by regional assemblies, although, according to the White Paper, they will have virtually no power at all. The debate has served a purpose by exposing the enormous gap between what people say that regional assemblies will do and what the Government's policy actually offers to the people who will participate in the referendums.
  I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister with my usual care, but I thought that he got into a muddle when he complained that the Government offices were terribly undemocratic. He did not seem to understand that he is accountable to the House for the operation of the Government offices, and it is his colleagues and mine who hold him to account for that—they are, in fact, accountable. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister scoffs derisively at that comment, but he failed to give any assurance that the Government offices would be handed over to the regional assemblies. They will not be handed over; in fact, they will become more important than ever in enforcing Whitehall's will on regional assemblies and local authorities, as they are doing more and more under this Government.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for supporting our motion, but I think that he slightly confused the situation by telling us that he would vote for the Government's amendment as well. I should point out that the amendment commends the Government on the information that they are giving voters on the subject, but our motion does precisely the opposite. I would love to be a Liberal. One could just relax and let it all hang out. One could decide whatever one wanted and go home and sleep easily at night.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman because I feel that I owe it to him.
  Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his motion does not suggest that people oppose regional assemblies if they vote for it?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to accept that because I do not think that it is the issue. [Interruption.] Yes, it is perfectly true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, what we are worried about is the lack of clarity in Government policy. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that we are not standing for election in the referendums, so our policy is not the issue. We are not heading for a general election

  1525
  in October, but referendums. If the referendums are to be a proper test of public opinion rather than just an opinion poll on which group voters in the regions specifically resent at that moment, we need clarity. The debate is not about whether we favour elected assemblies for the English regions. The real question is how much power will a regional assembly really have. The Deputy Prime Minister singularly failed to answer that question.
  Let us be absolutely clear. The assemblies will certainly be nothing like the Scottish Parliament—I have not seen that cure all the ills of Scotland. They will be nothing like the Welsh Assembly. They will have even less power than the London assembly. For example, according to the White Paper, a north-east assembly would not only have no legislative powers whatsoever—not even secondary legislative powers—and control less than 2 per cent. of public expenditure in the region, but would not even be able to control appointments to the regional development agency because Ministers would still have the right of veto over the appointment of business men to RDAs. The issue is the disparity between what the Government pretend that regional assemblies will do and what is set out in the White Paper, because that is hardly a basis on which voters may make an informed and educated choice in the referendums.
  Fundamentally, this debate is about the Deputy Prime Minister's failure to explain his proposals on elected regional assemblies for which Ministers are responsible. Given that there has been no public clamour—in fact, little but apathy—for elected regional assemblies, and, frankly, hostility from business, the Government are desperately thrashing around trying to sell a virtually unsaleable proposal. This debate is about Ministers' failure to be open and straightforward, and to present clear and intelligible proposals for people to vote on. The more that they attempt to explain their proposals, the more opaque they become. The Deputy Prime Minister in particular has been encouraging people to believe things about the Government's policy that have not been agreed by the Government to try to rescue the idea of regional elected assemblies. That threatens fundamentally to corrupt the referendum process, which should be an objective test of public opinion after a prolonged and informed debate.
  Let the House recall the careful and meticulous way in which the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, approached the referendum for a Scottish Parliament. I did not agree with the concept of a Scottish Parliament; I fully accept that the debate was comprehensively won by the pro-devolutionists. [Interruption.] I do not deny a bit of it. [Interruption.] Is the Deputy Prime Minister finished? Just a few months after the 1997 election, Donald Dewar published a White Paper that was absolutely clear. No one voting in the Scottish referendum could have been in any doubt about what they were voting for. Let us compare that with the conduct of the Government's policy on elected regional assemblies.
  Like plans for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, proposals for elected regional assemblies were included in the 1997 manifesto. That was seven years ago, and it remains astonishing that, even though the referendums in the north of England are now only
  1526
  nine months away, the Government have still not explained the powers to be devolved. They are spending £500,000 on an information campaign that does not explain the powers. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) an assurance that we will return to the question of the Government's information campaign and its impartiality.
  Mr. George Osborne: I discovered today that the launch of the Scottish White Paper was paid for by the yes campaign because civil servants in the Scotland Office thought that it would be wrong for the Government to spend taxpayers' money on it. It would be interesting to know whether that has been happening in the regional campaigns.
  Mr. Jenkin: No, of course not; these people have got really sloppy.
  Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister, who, as we know, is lord high everything else in this Government, went on a grand tour of the north of England to promote his proposals, and spoke at meetings in Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. At all those meetings, he held out the prospect of significant additional powers for elected assemblies beyond those set out in the White Paper—powers on policing, adult education and training and even health. We know that other services such as fire services are being considered for regionalisation.
  The difficulty for the Deputy Prime Minister is that the proposals in the White Paper are but a shadow of what he really wants. The reality is that, seven years after the manifesto, there is no agreement in the Government on what should be the powers of regional elected assemblies. That is why he is talking up the powers. He is haunted by the near defeat in the Welsh Assembly referendum. That is why he will not accept what the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire clarified while he was absent from the Chamber: the Government will dismiss a derisory turnout even if the vote is in favour.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify that in his winding-up speech. The Deputy Prime Minister is determined to talk up what the regional assemblies might be going to do.
  The most interesting thing that has fallen into my hands recently is an extraordinary document of the minutes, to which one of my hon. Friends referred, of a meeting between Felicity Goodey, who is the leader of the yes north-west campaign, representatives of the north-west business leadership team, and none other than the great panjandrum himself. the ever effervescent and charming Deputy Prime Minister. The meeting took place in his large office at No. 26 Whitehall, along with his ever loyal and patient minder, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire.
  Most interesting are the Deputy Prime Minister's comments about the Barnett formula. The minutes say:
  "Mr. Prescott emphasised the scale of public money going into the regions…Mr. Prescott hoped to see an increasing level of co-operation across the North of England…where the power of the regional voice…would be difficult to ignore in London. He drew comparisons with Scotland and Wales' lobbying on the Barnett formula."

  1527
  The right hon. Gentleman missed the point about the Barnett formula. The Scottish and Welsh lobbies were never stronger in Whitehall than they were before they had a Parliament and an Assembly. Since devolution, the Barnett formula has been surreptitiously altered to accelerate the equalisation of spending between England and Scotland.
  The minutes continue:
  "He referred again to the Barnett formula, indicating even in Scotland and Wales this was not seen as fair. He felt that the introduction of additional Assemblies would provide a 'great opportunity' to open up a debate on this subject".
  Is that the Treasury's policy? We know that it is not, because a menial little official immediately slapped the Deputy Prime Minister down without much difficulty. That chaos underlines the chaos of the Government's constitutional reform agenda, and it is about time that the Prime Minister clarified the situation.
  6.51 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Opposition's stance reminds me all too clearly of Talleyrand's description of the Bourbons:
  "They have learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing."
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the Opposition got it wrong every single time that the Government introduced an important devolution proposal: they opposed the Scottish Parliament, but now they accept it; they opposed the Welsh Assembly, but now they accept it; they opposed the Greater London assembly, but now they accept it; and they opposed regional chambers, which are now populated by more than 150 Conservative councillors—mercifully, not all in one place. Of course, there are the regional development agencies, which they opposed. Now, however, we do not know—more astonishingly, they do not know—what they think about them. With that track record, how can they expect their policy on elected regional assemblies to be met with anything but derision?
  There is confusion about regional government, but it is the Opposition who are confused about the powers and role of regional assemblies which, for their benefit, I shall spell out in simple terms. Elected regional assemblies mean more accountable regional government. They mean less say for the Whitehall machine and more power where it belongs—in the hands of the people in the regions.
  In the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) looked forward, we were pleased to learn, to campaigning with us on a referendum for a yes vote, which we welcome. However, he spoilt his announcement by saying that he would vote tonight with the Tories, who are utterly opposed to regional devolution. The nub of his argument was that the powers of the elected regional assemblies should be extended. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, we have already gone beyond the original powers spelt out in the White Paper, and he made it quite clear that this is an evolutionary process. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton welcomed the decision to hold hearings in the northern regions, and I am sure that he and his hon. Friends will want to contribute to them.
  1528
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) gave a forceful speech in favour of regional devolution, paid tribute to my right hon. Friend's long-term commitment to regional government and looked forward to a successful outcome.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) strained the bounds of credulity with his astonishing claim that Baroness Thatcher, whose Government probably caused more devastation to the north than any Government in history, was secretly a friend of the north. He must be bemused by the ingratitude of the people of the region, who disproportionately and stubbornly refused, with the exception of his own seat, to show their gratitude by voting Conservative.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) welcomed the Government's proposals and argued strongly that decisions affecting the north-west should be made by people elected by, and accountable to, the north-west. He spoke proudly about the regeneration of the cities of the north-west, and looked forward to a yes vote in the referendum.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) confused regional responsibilities with local council roles. For his sake, I shall spell out the difference. We regard local service delivery as the continuing responsibility of local government. There will be streamlining of local government, and I am astonished that he opposes the idea of more cost-effective service delivery. Local government will continue to deliver services locally, whereas regional government will deal with regional matters. The hon. Gentleman queried whether the referendum would be decided by a simple majority. As we made clear, there will be no threshold, because thresholds have perverse consequences, as we saw in Scotland in 1979. A simple majority is important.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No. I am answering the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  As I have said, referendums are technically advisory. The Government will certainly be guided by the majority, but we are not bound to implement on that basis and we have said that we will not be so bound if the outcome is derisory. I am confident, however, that there will be a decisive vote, because we are doing everything that we can to ensure a high turnout—postal voting is part of that. Any friend of democracy will want to see a decisive outcome and a clear view expressed by the people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) strongly supported the proposals for regional devolution. He argued for stronger powers because he believes that the proposals represent a good base for future development, and he welcomed the fact that the Bill will be published in July.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) argued, against all the evidence, that the proposals would increase local bureaucracy. Let me remind him that the figures that the boundary

  1529
  committee produced in its preliminary proposals show that the number of councillors in the north-west—some 1,405—could fall as low as 213 if the wholly unitary options are pursued. It was not logical of him to argue that the proposals will mean an increase in bureaucracy when all the evidence shows that that will not happen.
  The hon. Gentleman was even less logical when he talked about the British National party, repeating the malicious and unfounded argument that elected regional assemblies could provide a doorway for the BNP to get elected. We all hate the politics of hatred that characterise the BNP and will do everything that we can to oppose that. However, in my experience of campaigning against the BNP in London—in Millwall—and elsewhere 10 years ago, the most decisive way to defeat the BNP is with a high turnout in a reasonably large constituency. The BNP flourishes in small areas with low turnouts; our elected regional assembly constituencies will be large, which will allow for a decisive vote against it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) emphasised the proud regional identity of the north and argued that the new devolution process could help to revive our political culture.My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) rightly highlighted the merits of the white rose as against Whitehall.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made great play of his wish to see a Bill. We understand that, and it will be published in July. He did not say, of course, that that is a wonderfully convenient way of enabling him to keep his options open. He is a thinking person who realises the futility of the Bourbon style of opposition. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman went on the record two and a half years ago in favour of regional government. Now, he has the misfortune of serving in a Front-Bench team that is viscerally hostile to elected regional assemblies and that, even more embarrassingly from his point of view, sees the policy as a European conspiracy. No wonder he is hedging his bets: he knows that almost every other country in Europe has devolved regional government—apart from places such as the Vatican, Luxembourg and Malta, where there are obvious geographical obstacles—and that here in Britain a great deal of Government activity has a regional nature.
  The current regional structures outside London are not accountable to the regions and often involve regional government by quango. Those who take the decisions are usually well intentioned, but are not answerable to the public whose lives and prosperity they are deciding or influencing. Furthermore, because they involve separate bodies that are closely focused on their own subject, they often fail to secure a joined-up and co-ordinated approach.
  Our task is to give the people the option of a more accountable, more democratic, more joined-up structure with the powers to make a difference on matters that need to be dealt with at a regional level, such as jobs, housing, transport, planning and the environment. Elected regional assemblies will bring a new perspective, a new vision and a new opportunity to
  1530
  the regions. They will not add to bureaucracy—on the contrary, our proposals could well lead to a substantial streamlining of local democracy.
  Regional assemblies are about choice, democracy, prosperity and more effective government. In summary, they are about the future. By contrast, the Opposition's position offers nothing: it is incoherent, remorselessly negative and backward looking. It is the product of a party that failed the people when it was in government and has been wrong about every devolution debate in the past decade. The Opposition have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing; the House should decisively reject their motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 281.

  Division No. 53]

  [7:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Allan, Richard

  Westminster)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Flook, Adrian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bacon, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baker, Norman

  Francois, Mark

  Barrett, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Garnier, Edward

  Beith, rh A. J.

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Bercow, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodman, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Surrey)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brady, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gummer, rh John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Breed, Colin

  Hancock, Mike

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Burnett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Burnside, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Cameron, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Fife)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Jack, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chope, Christopher

  Keetch, Paul

  Clappison, James

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Inverness)

  Collins, Tim

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Curry, rh David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Stamford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Howden)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Fabricant, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  1531

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Marsden, Paul Shrewsbury &

  Spink, Bob Castle Point)

  Atcham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, rh Francis

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mercer, Patrick

  Swire, Hugo E Devon)

  Mitchell, Andrew Sutton

  Syms, Robert

  Coldfield)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Teather, Sarah

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Thurso, John

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Trend, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, rh John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Rendel, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Wiggin, Bill

  M-Kent)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Ruffley, David

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilshire, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Selous, Andrew

  (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Simmonds, Mark

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kincardine)

  Gregory Barker and

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  NOES

  Adams, Irene Paisley N)

  Bryant, Chris

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Burnham, Andy

  Darwen)

  Cairns, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Challen, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Best, Harold

  Pentlands)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chryston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Clelland, David

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Borrow, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cohen, Harry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Colman, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Connarty, Michael

  1532

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cranston, Ross

  Hatfield)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kidney, David

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Denham, rh John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Doran, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Love, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  McCafferty, Chris

  Efford, Clive

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  McDonnell, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McFall, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, rh Derek

  McKechin, Ann

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  McNulty, Tony

  & Rye)

  MacShane, Denis

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWalter, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Mole, Chris

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Moran, Margaret

  Healey, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hendrick, Mark

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hermon, Lady

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heyes, David

  Owen, Albert

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Perham, Linda

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Picking, Anne

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  1533

  Purnell, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Anniesland)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheridan Jim

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Finsbury)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Speller, rh John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Wright, Anthony D. Gt

  Lochaber)

  Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian Eccles)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Straw, rh Jack

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 133.

  Division No. 54]

  [7:15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Best, Harold

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Allan, Richard

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Blunkett, rh David

  Darwen)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baker, Norman

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Barnes, Harry

  Breed, Colin

  Barrett, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Battle, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Beard, Nigel

  Bryant, Chris

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Burden, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew

  Burgon, Colin

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Burnett, John

  Berry, Roger

  Burnham, Andy

  1534

  Cairns, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Grogan, John

  Fife)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caton, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hanson, David

  Challen, Colin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hermon, Lady

  Chryston)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Holmes, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cruddas, Jon

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hatfield)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keetch, Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Denham, rh John

  Inverness)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Doran, Frank

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Doughty, Sue

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Foster, rh Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez Hastings

  McCartney, rh Ian

  & Rye)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McDonnell, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McKechin, Ann

  Gidley, Sandra

  McNamara, Kevin

  1535

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  MacShane, Denis

  Finsbury)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Kincardine)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Spellar, rh John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Merron, Gillian

  Lochaber)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mole, Chris

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Moran, Margaret

  Straw, rh Jack

  Mountford, Kali

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Teather, Sarah

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thurso, John

  Perham, Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Picking, Anne

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prescott, rh John

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purnell James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Arnniesland)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Willis, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Wills, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woodward, Shaun

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Yarmouth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wyatt, Derek

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bacon, Richard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Barker, Gregory

  Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brady, Graham

  1536

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, rh David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burnside, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Maples, John

  Cameron, David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Mercer, Patrick

  Barnet)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Chope, Christopher

  Coldfield)

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Conway, Derek

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, rh David

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Paterson, Owen

  Stamford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Howden)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Randall, John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Redwood, rh John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Fabricant, Michael

  M-Kent)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Francois, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Goodman, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gummer, rh John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, rh Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Walter, Robert

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilshire, David

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Mr. Hugo Swire and

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. Mark Field

  Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the Government's proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in their White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; further notes that the White Paper also set out the way in

  1537
  which the Government intends to build into its policy development the opportunities offered by the creation of elected regional assemblies to further decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; notes that the principal confusion about the proposed powers and role of elected regional assemblies appears to be on the Opposition benches; and condemns the continuing attempts by the party opposite both to deny people a say in how they want to be governed and to denigrate the value of that choice.

  Regional Assemblies

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on motions 5 and 6.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      IMMIGRATION
      That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.
      That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
      Question agreed to.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at the sitting on Tuesday 24th February,—
      (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Smith relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply; and
      (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Michael Howard may continue, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Margaret Moran.]

  PETITIONS

    Ongar Fire Station
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Eric Pickles: I wish to present a petition in the name of constituents who are concerned about the possible removal of a full-time fire station at Ongar and its replacement with a part-time fire station. My constituents are particularly concerned because Ongar fire ground is the largest in Essex, and they are concerned about the level of coverage.
    Some 5,506 constituents, covering all age groups, have signed the petition. I was particularly impressed by the collection organised by the pupils of Chipping Ongar primary school.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents of the Parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar and areas served by the Ongar Fire Station
    Declares that they are concerned that our local Fire Station's status will be changed from full time to part time.
    The Petitioners therefore request that this House of Commons brings this concern to the attention of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and ask him to use his good services to prevail upon the Essex Fire Service to review their proposals.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Council Tax
    7.29 pm
    Andrew Selous: I present a petition signed by 559 of my constituents who are concerned about the unfairness of council tax for people on low or fixed incomes.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of residents of South West Bedfordshire
    Declares that a major review of Council Tax is required for people who are on fixed incomes and pensions, and raises their concerns about reassessment of properties in 2005 which will bring further worries about impending increases in taxes.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to establish a major review of the Council Tax system, and to examine in particular the effect of Council Tax rates on those people who live on fixed incomes and pensions.
    And the Petitioners remain. etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Cervical Screening
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Susan Van Neck was born on 10 January 1967. She married in 1991, and became Mrs. Susan Spratt. She died of cervical cancer in September 1999, at the age of 32. She had three smear tests during her life, which were examined in the laboratories of two different hospitals. As events have proved, two of those tests were inaccurate. They did not detect the first signs of cancer that would have made it possible to treat her fully and save her life.
  As we all know, every woman in the United Kingdom between the ages of 25 and 64 is eligible for a free cervical smear test every three to five years. In 1988, Sue's first test gave her the all-clear, but recommended a further test a year later. The outcome of her second smear test in 1989, examined by the cytology laboratory at Derriford hospital in Plymouth was an all-clear, suggesting that no further test was necessary for five years. In 1993, the test result conducted by the cytology laboratory at the Taunton and Somerset hospital was also an all-clear and suggested no retest for five years.
  Sadly, in 1995, just two years later, Sue was admitted to the accident and emergency department at Yeovil hospital with evidence of advanced cervical cancer. She received intensive treatment, which seemed to work for a while, but in April 1998 she was found to have a recurrence of the tumour. This time, she failed to respond to chemotherapy and after a brave struggle she died on 28 September 1999.
  Since then, the NHS has admitted that it had been negligent and compensation has been paid to Sue's husband. The debate tonight is not about compensation, blame or looking backwards: it is about looking forwards. As part of the contact with the NHS following Sue's death, an eminent medical expert, Professor Dulcie Coleman, was invited to re-examine the original smear tests. She produced a report showing that, among other things, the 1989 smear test that pronounced Sue all clear should have found the early signs of cervical cancer and referred her for further examination by a specialist and treatment. The professor also found that the 1993 test, which again pronounced Sue to be all clear, should have found the traces of cervical cancer that were present and should have sent her for further examination and treatment.
  Professor Coleman concludes her report with these words:
  "If Mrs Spratt's smears had been correctly read in 1989 and 1993, her cervical cancer would have been diagnosed 6 years or 18 months earlier when it was still in the pre-invasive stage. She would have been treated conservatively by local ablation and her prognosis would have been excellent. The local treatment would have been unlikely to affect her chances of becoming pregnant and she would not have had a hysterectomy, radiotherapy or chemotherapy."
  Sadly, that was not to be, and Sue became one of the thousand or so women who die from cervical cancer every year in the United Kingdom.
  Before Sue died, Mrs. Van Neck promised her daughter that she would do all she could to improve
  1540
  cancer screening for Sue's sister and nieces and for all women, so that fewer families would have to suffer the trauma and tragedy of a life so full of vitality and promise being cut short. Since then, Mrs. Van Neck and her husband have been very active, delivering on that promise. They have been in contact with the hospitals in Taunton and Plymouth to chase up improvements in the system. In June 2001, they learned that clinical trials of a new type of cervical cancer screening—liquid-based cytology—were being carried out at a number of hospitals across the country. They made contact with each to set out their tragic family experience and to urge rapid progress.
  As the House will know, until recently all smear tests were conducted by the traditional Pap method. Unfortunately, over the years, it has been found that about one in 10 smear tests using that method have to be repeated, because the person checking the test at the laboratory cannot see whether pre-cancerous cells are present. The errors and anxiety that may arise are amply demonstrated by the Van Necks' experience and by several similar cases.
  The Van Neck family were delighted when, in October 2003, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, as a result of the trials, recommended the use of liquid-based cytology throughout the NHS. As the Minister will know well, liquid-based cytology is a new way of collecting and preparing cell samples from a woman's cervix. Samples are collected using a brushlike device, rather than a spatula. The head of the brush is rinsed or broken off into a container of preservation fluid that protects the cervical cells. The evidence of the trials was that liquid-based cytology results in samples that are of better quality and easier to read, thus reducing the number of tests that need to be repeated.
  Obviously, the introduction of liquid-based cytology would offer a much improved service for all women and would be a positive step forward, so Mr. and Mrs. Van Neck decided to do all in their power to ensure its early introduction. They first visited me at my constituency surgery in November 2003 to tell me of their tragic experience and of their determination to see a better smear test system introduced in this country. I found their story deeply moving and their determination to redeem the promise that they had given their daughter very impressive. I welcome their presence, with their other daughter Debbie, in the House this evening.
  Following that meeting, I tabled a written question on 4 December, which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), on 10 December. She set out the welcome news that the Government had decided that liquid-based cytology would be rolled out nationally across the national health service, for everybody. The reply also stated:
  "We expect the roll out to take up to five years, due to the retraining of all laboratory staff who read cervical screening tests and all sampler takers in primary care."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 415, c. 506W.]
  I have also written to the South West Peninsula strategic health authority, and its chair, Judy Leverton, replied that the authority hoped to introduce the new

  1541
  system in the next financial year, depending on a number of factors, especially on whether all the necessary staff could be trained in the use of the new procedures.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for the speediest possible introduction of cytology in screening. Does he agree that the HART—HPV in addition to routine testing—study suggested that the human papillomavirus test, in conjunction with cytology, might be the most effective mechanism for primary screening? Three implementation pilots are due to report but have not yet done so, and it would be helpful for the House to know when we might receive more information about that further improved screening method.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right: the HPV testing method will give additional support to the cytology process that we hope will be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a few words about the likely speed of the roll-out when he responds. The Van Neck family, too, will be keen to see the HPV test become part of the procedure.
  The purpose of the debate is to urge the Government to ensure that the roll-out of that new screening system happens as quickly as is humanly possible, to give every woman in this country the best chance of detecting cervical cancer at the earliest moment. If at all possible, the new screening procedure should be rolled out within the next 12 months.
  It would also be helpful if the Minister could place on the record tonight detail about the age at which it is now intended that women will have their first smear test, and the intended frequency of subsequent testing.
  More than 3 million women are screened each year. No doubt this year, 2004, will be little different. Under the old system one in 10 of those tests—300,000 of them—might have to be redone. That is not to say that all 300,000 would produce an inaccurate result. Of course that is not true, and I have no wish to cause any unnecessary alarm. But it is certainly the case that accuracy will be improved under the proposed new system. So every year counts; every month counts.
  We understand the need for retraining and the never-ending claims on finite resources, but I urge the Minister to make sure that resources are made available to enable the new liquid-based cytology screening process to be introduced within the next 12 months.
  The Van Neck family know full well that nothing can be done to bring back their lost daughter. All of us who are parents can stand with them tonight and acknowledge their loss. We can also admire their fortitude and perseverance in pursuing the improvement of the system of smear testing in this country, a redemption of a promise made to Sue while she was terminally ill. But most of all we can respond to their courage and tenacity by advancing the plans to roll out the liquid-based cytology system as soon as is humanly possible, so that not a single life is lost unnecessarily to this dreadful disease. I call upon the Minister to assure the House that this will indeed be done.
  7.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on obtaining this debate and on representing the views of his constituents so well.
  I also congratulate the Van Neck family on their campaigning. It must have been a horrible tragedy for them to have their daughter taken in the way that occurred. It highlights exactly why we need a high-quality cervical screening service, and why we must take every opportunity to improve it. As new techniques become available, and we obtain evidence to support them, we must try to implement them as rapidly as possible.
  That said, and acknowledging that tragic mistakes do happen, I have to begin by pointing out that the United Kingdom has one of the most successful cervical screening programmes in the world. That is something that we should be very proud of. Experts estimate that the programme prevents up to 3,900 cases of cervical cancer each year. Experts also agree that that the NHS cervical screening programme is responsible for a reduction of over 40 per cent. in the incidence of cervical cancer in the last decade.
  But we are not complacent. We are always striving to improve the programme, and that is why the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was asked to look at the liquid-based cytology technique. As the hon. Gentleman said, LBC is a new way of preparing cervical samples for examination in the laboratory, and it has the potential to improve efficiency and ensure that fewer women have to be recalled because their test could not be read.
  Following the evaluation of a Government-funded pilot of LBC, NICE issued its final appraisal document on LBC on 22 October 2003, concluding that it should be rolled out across the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has ministerial responsibility for public health, announced on that day that LBC would indeed be implemented across the service, as part of a package to modernise the NHS cervical screening programme. That is the first indication for the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to waste any time.
  The independent evaluation of the pilot concluded that LBC resulted in a clear reduction in the number of inadequate tests, from 9 per cent to between 1 and 2 per cent. Inadequate tests are those that cannot be read in laboratories for a variety of reasons. When LBC is fully rolled out, 300,000 women a year will not suffer the anxiety and uncertainty of an inadequate test, and will not need to be re-tested.In addition, the evaluation showed that the productivity of laboratories rose by 9 per cent., and backlogs were reduced, meaning that women will have to wait for a shorter time to get their test results.
  There are therefore clear benefits in introducing LBC, and that is why the Government are providing £7.2 million to kick-start the process over the next two years.
  However, we do not underestimate the challenge that implementing LBC across the NHS presents.
  As LBC is a totally new technique, the time scale of implementation in England will be determined by the need to retrain all laboratory staff involved with cervical

  1543
  cytology—all the doctors and nurses who take the samples—and to install equipment in laboratories. About 3,000 laboratory staff currently read cervical screening tests in England, and it will take around six months of training before an individual is competent to use LBC techniques satisfactorily. Rigorously developed courses can accommodate only 10 to 12 people at a time. In addition, 40,000 doctors and nurses who take the samples will need to be retrained. For that reason, we anticipate that implementing LBC will take up to five years to complete nationally. Implementation could not progress more quickly even if we provided more funding.
  The key to LBC implementation is retraining the staff in LBC techniques, both in primary care and in laboratories. The programme is already successful, and we must be very careful not to jeopardise its quality. LBC is being rolled out nationally. All those in cytology training schools in England will be trained as part of the first phase of implementation. Strategic health authorities have been issued with advice on how best they can roll out LBC for their local populations, laboratories and primary care.
  We are also taking the opportunities presented by LBC to modernise the NHS cervical screening programme in other ways. The frequency with which women are invited for screening has been standardised across England for the first time, thus correcting a long-standing inequality. Following the publication of research from Cancer Research UK, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening has advised that clinical best practice is that women should receive their first invitation when they are 25 years old and that they should be invited every three years until they are 49, and then every five years until they are 64.
  A fundamental tenet of any screening programme is that it should do more good than harm. Cervical cancer is very rare in women under the age of 25. Research presented to the advisory committee, coupled with 15 years' experience of screening, shows that screening women under the age of 25 may do more harm than good. They may undergo unnecessary investigations, after false positive results suggest that they appear to have cervical abnormalities when, in fact, they do not. Screening women from the age of 25 onwards will help to reduce anxiety, as well as the number of unnecessary investigations and treatments in younger women.
  We will further modernise the service. In some areas, there are difficulties with the recruitment and retention of cytology screeners, which has been attributed partly to low morale and low pay. We appreciate the hard work of all the staff in the programme, particularly over the past few years, when morale has not been helped by adverse publicity.
  We are taking steps to modernise pathology services through the Department of Health's pathology modernisation programme. We recognise that pathology's most valuable resource is its staff and that the need to support and develop those staff is vital. A number of long-term initiatives are in place—which, in time, will provide the NHS with the pathology staff it needs. That will also bring staff into the cytology-screening programme.
  We are also committed to developing new and innovative ways of working, such as extended roles, improved skill-mix and more flexible career pathways,
  1544
  providing new opportunities and better ways to work for staff. One example of that is the new advanced practitioner in cytology grade, which increases the opportunities for staff to extend their skills and improve their pay. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently announced that, as part of the broader NHS recruitment drive, health care scientists who decide to return to the NHS will also now be eligible for a returner's package.
  More broadly, as part of the Government's improving working lives initiative, by 2003, all NHS employers must be able to demonstrate that they are delivering flexible working arrangements, that they are offering good quality, affordable and accessible child care, career breaks and flexible retirement and that they are investing in staff training and development, tackling discrimination and harassment and providing healthy and safer workplaces and other measures to support staff and improve retention.
  I shall now touch on the issue of human papilloma virus that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned. As part of the LBC pilot, we also piloted the use of human papilloma virus testing as triage for women with mild or borderline test results. HPV is a group of more than 80 virus types, some of which are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer. Most women, and indeed men, are infected with the virus at some point, but it is not yet possible to tell which infected women will go on to develop cervical abnormalities, or which of them will naturally expel the virus by the normal functioning of their immune system. Most HPV infections disappear, and even those women who contract high-risk HPVs rarely go on to develop cervical cancer. Carrying out an HPV test at the same time as a smear test may help to decide how to manage a woman if her smear shows minor abnormalities, and could avoid referral to colposcopy, with its associated anxiety.
  There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of HPV testing as a primary screening tool. However, we know how important HPV is in the development of cervical cancer, and that is why we are piloting the use of HPV testing. The independent evaluation report of the HPV arm of the pilot is expected in the summer. In addition, Professor Henry Kitchener, professor of gynaecological oncology at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester, is co-ordinating a study to investigate HPV as a primary screening method. It began in January 2001 and will take six years, including the follow-up of the data, and will involve 28,000 women. The Department of Health is funding equipment for the study at cost of £90,000 per annum. The health technology assessment programme is funding the rest of the study.
  However, we must all remember that early detection by screening and follow-up treatment can prevent only 80 to 90 per cent. of cervical cancers from developing. Like any screening test, cervical screening is not perfect. It might not always detect early cell changes that could lead to cancer. There are three main reasons why abnormal cells on a slide might not be recognised. First, sometimes they do not look very different from normal cells. Secondly, there might be very few abnormal cells on the slide. Thirdly, the person reading the slide might miss the abnormality. This happens occasionally, no matter how experienced the reader is. It is always very unfortunate, but these errors do occur.

  1545
  Women invited to participate in the NHS cervical screening programme need to understand the potential benefits and harm in doing so, in order to be able to make an informed choice about whether they wish to proceed. Information provided to women must be honest, comprehensive and understandable. Following the target set in the NHS cancer plan, all women now receive a national evidence-based information leaflet with their invitation for cervical screening.
  Strict quality assurance is operated within the cervical screening programme at a cost of £4 million a year. Laboratories that read cervical screening tests as part of the screening programme are subject to rigorous external quality assurance procedures that aim to spot potential problems before they become serious, and quickly to identify solutions. When a laboratory consistently fails to meet quality standards, the strategic health authority or primary care trust can require it to stop reading screening tests.
  In conclusion, we do not yet know if LBC will be more accurate than conventional cervical screening, but we hope that it will prove to be more sensitive. We do know, however, that 300,000 fewer women a year will have to undergo the anxiety of a repeat test, and that laboratories will be able to process samples more quickly. But this will take time. Retraining all the staff who work in the programme is an enormous task, and we must do it properly. The issue of quality, both of the programme and the people who work in it, is paramount. We would do a disservice to the 4 million women a year who participate in the NHS cervical screening programme if we were to rush the training of the staff who provide the service. Nevertheless, the Government and the Department of Health are committed to rolling out the technique as quickly as possible. I am therefore pleased to give the hon. Gentleman and the Van Neck family the assurance that we shall not waste a single day—or, we hope, a single life—in introducing this technique.
  Lady Hermon: I am always reluctant to intervene in an Adjournment debate, especially when I have not spoken to the hon. Member who initiated it, but I am increasingly concerned that the NICE guidelines do not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, has mentioned
  1546
  England several times. Will he confirm that what he has said about liquid-based cytology and the retraining of staff will apply to Northern Ireland as well? Women there who read this debate or watch it on Sky television will be worried that only England has been mentioned this evening.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, but I am a health Minister for England. Devolution means that my responsibilities are only for England, so it is not for me to speak about what will happen in Northern Ireland. However, I undertake to make sure that the attention of the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers is drawn to this debate. I will also make sure that any evidence that we in the Department have is shared with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I will ask those Ministers them to write to her about their intentions, and I will put a copy of the correspondence in the Library.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful for that response, but I remind the Minister that the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in October 2002. Many months have passed since then, and it is important that the women of Northern Ireland are not forgotten.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Assembly is not sitting at present. However, the legislative framework in which Northern Ireland Ministers take decisions is very different from what applies here. My responsibility is for England only, but I accept that women in Northern Ireland will want this technique to be rolled out there. I undertake to ensure that Ministers in Northern Ireland are aware of the concern that she has expressed, and that they respond as positively as they can.
  Once again, I give the hon. Member for South-West Devon and the Van Neck family the assurance that they seek. We will not waste any time in rolling out the technique. We know how important it is. We cannot guarantee that it will be any more accurate than the other technique, but we can guarantee that it will be more sensitive. Fewer women will have to undergo the distress of re-tests, and I believe that fewer mistakes will be made in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Manufacturing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: It is a great pleasure to be here this morning to talk about a subject that I thoroughly love and enjoy. It is a particular delight to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise sitting next to me. I was at a dinner last night at which his face was beamed in—it was 12 ft wide; it was fantastic. The forelocks of his face radiated over the fantastic event organised by the Electrical Contractors Association. The general comments made were, "Great guy", "A huge enthusiast for the construction industry", and, "It's marvellous to have Ministers who are on side." I thought that I would start by saying that because it is the truth of it.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I agree.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Oh, excellent; there is agreement all round—super.
Let us talk about manufacturing, which has endured a hard few years. I wish that I had a lifetime to talk to hon. Members about that marvellous industry and the people who work in it. It is a roller-coaster of a sector, and I think that manufacturing is the industrial equivalent of the chameleon because it must adapt continuously to survive. Manufacturing today is nothing like it was 100 or 10 years ago—or even, some would say, last week. Many innovative technologies wash over the immensely diverse sector daily. What it took 100 men—unfortunately, it was only men—to produce at the start of my lifetime in engineering takes only one man or woman today, and why not? If we do not lead in the area of process efficiency, other countries will take our business over. The greatest trick that we must realise, and the greatest challenge faced by my colleagues in manufacturing, is finding new lucrative ways to utilise and employ the hugely creative potential of people in the manufacturing world.
Given that I have only a few moments rather than a lifetime in which to talk, I shall concentrate my efforts on four areas of concern: economic policy and investment in the manufacturing sector; the involvement of women in manufacturing and the promotion of science engineering and technology to the public at large; skills and education levels; and the changing nature of the manufacturing sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology is in the Chamber, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to talk to us about nanotechnology, a subject close to his heart.
398WH
I begin by setting my remarks in the context of my experiences. I hope that hon. Members are aware that I am a chartered engineer—I am proud to be so. I am a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers and the City and Guilds of London Institute. Last year, much to my delight, I was made president of the Institution of Engineering Designers. However, I started as an apprentice on the docks down in Portsmouth in a machine tool company that made expensive products for the industry. It offered a limited number of apprenticeships, and I was the only woman whom it had ever employed. Two women started apprenticeships after me, but they both left after a short time. It was an exceptionally hard place in which to work. I was sent to Coventry for a long time after being assaulted by someone at work, who was subsequently suspended. Having no one to talk to for a long time at work at least focuses one's observational skills, and the only time I got to speak to people was when I went to night school.
I learned a great deal at night school and realised that what was happening at work was a long way from where technology stood at that time. It was totally obvious that the managers at my factory simply had no idea about the innovations that were taking place in their industry, and the company went into terminal decline because they failed to adopt those innovations, as did many thousands of other companies in the United Kingdom at the time. It was a desperately sad time for the shipping, steel, textile and coal industries. Thousands of gifted and highly skilled men and women walked out of work into wretched unemployment. The then Government's position was, "Let the market prevail"—well, it did. Within 10 years, the country had lost product intelligence that took millions of man hours to achieve.
No one in government at that time troubled themselves to discover the value of the skills and experience that walked away from thousands of factory gates year after year during the 1970s and 1980s. Everyone knew the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. There was no assistance available at all—it was every man for himself. On reflection, four areas of systemic weakness were evident at the time. Factories failed to implement process and product improvement, so processes were outdated and products did not match market need. Poor management was endemic—from where I stood, the problem was not all about the unions but poor management. The variable economic climate and associated fiscal policy militated against any long-term investment in British industry. Welfare and employment measures were punitive and existed in an environment in which unemployment was considered to be an unavoidable fate. Anyone over the age of 50 was considered to be absolutely obsolete. I was told that women should be at home tied to the kitchen sink and that although families naturally existed, they should have no impact on a man's ability to go to work.
In the 20 intervening years, I regret to say that every measure brought before the House to address the problems faced by British industry and ordinary working people was routinely objected to by the Conservative party. The Conservatives never wavered from their market-led position, and if they were in charge today, unemployment would continue to blight

399WH
our society and families for generations. The people who are capable of taking us to the leading edge of highly profitable industries would lack the means to do so.
I know that many hon. Members will talk about the collapse of the number of people employed in manufacturing, but judging the success of the sector by the total number of people in work is immensely misleading. We cannot ignore the fact that we live in a global village and that we are one of the richest countries in the world. We could employ more people in manufacturing, but only if we matched the low wages on offer elsewhere in the world, which would be totally unacceptable. Our efforts must be channelled into finding and developing manufacturing activity that reaps substantial rewards for shareholders and employees alike.
What are the Government doing to help those who want to survive and grow in the incredibly diverse and creative world of manufacturing, and what else needs to be done now? Are we doing all that we can to reach out and talk to companies, large and small alike, and not only those that want to get on that come looking for help, but those in a heads-down, struggling-to-survive mode? What are we doing for that group? Last year, in my capacity as chair of the registrants' panel, which is the engineers' panel within the Engineering and Technology Board, I visited the manufacturing advisory service in Manchester with other members of the panel. It is led by a dynamic and enthusiastic woman, and I was utterly impressed. The Government have invested £15 million in the service, which has been match funded by regional development agencies. When people ask what is happening to their taxes, we can tell them that they are going into regional advisory services for manufacturing. We have put £15 million into that service and got back £28 million so far. Whatever way one looks at it, that means jobs for a sector that underpins a vast amount of our economy.
I am sure that hon. Members have heard of the Engineering Employers Federation, which is led by Martin Temple. It campaigns and works hard for the tens of thousands of companies that it represents. When I looked for a user's guide to the manufacturing advisory service, I looked to Martin, because if it was not working, he would say so loud and clear. However, he says:
"The true measure of any successful programme is for good practical advice to quickly translate into tangible benefits. MAS is delivering on this, and EEF, through a number of our regional Associations, is delighted to be playing a part in its success."
The service did not exist before 1997, although there were other services that I used. The quality of advice was poor, and one was never sure whether one was getting value for money. The manufacturing advisory service is quality controlled, led, and has an ethos of excellence.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: What my hon. Friend has said so far is music to my ears. However, has not the engineering industry failed over a long period as an employer to make the necessary investment in skills? We now have a more stable situation, and 1.7 million people are still working in the sector, but mainly for small and medium-sized
400WH
enterprises. If the manufacturing advisory service is to work, it must reach not just big companies but down to SMEs.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Good companies will go looking for help; there is no problem. They will come knocking on the door. The manufacturing advisory service, particularly up in Manchester—I cannot speak for elsewhere—has had hundreds of companies knocking at the door. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's point is valid. A company of five people that is trying to work with six and seven people has to grab them and ask for help. There are a number of vehicles that would allow that. There is the business community, trade associations and all sorts of people who have to impress on companies that assistance and advice is available. I know that it is a huge struggle; I visit companies all the time and ask whether they have heard about such vehicles. They have not done so—not because enough effort is not being made, but because they are too busy to lift their heads out of work and relate to the services available. We must keep knocking on that door.
I turn to the measures that the Government have introduced that help companies generate more profit and encourage investment in new capital equipment and research and development. That touches on my hon. Friend's point about lack of investment. When companies are making enough money to cover only salaries, where do they find funds to invest in new product? Where do they find that huge capital up front and at reasonable rates that do not cripple the business? That is a problem for companies whose turnovers range from £100,000 to £100 million.
I want to refer particularly to, and applaud, the practical but easy measure that reduced corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero in 2002. It seemed easy, but we had to pay for it—it came out of tax revenue. It made a huge difference and mattered to shareholders, whom we want to keep on board. What about companies that want to invest? I mentioned that, in Liverpool, we have had the benefit of regional venture capital funds, which give easy access to finance and are vital to business. We are not talking about pigeon feed: we are talking about £235 million going into our region—a fantastic amount of money.
I have had people coming to my surgeries such as an entrepreneur who wanted to set up a small catering company. He is now the largest producer of crispy duck on the planet. He is right in the middle of Sefton and we are delighted to have him. He got started with funding. Another man who wanted to invent and develop games on his own needed the money, technology and production capacity to do so, and he got it from such funds or from a venture capital trust. Venture capital trusts are an excellent innovation and are designed to ratchet in money from big public insurance companies, and it has worked. The trusts have delivered just over £1 billion. There have been gaps in the market, especially for very small companies that do not have the portfolio to attract venture capital funds regionally. So, the development of the small companies fund is excellent. I ask all my colleagues in the engineering world to take advantage of it.
Hon. Members may not remember the Chancellor announcing in his Budget—I think in 2000—the R and D tax credit. I think that I was the only person who

401WH
cheered at the time. Most people said, "What's that?" but it was absolutely huge; for little companies, it was a heaven-sent message. Little companies have no problem getting support for R—they can get support for research in universities; huge money is going to R—but what about D? There was no investment in D or money from the Government for it. We all know that to make money in business, one needs to go from R to D to manufacturing. When the Chancellor said, "We'll give it to you for R and D", that made a huge difference to many companies.
Mr. Sheerman: So much of what my hon. Friend is saying is good, but is she aware that a clause in last year's Finance Bill that was intended to address creative accounting inadvertently completely stopped small innovative partnerships in universities? There have been no joint projects between universities and companies for the past six months. Something serious has happened. In my capacity as Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, I talked in the House last night to vice-chancellors, who are deeply worried. If something is not done, nothing on university campuses will move on joint partnership and research and development.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Gosh, if the totality of that is true, that is bad news. I was also speaking last night to some colleagues who work in the business. I will turn later specifically to the construction industry; I cannot resist it with the construction Minister present. If what my hon. Friend says is true, the problem is serious.
I applaud the initiative that the Government have taken. We have a Government and a Chancellor who say, "We recognise the barriers to development and want to try to do something about them." Fantastic! I firmly believe that, if there is a problem, the Government are determined to do well by manufacturing, as it matters profoundly to this country's economy. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North in his place, and I know that universities always want more money. We must examine the extent of the problem.
Dr. Ian Gibson: What about top-up fees?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I will not talk about top-up fees today.
I want to address the fantastically massive investment that the Government have made in our science base, which is supported by the Wellcome Trust. That has provided £1.75 billion-worth of investment in science infrastructure. We have brilliant engineers working in universities, and want to keep more of them there. I know what an engineering department was like under the previous Administration because I was the dean of one. It was a desperately sad place. There was no talk about expanding the department; it was all about collapse. We talked about how many jobs the department would lose that year because there was no investment in the public sector and no pull on further education and other colleges to produce apprentices or engineers. What was the point of taking an engineering degree when there was no work at the end of it?
There has been a transformation since 1997. In order to conduct blue-sky research in universities, we needed massive investment. In walked the Wellcome Trust, and
402WH
the Government grabbed it by the hand and said, "We'll join you." It has been a fantastic achievement that we in the UK have been able to retain the support of the Wellcome Trust, which could have gone to any other country or to our major competitors, but instead chose to come here where we still have some of the finest educational engineering facilities in the world.
Although researchers have benefited enormously from huge injections of funds, they do not get paid very much. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced not so long ago that researchers' salaries would be bumped up to £13,000. Frankly, that does not keep body and soul together. Research in engineering is done for the love of it, but we must find some way of recognising the enormous contribution that such people make down the line. They may not get into the manufacturing world, but they provide the products that engineers turn into fantastically fund-generating products.
Prior to Charles Clarke's intervention, research salaries
"haven't changed since the invention of the quill pen".
That is a direct quotation from one of my engineering colleagues who feels that he has been working in universities for that long and has struggled in very difficult times.
I turn to an issue that is specific to the construction industry, about which I know my hon. Friend the Minister will talk. Construction is not manufacturing, but the manufacturing industry underpins the products used in construction. The transfer of responsibility for construction from the former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Department of Trade and Industry may have a serious effect on the research and training community. The innovation review is focusing on major companies and technology departments at British universities. That is appropriate, as we want to work with the players and universities that are eager to set the agenda. However, that approach means that small process-driven companies and the fragmented sectors of the construction industry will have great difficulty in finding the industry muscle to compete for the available funds. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the problem, and he will know that it will result in a substantial loss of the funding that underpins much work that translates blue-sky research into usable codes and standards for a large part of the construction industry.
It was right to move responsibility for construction from the DETR to the DTI, but that must not be at the expense of organic and sustained improvement in the construction industry. Construction must not lose out as a result of that transfer. Construction is a major contributor of wealth creation in this country, and is said to produce up to 10 per cent. of our gross domestic product. However, we must recognise that innovation flows not just from university research and development, but from a plethora of small organisations. The DTI must examine the need to develop a package to support large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises that have been disfranchised as a result of the focus of the innovation review. We want to ensure that small groups that have worked closely with small companies, which are difficult to reach, continue to do so and that that sector of the industry thrives.

403WH
The good news is that I have almost concluded my speech, but before I do so, I shall touch on something that is close to my heart—apprenticeships and the involvement of women in the marvellous world of engineering and manufacturing. Apprenticeships, as we know, virtually collapsed in the 1990s and it took the Government a couple of years to focus their energies on the role of apprenticeships and the reason why they were necessary. In the 1990s, there was little for apprentices to do, particularly in the manufacturing and construction sector. However, that has changed, and there are now a variety of two-year and four-year apprenticeship programmes, which is music to my ears. I did a four-year apprenticeship—two years on the tools before learning a variety of other skills. I now meet young apprentices, and I find it extraordinary that they manage to do in two years what I managed to do in four. We have not lost the quality of the old apprenticeships—the programme works differently and is tailored to today's needs.
Mr. Sheerman: I agree with my hon. Friend, but only 38 or 39 per cent. of young people finish their modern apprenticeships. Something must be done, not in engineering or the manufacturing sector but in other sectors, to improve those figures. I hope that, like me, she supports the introduction of foundation degrees, which will complement modern apprenticeships. Modern apprenticeships will lead on to foundation degrees and even to university or practical employment.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am delighted that my hon. Friend came to support me this morning. I agree with him—I was going to say that the biggest problem for young people who choose to do an apprenticeship is finding an employer. That does not prevent them from going to college to do their apprenticeships, but if they cannot find an employer and the clock is ticking, they will surely quit. They know that there may be serious problems when they finish—who wants to employ an apprentice plumber or fitter who has never worked on a job? We do not want people with textbook knowledge but no practical skills.
We need to consider the quality of the courses on offer. I cannot comment in depth, but in my previous role as dean of an engineering faculty, I know that it is damned difficult to come up with a training product overnight. It is a huge exercise—we have to work with people who will use apprentices, and create courses and skills that will underpin businesses so that there is a ready market for students. If there is no such market, why would students want to remain at college? If people drop out, they may then go and work as an assistant, but they will end up working with bodgers—the lowest of the low who give qualified, skilled people a bad name.
One way in which to solve the apprenticeship problem is to establish better dialogue with employers. However, to return to my earlier comments, it is exceptionally difficult to reach out to some small businesses and encourage them to expand. When they are running here, there and everywhere, how can they focus on their future? Perhaps we should consider incentivising them, although I do not know how we would do so. In my day, companies were prepared to take a hit on the bottom
404WH
line. When I was an apprentice, I was not producing anything profitable, but the company recognised that eventually I would be a contributor. We need to acknowledge that and allow employers to discuss the issue. We must be supportive—employers need apprentices, and we need them to grow their businesses.
I shall conclude by discussing the role of women in manufacturing and engineering. It gives me immense pleasure that a woman is serving as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There has been not just one woman in that post but two, which is great news. There are not many women working in engineering. We try hard to attract women, as engineering is immensely creative and accommodates people with a wide range of skills. People who are brilliant with their hands can find rewarding work in engineering, as can people with marvellous minds and naturally gifted artists. However, it is immensely important to try to diversify the engineering world—I am afraid that is still appears to be men wall-to-wall. I went to the Electrical Contractors Association dinner last night. If I were a single woman, it would have been a joy to behold about 1,000 men, mostly business men, who were all unaccompanied. A fair percentage of them must have been single—it is a fantastic business to be in. I do not believe that my engineering colleagues or the institutions have alighted on this, but perhaps we should think about speed-dating. A speed-dating agency could be attached to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, God bless it, in Birdcage walk—such a service would be very popular. The Government have not yet alighted on such a measure, but we are innovative, so who knows?
In the absence of speed-dating, what are we doing to try to get more women into the male-dominated world of engineering? We have great role models in Patricia Hewitt, who is great, Margaret Beckett, and numerous other women. The DTI, recognising the seriousness of the problem and the fact that we will not realise the potential of the manufacturing sector unless we attract women and people from different ethnic backgrounds, has set up a number of groups. The Department continues to support the Women into Science and Engineering programme, which does a great deal of work in schools. That is important, as we need to reach young women and others when they are thinking about which career to pursue. I was involved in the inception of the WISE programme, which has been under way for 30 years. Its results are not momentous, but they are consistent, and it is a resource for women who are interested in science and engineering, as well as their parents and others who influence them.
David Sainsbury—
Mr. Bellingham: A marvellous man.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Indeed, David Sainsbury is marvellous.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but the hon. Lady has referred to Members of both Houses by name. She is well aware of the convention.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. Then let me refer to Lord David Sainsbury as the Minister in

405WH
charge of the Office of Science and Technology. He has done an enormous amount, in his own way, to try to further the involvement of young people in science and engineering. He funded, through the Engineering and Technology Board, the science and engineering ambassadors scheme, which goes into schools and involves hundreds of people who are interested in engineering and want to promote it. The scheme needs more work, but it is delivering results.
Recognising that other Members wish to speak, but craving their indulgence—
Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Lady could go on for another hour.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I could go on all day—there is such a lot of good stuff to talk about.
I know that I shall probably hear criticism of the Government's approach to manufacturing and of the fact that the number of people who are engaged in it may still be falling. However, Members of both Houses need to understand that there is something in people's blood that makes them cleave to manufacturing. This is a wonderful nation because its people have involved themselves in the production of goods since it began, and they are marvellous at it. The trick is to harness the creative ability and drive of people working in manufacturing and to develop the policies that maximise those great abilities. That requires constant effort. I ask the Minister to explain what more he intends to do to help the people out there, because if they are not there, we will not have the money that they make to spend on the betterment of others.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I remind Members that the wind-ups must start at 10.30.
10.1 am
Mr. John Randall: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible to try to ensure that other Members can catch your eye.
I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for introducing a debate on a subject to which she brings an undoubted expertise and enthusiasm that we all enjoyed. She talked about role models, but she is herself a good role model for many people.
I declare an interest—not a direct interest, Mr. O'Hara—in that since leaving university and before coming to this place, I worked in a retail outlet, a family business, which had close alliances with manufacturers, particularly furniture manufacturers. That is the nearest that I will ever get to Cabinet status.
When I came to this House nearly seven years ago, one could more or less stock a furniture department, both cabinet and upholstery, from British manufacturers. Sadly, that is no longer the case. I recently went to the national furniture exhibition at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham, had a look round and saw some people whom I had not seen for a few years to try to find out what was going on. I spoke to Roger Mason of British Furniture Manufacturers, a trade association with 7,000 members. Interestingly—I had not realised this—80 per cent. of its members have
406WH
fewer than 10 employees. However, although we are talking about very small businesses, about 166,000 people work in the industry.
One of the reasons why British furniture manufacturing has been in decline is consumer driven. As with many other industries producing goods that we used to sell, such as cutlery from Sheffield or ceramics from the potteries in Stoke-on-Trent, British furniture has become too expensive for the average consumer now that people have other spending priorities. There is an influx of imported products, which, if we are honest, may not be nearly as good but are much more affordable. I am pleased that some manufacturers of furniture and other goods are being proactive by running advertising campaigns and trying to establish niche markets, with some success. However, as the hon. Member for Crosby outlined in relation to engineering, businesses sometimes find that they do not have the money to do what they want to do. We can all have lots of good ideas, but it is not always easy to carry them out. Some companies have been successful; others not so, but not necessarily because they are bad companies.
It is interesting that the decline has occurred pretty much equally all over the country. My great-grandfather started his furniture manufacturing business in High Wycombe, where there was a traditional industry, which has since declined, based on the beech woods of the Chilterns. According to the regional development agencies, the situation is more or less the same in every area. When the steel industry was in decline, many companies in south Wales started to manufacture furniture, and I remember that when I started in the furniture retail sector, we were a bit rude about their stuff, which was not of the highest quality because it was produced by steelworkers who had suddenly turned their hand to upholstery. That soon changed, as those skilled workers put their minds to new tasks and produced some very good things. Sadly, some of those jobs are now going.
What can the Government do about the problem? In fact, I do not think that Governments can do a great deal in a free market. I heard what the hon. Member for Crosby said about the previous Conservative Government. However, people often blame the Government without necessarily having a party political viewpoint. Many of my local manufacturers and small engineering companies in Uxbridge blame the Government for their problems—whatever the party, it is the Government who get it in the neck.
Manufacturers face many hurdles: that is by no means exclusive to the furniture sector. People often mention employers liability insurance, the compulsory nature of which means that it is impossible to negotiate with insurance brokers to get the price down. I am sure that many Members have heard complaints from business about the significant increase in insurance costs. Businesses face increasing amounts of legislation. No doubt, much of it is very worthy—only yesterday, I spoke in the debate on the environment, so I cannot knock environmental legislation other than to say that, proportionately, it affects smaller businesses more, because they cannot employ a person specifically to deal with health and safety or environmental issues, as can a large company.

407WH
There is a feeling—some say that it is an urban myth, but I think that it is true—that businesses in this country do not have the level playing field that they want because other countries do not enforce legislation that comes from elsewhere as strictly as we do. When I was in business, the flammability of upholstery was a big issue, and Britain was at the forefront in addressing it. In fact, our flammability regulations were dumbed down when EU regulations were introduced, because they were not as good as ours. I have heard of cases, although I have no evidence, in which Customs and Excise, having received a tip-off, checked some goods that had come in from China—it could also be true of other EU countries—and found them to be sub-standard. It is simple to stick a label on a consignment of sofas or chairs without testing every one. Many British manufacturers feel that they are sticking firmly by the book while others are coming in round the side.
Many companies, particularly in my part of the country, find that when their lease comes up for renewal, the price has gone up considerably. In terms of property prices, location is everything. We have a tradition of small engineering companies in Uxbridge—I grew up with them. They are having to move out and their employees cannot find suitable employment without moving away from the area.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Come to Liverpool.
Mr. Randall: However wonderful Liverpool is, the charms of rural Middlesex are also pretty good.
Brunel university's engineering department was famous for innovation. Although it remains famous, it is in decline and has problems, despite what the hon. Lady said. We have a science park where many interesting products are developed, but once a company reaches a specific size and is doing well, it cannot find another location.
I have outlined some of the problems and I hope that, through raising them today, we will manage to consider what to do about them.
10.10 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on instigating the debate. The word "manufacturing" appears to be rapidly disappearing from the dictionary. A few days ago, I heard the bad news that the last big manufacturing company in Norwich, Laurence, Scott and Electromotors Ltd. was to close. It once employed 2,000 people, but no longer. However, I guess that there are other jobs for 55-year-olds in a boom city.
At the same time as I heard the news, a document from the East of England Development Agency came through my letterbox and gave me hope when I first saw it. It is called "Sharing The Challenge—playing your part in reviewing the regional economic strategy". It purported to give us a vision of making
"the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here."
408WH
That is fine.
The document recognises that the east of England has good research and development arenas, high-profile headquarters and research establishments—for example, in Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich—in advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, information communications technology and so on. However, advanced "manufacturing" provides the only instance of the word in the main document. I went through it with a fine toothcomb and found that it also appears in appendix II, which points out the decline in manufacturing, including
"a 35 per cent. decline in employees working in manufacturing since 1985"
while
"the percentage of employees working in services has increased 30 per cent. over the same period."
Indeed, as other speakers have pointed out, the world is changing.
Britain could take a lead, however, and build up its manufacturing base in some arenas. For example, it is doing something but could do much more in nanotechnology, which is the big hope for the developing world in creating new jobs. I do not want to define nanotechnology or I shall end by fighting with His Royal Highness again about grey goo. It involves small particles, but has the potential for significant advances in health care, medicine, security, electronics, communications, computing and so on.
Let us consider one of the regional development agencies in the north, where my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby lives. The Office for National Statistics report on regional gross value added—GVA—points out:
"The manufacturing sector is the largest contributor to GVA in the NE region, but its fractional contribution is reducing."
However, it continues by stating that manufacturing
"remains much more important as a sector in the NE than for the UK as a whole, but it is now declining in line with the national average for the sector".
The challenge is therefore to take up the new technologies, push them into the industries and thereby keep the industries expanding in a modern way.
According to the document, the best way in which to increase the GVA in the large manufacturing sector is by using nanotechnology. There is therefore great hope for developing nanotechnology to help with an industry's problems. However, it is being commercialised mainly through small and medium-sized businesses. Large companies currently regard it as peripheral to the core technology. They expect it to have an impact on their future product performance, but have yet to formulate any nanotechnology research and development strategy. That is true of the East of England Development Agency.
That Government have put £90 million into nanotechnology in this country, but the document that fell through my letterbox—"Sharing The Challenge"—does not mention it. I have made that point in other places to try to make the East of England Development Agency move and use the new technologies. What more can a Government do but give money and ask the

409WH
regional development agencies to get on with it? There are brilliant people in the region, but they have to take action and develop the technology in the industries.
Germany is fourth biggest funder of nanotechnology after Japan, the United States of America and the European Union as whole. It intends to place its nanotechnology in the motor industry, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and optics. It is concentrating hard on that and it is currently ahead of the game. We have the potential but are being beaten back through lack of drive. I know that because the Select Committee on Science and Technology has considered nanotechnology and visited Germany. The chairman of the Development Agencies Network Collaboration for UK Micro and Nanotechnology told the Committee that recognising nanotechnology
"is vital to the future competitiveness of the industrial base of the UK and other regions…so there was a developing awareness of the importance of this field."
The professor who is director of the Cambridge Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Unit, which is again well funded by Government, stated:
"I can only speak from my personal experience of the Eastern Regional Development Agency, clearly they have a lot of things which they have to work on within the RDA and in some cases the nano network is not high on their agenda and in some cases it is quite clear that they do not really understand the issue."
I rest my case that the technologies are there to develop, but we simply do not exploit and use them enough.
In our brave new world, we, like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, should be positive about product development and manufacture in the key areas of health care, pharmaceuticals, communications, environmental sensing, safety systems and so on. The world is opening up. An ink-jet printer has been developed in this country, creating a market of billions of pounds, as well as a blood analyser and other products that keep people in work and benefit the health and wealth of the nation.
We need an integrated approach and I ask the Minister to consider asking the development agencies what they have done with the money because, without the injection of cash into manufacturing industry, it will disappear and the word "manufacturing" will no longer be in the English dictionary.
10.17 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate and on the passion with which she presented her case. She was right to remind us of the dangers of turning the clock back to the dark days of the 1980s. In the west midlands, we know only too well the devastation that Government policies caused then. That is not to say that manufacturing does not continue to face a tough time and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was right to mention employer's liability and insurance, which are a problem for many companies.
Manufacturing remains significant. In my region, it accounts for 20 per cent. of employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was right that we need to move up the value chain to become world class and fulfil the skills agenda. I have a specific interest in the automotive sector, where great work is going on, such as the creation of the automotive academy, which boosts
410WH
skills and processes. I congratulate everyone who has been involved—in the Government, the learning and skills councils and the private sector.
We need to examine our development of the catalytic parts of engineering that can build and boost industry beyond its immediate area. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was right to mention nanotechnology in that context, and I draw attention to the high performance engineering and motor sports sector, the value of which the Government rightly recognise.
We should also emphasise the importance of Government influence in procurement and I am glad that that is being re-examined. I feel that acutely coming from Birmingham, where we are witnessing the end of 150 years of train manufacturing at Alstom. That should not happen, and we should exercise greater influence to prevent such occurrences in future.
I want to get something off my chest. When we consider manufacturing, there is sometimes a tendency to draw false distinctions. In the automotive industry, no manufacturing sector means no retail, car mechanics, repairs or sales sectors. When the Longbridge plant in my constituency was threatened in 2000, it was not simply a problem for those who worked there. For every job lost there, three or four others would be lost, including in the supply sector and even in the corner shop across the road. A link therefore exists all the way through.
The reason that I mention the point now is that over the last few days MG Rover has been in the news again, and I want to comment on that briefly. Once again, special investigations are appearing in the newspapers, which at first sight seem to be drawing the same conclusions as the special investigations undertaken about six months ago. There are whispers of at best corporate greed, and at worst asset-stripping at that plant. I have some criticisms of some of the decisions taken by the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, and I have told them to their face and put them on the public record. If there are serious questions to be asked, the company must be comprehensive and transparent in answering them. It may feel that it has answered those questions previously, and in many cases it has. It owes that to the people who helped it to save Longbridge back in 2000, however, and it owes it because without giving those answers, even if it has done so previously, the speculation will continue.
I also want to send a message to the newspapers arid the "experts" who often make such allegations. My constituents just wish that when national newspapers publish these stories, they would show as much interest in the future of the company, the future of the people employed there and the future of car making at Longbridge as they appear to show in getting a good headline. Hardly an article is written without Rover being referred to as "the stricken car company" or "the troubled car maker", irrespective of whether sales are up or down, irrespective of whether new models are being brought out or not, and irrespective of whether those models have attracted praise or criticism. All those things hit confidence.
There may be some who are only too happy about that. There may be people who have an axe to grind, who wrote off Longbridge back in 2000 and who never

411WH
forgave the employees there for rewriting the script and proving them wrong. They were told that they would be out of business in six months, a year, and then two years. Four years on, however, they are still there. What is the future? I do not know. There have been setbacks, and the company faces big challenges. Nothing is guaranteed. The business is very different from what it was in 2000, however. New models have been brought in over the past three years, and new models are on the way. Their success will be critical to the future of the company.
The analysts and the press should ask what questions they want, and the company should give open and transparent answers to those questions. I do not believe that it has anything to hide, and it needs to demonstrate that. However, the analysts and newspapers should not impose on this company and its employees expectations that they would not apply to other businesses of this size. They should give the employees of Longbridge the chance to do what they want to do—to let their cars do the talking.
10.22 am
Brian Cotter: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing this debate. She clearly has great experience, and one might say that she is something of a fellow in many ways, certainly judging by her experiences with her many fellowships. She made a great double act with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has just left. I am sure that theirs, like many other double acts, will continue, as they related to each other very well and raised some serious issues.
It is important that we again debate manufacturing. The topic is relevant today because, once again, we have disappointing figures from the Office for National Statistics, which show a fall in manufacturing output in December. I shall refer briefly to an issue on which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) touched: insurance costs. I hope that the Minister will take account of the great burden that manufacturing has had to bear because of the increased costs of employer's liability. Despite warm words about those costs being brought under control, I know from having spoken to the industry that although the increases are being reduced, many concerns remain, for example, about notice of rates from insurance companies and other issues. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge for his contribution.
Despite hopes that the sector is beginning to recover and evidence that manufacturers are confident about boosts to the volume of orders and business activity, recent figures make it clear that the sector is far from being out of the woods. December's output figures should be of great importance to us because of the vital role that manufacturing plays in our economy. Although the contribution of manufacturing to the economy has been diminishing for a long time, it still accounts for around 17 per cent. of gross domestic product.
While house prices boom and consumer spending spirals, manufacturing remains stagnant, and the economy continues to be fundamentally out of balance.
412WH
December's fall in manufacturing output means that economic recovery could end up being based on consumer borrowing alone. British consumers are expected to have accumulated debts of £1 trillion by this summer, and it is clear that that is unsustainable in the long run. In addition, yesterday's announcement of the record quarterly trade deficit from the Office for National Statistics further undermines the Government's bravado about the strength of the UK economy.
Last night I attended the Engineering Employers Federation—the manufacturers organization—dinner at which the Chancellor spoke. He did not exactly tell us what was in the Budget, but we heard lots of warm and encouraging words. Let us hope that they are translated into action. The decline in manufacturing is weakening our ability to export, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the services sector will no longer be able to cover the import-export gap.
We have a two-speed economy, with runaway consumer spending and a weak manufacturing sector. The Bank of England alone cannot resolve that. I therefore ask the Minister what action he is taking to rein in irresponsible lending to consumers and to ensure that we do not return to the old days of boom and bust. I imagine that the unkind references to the Tory Government made by the hon. Member for Crosby related to boom and bust. I give the current Government credit for having brought stability to the economy—although, modestly, I point to the fact that they adopted the long-standing Liberal Democrat policy of having an independent central bank. None the less, I congratulate them at least on stability, and generally on jobs, although, unfortunately, we are not keeping up in manufacturing.
The Department of Trade and Industry has given subsidies to various larger manufacturing companies in the form of regional selective assistance, yet many of those larger companies are beginning to outsource their operations abroad. Although we must accept that that is a natural phenomenon under a free trade system, we should not allow such companies to accept huge Government subsidies on the premise that they intend to bolster jobs in the local community when, in reality, they end up moving their operations abroad. Only last month, despite the fact that in 1994 an £86-million public aid package was used to attract Samsung to invest in Teesside, the company announced that it was quitting its Teesside site to take advantage of lower production costs in eastern Europe and China. Samsung received, I think, £10.5 million of that regional selective assistance.
A Financial Times survey conducted last summer also found that half the £750 million in grants offered to regional aid projects over the last decade went to 16 companies that have since closed or fallen well short of job creation targets. Although it is not wrong to try to attract foreign investment, it is imperative that the Government measure properly the way in which taxpayer's money is spent to ensure that it achieves the maximum benefit for local communities and the economy. Increasingly, we need to direct money to our manufacturing businesses. The message must be conveyed that the DTI cannot—must not—go on digging into the taxpayer's pocket to bail out flagging

413WH
companies such as British Energy. A large amount has gone to that company, and even larger sums may go to it in future, perhaps largely to benefit its shareholders.
I know the Government are thinking of allocating regional selective assistance according to the need to boost productivity, rather than just for jobs. That is a welcome departure, but the way in which public money is distributed to private companies should be scrutinised more closely, perhaps by the National Audit Office.
We need to boost innovation by encouraging more private investment in firms, so that money is available for research and development. The hon. Member for Crosby rightly emphasised the importance of development. Much more must be done to inform manufacturing firms of where they can go to obtain finance. Although the Government have introduced a research and development tax credit, a recent KPMG survey found that only 9 per cent. of firms are taking advantage of it, and many are unaware of its existence or do not know how to claim it. The Government should promote plain speaking not only in regulation, but in explaining to people what is available to them. It is imperative that we help small and medium-sized manufacturers by encouraging private investment, cutting bureaucracy, and encouraging research and development.
More support for training and initiatives are needed. Modern apprenticeships must be flexible, so that apprentices will feel that they will have a good job at the end of them. There has perhaps been too much training and not enough hands-on work. More in-house training is needed, especially in the case of small companies, which cannot easily allow people to leave the workplace.
There is still a skills gap. According to a recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, skills training is the second most important issue for small firms. Skills must be relevant to business, and there should be links not only with universities but with schools. I have encountered great concern about the lack of careers advice to attract people into manufacturing. Lately, I have talked to many people about training, and I have been told that careers advice in schools is often not good enough—indeed, young people are sometimes actively discouraged from going into manufacturing. That must change. We must also get rid of the idea that vocational courses are second best. The days when apprenticeships meant no more than learning to screw things into machines are long gone. Nowadays, people need complex skills to run machinery. It must be made clear to those at school that manufacturing has a great deal to offer them.
I strongly support the concept of the Manufacturing Advisory Service, but I urge the Minister to ensure that it is monitored. It does very well in some areas, but in others it needs to be reassessed. I applaud the Government's regional approach to the service, but I want them to go further. Liberal Democrats believe that the DTI must be slimmed down considerably and that service must be delivered at local level.
We need to raise the profile of manufacturing. Manufacturing is exciting, it is essential to the country's future, and it can provide a great future for our young people.
10.35 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her ebullient speech, which showed her enthusiasm and experience. I shall make it my business to attend more trade association dinners if I know that she will be at all of them.
Some of the headline figures for employment and economic growth—and, indeed, the latest CBI survey, which revealed stronger output growth in manufacturing—may lead Ministers, including the one present here today, to believe that everything is a great deal better. However, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) pointed out, the December manufacturing output figures showed a fall of 0.1 per cent. and output still 4 per cent. below the 2000 level. We heard another announcement of Liberal Democrat policy today when the hon. Gentleman said that he wants the DTI to be slimmed down, but the other day his boss said he wanted to get rid of the Department. It would be useful to know exactly what the policy is. In any event, it is not Conservative policy to get rid of the DTI. We think it is doing a good job, especially with the Manufacturing Advisory Service.
There are other storm clouds: for example, figures show that Britain is no longer the number one place in Europe for inward investment—we have fallen to about number four, behind France and Germany—and recent World Economic Forum figures on competitiveness show that we have fallen from fourth to 14th in the ranking. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out, manufacturing investment is at an alarmingly low level—the lowest for about 20 years. The wretched trade figures have also been mentioned.
Let me say something about the overall tax and regulatory burden. The hon. Member for Crosby referred to the Engineering Employers Federation and the indomitable Martin Temple. The EEF has been very complimentary about the Manufacturing Advisory Service and several other Government initiatives. Conservative Members give credit where it is due, as the Minister knows—I often compliment him personally on his enthusiasm and energy. However, he might have missed a comment made by Martin Temple the other day. He said
"Businesses in this country may well be able to cope with individual burdens and regulations, but the cumulative weight of the regulatory burden is now destroying wealth creation, especially among SMEs."
The CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have made similar comments.
One consequence of the growing burden on businesses is the increasing trend towards "offshoring". Not only low value-added manufacturing concerns, but sophisticated call centres and other financial service back-up operations are now moving to the subcontinent and the far east. The companies involved include BT. HSBC, National Rail Enquiries and, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) will know only too well, Norwich Union. It has not caused huge pain in Norwich, but Norwich Union has "offshored" a significant part of its operation in recent months.
The skills gap is narrowing. The other day I spoke to the chief executive of a financial services company who said that the brutal truth was that the decision is a no-

415WH
brainer. If people in this country cost at least £25,000 a year per employee—that is not a great deal to pay someone, but it is the overall cost of each job in the call centre—and they can be replaced by people in Bangalore who have degrees, speak good English and are highly motivated, literate and numerate for perhaps £2,500 a year per employee, it is understandable that businesses take such a step.
It is worrying that the skills gap is narrowing rapidly, particularly in China—a giant that is stirring and making extraordinary progress in building its own technical know-how and ability. That is why it is evermore vital that the DTI and other Government Departments focus on creating a thoroughly proactive and dynamic skills agenda, as the hon. Member for Crosby rightly pointed out.
We must also have an across-the-board SME policy that has the desired impact on such businesses. The Government have introduced various initiatives, made improvements to some of the schemes, including the small firms loan guarantee scheme, which the Minister and I have debated on a number of occasions, and introduced other schemes, such as the regional venture capital funds and the phoenix fund. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out in a succinct and all too brief contribution, there is a crisis in public and employer liability insurance. Many companies simply cannot get insurance. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, about 10,000 companies are continuing to trade without proper public and employer liability insurance. We have had a Department for Work and Pensions report on that, but I would like the Minister to comment on what the DTI is doing to alleviate that crisis.
My hon. Friend mentioned EU regulations and the Government's tendency, arising from our different culture, to gold-plate regulations, and he mentioned the regulations on inflammability. I looked at the ceramics directive the other day. There was a perfectly good inspection regime in the ceramics industry in this country. Perhaps only 20 or so businesses in the west midlands are affected, but by implementing the ceramics directive with added fervour, we have created an inspection regime that exceeds that in every other country in Europe—countries that apparently were content to leave their existing inspection regimes in place.
That is not an example of malice on the part of the DTI; it is symptomatic of the attitude in this country. We insist on implementing directives to the letter, and we have a culture of ensuring that the law is obeyed. It is an honourable and sensible culture, but the Minister must tell us that companies in this country and in Europe will be receive equal treatment.
My hon. Friend mentioned the stamp duty land tax. The Minister may talk proudly about the number of tax reductions that have been introduced, but what is the benefit to firms of relieving them of one burden but then imposing another on them in the form of stamp duty land tax?
We are seeing an erosion of flexibility in our economy on the supply side. In his winding-up speech, for which I will leave him plenty of time, I would like the Minister
416WH
to focus on the working time directive. I am sorry that the EEF dinner that I went to clashed with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers dinner, which I would have liked to attend as well. At the EEF dinner, the Chancellor made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, the working time directive and the UK's individual opt-out was a red-line issue. He said that it was absolutely vital for British business that we kept the individual opt-out, because we have a different employment framework from other European countries and it is vital to our competitive position. I support what the Chancellor said.
The Commission is to publish its report on the future of the UK individual opt-out and indeed the future of the opt-out generally—other countries in Europe have an individual opt-out. The least the Chancellor should be entitled to expect is the enthusiastic backing of his fellow socialists, the socialist Members of the European Parliament, but, unfortunately, they have not even been neutral. Far from staying out of the way and perhaps helping the issue to go away, under a Spanish MEP, Cercas Alonso, they have published the so-called "own initiative" report. Mr. Stephen Hughes, secretary of the Socialist Group, said last week that the group
"want speedy and specific action from the Commission to remove the individual opt-out and overall, the Socialist Group takes the view that an opt-out from the health and safety directive is a dangerous nonsense."
Can the Minister comment on that? When the Chancellor and other Ministers are doing all they can to ensure that the UK's competitive position is maintained, it is a pity that their colleagues in the European Parliament do not sing from the same hymn sheet. The Minister may comment on the fact that, when my good friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), whom I shadow two days a week in the Standing Committee scrutinising the Employment Relations Bill, went to Europe the other day, the great Mr. Hughes refused to see him to discuss the future of the UK individual opt-out. That is important.
It is easy to quote statistics selectively, and all of us, including the Opposition, are guilty of that. The Minister might say that I only dig out pictures that are disturbing to the Government; equally, we could say that the Minister paints pictures that are over-rosy. However, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North will know only too well, many constituencies in Norfolk contain small engineering and manufacturing companies that are finding life very difficult.
We are, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out, enjoying something of a consumer boom at the moment, but that may be largely dependent on, or at least fuelled by, people taking equity out of their homes. The Minister is very good at getting out and talking to people on the ground—every organisation that I speak to, including the EEF, the FSB and the Forum of Private Business testifies that he talks to businesses—but it is vital not only that he stands firm on the UK individual opt-out on the working time directive, but that he listens to people on the ground, so that we have in place policies that are proactive, totally relevant and above all go a long way to ensuring that the small firms sector and the smaller end of the manufacturing sector are able to retain their position and, I hope, grow to

417WH
provide jobs to substitute for the jobs lost to offshoring, in which many larger businesses are engaged. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate. She takes a keen interest in this crucial subject and has on several occasions brought influential constituents to brief me at the DTI, for which I am grateful. As a qualified chartered engineer actively engaged with major industry stakeholders, she speaks with great authority. I am also grateful to other colleagues for the interest that they take in manufacturing and for the generally non-partisan approach to manufacturing, which is a sign of its great significance.
Yesterday, I returned from a DTI trade mission in Malaysia, where I met representatives of some great UK manufacturers and exporters such as Rolls-Royce and Shell. They there are fighting for orders for their world-beating products and technologies—technologies such as the Trent 600/900 engine, which was developed in the UK through a great partnership between the DTI and Rolls-Royce, involving £250 million of Government money. It is now capturing more than a third of the world civil aero-engine market, and is an example of the Government backing the best in manufacturing. Indeed, I am delighted that the day before yesterday Bangkok Airlines announced that, having cancelled an order for two Boeing aircraft, it is now to order two Airbus 320s in contracts worth more than $100 million. Last year, for the first time, Airbus delivered more planes than Boeing—indeed, I understand that 305 were sold worldwide. These are good news stories, and there are a lot of them.
As Members know, I care passionately about manufacturing. I try to get out of the DTI to business one day a week, and when I do so I always visit a manufacturer. Manufacturing accounts for one sixth of our GDP and contributes in excess of £150 billion to our economy every year. There are some 3.5 million jobs in manufacturing, most of which are highly skilled, high-quality jobs, and of course there are millions of other jobs in the supply chain. When I visited the Swindon factory last year to see the 1 millionth Honda and the 1.5 millionth engine come off the production line, the head of Honda in this sector, Harada San, told me that 113 British manufacturers are in the supply chain for that factory. I am sure that a similar tale can be told in respect of the Cowley factory in Oxford, which I visited at about the same time in order to see the Mini.
I am aware of the importance of manufacturing, and so are the Government, which is why we held the first major review of manufacturing in 30 years, and set up the Manufacturing Advisory Service, which has been greatly praised here this morning. It is making a real difference to the quality of manufacturers in the regions by bringing the best together and by ensuring that everyone has a benchmark and the necessary mentoring. That is why, in the less than two years that the service has been running, manufacturers have made more than 20,000 inquiries, why 1,200 in-depth consultancy projects have been undertaken by MAS experts in the region—people who are themselves involved in
418WH
manufacturing and industry—and why the average improvement in the productivity of companies assisted by in-depth consultancies has been an estimated 38 per cent. That amounts to £38 million of added value to those companies since the 2002 launch, which has had a great impact on the bottom line.
Some serious issues have been raised and I shall address them in no specific order. One issue that affects us all is the failure of companies that get regional selective assistance from regional development agencies, and how we should treat them. I take a very serious and sober view of this issue, but I do not believe that a company such as Samsung set itself up to take £10 million from the Government and then walk away from an investment worth 10 times that amount. Collapses can occur in high-technology markets—a situation not helped by the general global downturn that we have experienced. I have met representatives of companies such as Corning, and I know that for personal reasons—they are not completely selfish, ruthless individuals—it is as difficult for chief executives to lay off workers in this country as it would be for us to face such difficult decisions.
I therefore urge a word of caution to Members. I want Samsung back here—I do not want it to go away with a bad taste in its mouth—but that does not detract from the comments that have been made about necessary accounting for the money, why it was spent, or whether the Government are getting a return for their investment. It is of course proper that the National Audit Office and others examine whether Ministers and their advisers are taking sound business decisions in allocating the money, but it is equally important to point out that companies that get regional selective assistance are not generally in it for the money. They want their product or service to be developed by a highly skilled local work force, and they are as sorry as anyone else when that does not work out. We should be very reluctant to make them feel worse than they already feel by making groundless allegations about what they may have done with that money or by making irresponsible demands for them to pay it back.
I agree that the facts on training are clear. In 1979 we were training some 180,000 apprentices, but by 1997 that figure had fallen to fewer than 90,000 people—indeed, it may have fallen to fewer than 70,000. Now, more than 230,000 people are undertaking modern apprenticeships. Last Monday, I visited a fantastic further education college in north Wales. Members will share my gratitude for the fact that, even though the skills do not relate directly to manufacturing, it has doubled the number of people undertaking plumbing and allied skills training. Notwithstanding the drive to provide more people with the opportunity to go to university, which I and perhaps the majority of Members present enjoyed, it is vital that further education courses and other courses get their share of the necessary resources and praise. We all know of constituents who are undertaking modern apprenticeships and training that, although not higher education, are of equal value to it.
The Government take offshoring very seriously. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State called together the CBI, trade unions and others to examine companies such as Great Universal Stores, which has brought back its outsourced Indian facilities to the United Kingdom

419WH
because it can guarantee quality and productivity here. I know from that meeting that not all the parties involved feel that protectionism offers any long-term solution, but we will do what we can to ensure that companies that are repatriating jobs to this country are regarded as exemplars, and that the lessons they have learned are communicated to companies that are thinking of outsourcing. Of course, the number of people working in call centres in this country—although not generally linked to manufacturing, call centres can play a role in the sale and servicing of manufacturing products—is at record levels and has been increasing, so the net gains to Britain have been good, which is in marked contrast to certain other countries that might be considered the protectionist model, not least the United States.
I shall not trade statistics on manufacturing, and I regret that there has been a dip in manufacturing output. However, we have enjoyed good increases in output, and Members will realise that although there has been a steady fall in the number of manufacturing jobs in all the advanced industrial countries, our output is at almost record levels—indeed, it is more than 25 per cent. higher than it was some seven to 10 years ago. In that respect, we are enjoying the results of a more productive work force.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for giving me the opportunity to respond to this debate on the Government's behalf. If there are any points that Members would like me to elaborate on, I shall be more than happy to write to them.

Somali Community in the UK
11 am
Jeremy Corbyn: Good morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate on the situation facing the Somali community in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Is something wrong?
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The correct nomenclature is Mr. O'Hara.
Jeremy Corbyn: Good morning, Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, I shall start again.
I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the Somali community in the UK. Hon. Members will be aware that there was a debate last week, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) concerning the situation in Somaliland and aid to it. This is not a debate about the complicated political situation in Somalia or Somaliland, or about the questions of aid to those areas. It is a debate about the situation facing the Somali community in the UK, many of whose members have travelled to this country recently because of the desperate situation in their country—particularly in the southern part of Somalia—which has led them to be victims of the nascent civil war and of warlords. One hopes that there will be an effective peace process in that country, which will help reduce the tensions and enable people to live a much better and fuller life.
Many Somalis who have come to Britain have suffered the most horrific experiences. I want to talk about that issue and the plight of the Somali community in this country. My constituency has a considerable number of residents from Somalia, many of whom have come quite recently. I hold a special monthly advice bureau, with interpreters, for members of my local Somali community, so that we can discuss their problems and so that I can do my best to represent them. My constituency probably does not have the largest Somali community in the UK; many other constituencies in London probably have more Somalis, and Cardiff and other major British cities have substantial communities.
In meeting the local community, several things have impressed me. First is the sense of hurt that many Somalis feel. They have managed to escape from a dangerous situation and come to this country. However, our arcane immigration and housing procedures mean that if they cannot get full status to live here, they are unable to get access to permanent council housing. Therefore, they cannot get access to living permanently in a community and that in turn affects access to health, education, well-being and everything else. I will return to that a little later.
I thought that the best way to support that community was to recognise the great contribution that many Somalis make to our society, and to try to bring many groups in that community together. Therefore, I invited all of the Somali groups and communities that I could find to meetings here in the House of Commons, and I was amazed when nearly 300 people arrived for the first one.

421WH
We had a brief discussion about the history of the country from which everyone had come, but we had a much longer discussion about the situation in Britain. We then drew all those people together and decided that the important thing to do was to recognise the needs of the community in this country. From that idea, the Somali community as a whole put together a comprehensive report—I would happy to provide a copy of it to the Minister—outlining the kind of problems that its members face. Later on, the Government office for London also produced a report on developing good practice in service delivery to Somali communities in a number of London boroughs. That is a welcome initiative. Concerns on similar issues have been expressed by the Greater London authority, and indeed, that body has held meetings on the situation facing the Somali community.
Before I go through the problems that face the community, let me make it clear that it is important that we do not present Somalis as being victims or supplicants, or as people who are demanding something. It is a strong and vibrant community, which brings a rich cultural tradition to this country. The older Somalis, particularly those in Cardiff and in some parts of London, most of whom come from Somaliland and were traditionally involved in the merchant marine industry, have been here for many years. More recent arrivals make an incredibly strong contribution. It is a community that wants to work, succeed, survive and contribute. Therefore, when we outline the problems—I am sure that the Minister would agree with this—we are trying to enable that community to contribute much more to our society.
I have various concerns, and I shall go through them in slightly more detail in a moment. The first is the problem of family reunion. To say the least, it is traumatic when child asylum seekers arrive in this country and, because of the problems of the immigration service or of simple access to entry clearance officers in Nairobi—or any other place where the rest of the family happens to be—then have to wait years for the great day when the family reunion takes place. The trauma experienced by those child asylum seekers is tremendous. I have met several of those children in children's homes and other places, and it is something that will live with me for a long time.
The next concern is housing and the poverty that goes with the lack of adequate accommodation. There are a large number of single-parent households within the community, many of whom live in great poverty. Usually the mother is in charge of the children; they need better access to education and English language teaching opportunities. Above all, the community as a whole needs better access to the labour market and all that goes with it.
I want to go briefly through the main points of the report. Several working parties were set up, one of which dealt with the British media and their presentation of the community, which, on occasions, has been unbelievably appalling. There was a ludicrous story in several local papers about the Somali community stealing and eating donkeys. It was complete and utter nonsense. It was racist in its intentions and did enormous damage to the community. The police inquiry proved the whole story to be complete nonsense, but it was damaging and I had hoped that the press would have been slightly more responsible in their reporting.
422WH
The victimisation of young people, especially those who are subject to violent crime, is another concern. I cannot forget the day that a young Somali man in my constituency, Abdul Hamza, died as a result of a brutal attack just outside the home where he was living. The degree of racist violence in our society is unacceptable. It is appalling and the way in which the press report such matters is very important and must be handled sensitively.
There is the problem of young people who do not have sufficient qualifications and who are not achieving as much as they should do in school. The part of the report carried out by two youth groups was very instructive in that respect. It outlined the contribution that is made by Somali youth projects, but they are underfunded. We need to understand that there is a problem of cultural diversity as well as cultural tension within the community when parents and grandparents arrive in this country and pursue a fairly traditional sense of family relationships. To some extent, young people rebel against that and want to grow up as young western, liberal-minded people. That is fine. We welcome that, but that cultural tension must be dealt with, so that young people are proud to be Somalis living in our society.
Housing is a serious issue. There is a massive housing problem in London as a whole, as there is in most of the south-east. There is less of a housing problem in the north-east or north-west. In my community, those Somalis who have achieved permanent residence in this country often take others into their houses. Such people may well be asylum seekers who were distributed by the National Asylum Support Service to other parts of the country but, because of the racist threats that they faced there, have returned to London and live almost as homeless people on the floors and settees of other people's homes, often with little income. Poverty within the community is huge, but the sense of community support for individual families is great.
We must consider the problems associated with barriers to work because of institutional racism, the difficulties of finding appropriate interpreters to deal with individual problems and the provision of adequate access to further education opportunities, especially for Somali women. The report deals at some length with health problems. They range from the problems of those who have fled from the terrible, internal strife in Somali and who suffer stress and trauma and need support, to problems resulting from the use of the drug khat, although that is not the only problem. I do not wish to stereotype the community as being totally dependent on drugs. There is a drug issue, but there is a drug issue in the whole country and among young people throughout our society.
An issue that was interestingly discussed in part of the report was that of relations in Europe, and the way in which the EU and the European social fund and its derivatives can assist that community. I am grateful for the work that has been done by a number of MEPs, particularly Claude Moraes, in trying to represent the needs of that community in Europe.
The report, which I will provide to the Minister, shows the strength of feeling in the community, the high degree of education among many Somalis living in Britain, and their difficulty in finding access to work and employment. We are short-changing ourselves and the

423WH
community when there are asylum seekers who are highly qualified nurses, doctors and others with great experience who, because of problems with the immigration procedure and cross-recognition of professional qualifications, are living on benefits. They ought to be able to contribute to, and work properly in, our society. The Home Office is well aware of that waste of resources.
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I do not have a large Somali constituency in my constituency, but I wonder whether it will surprise him to hear of the following case. It was brought to my attention not by the Somali community, but by magistrates and lawyers who attended a legal case in which a Somali gentleman, who was refused asylum but was also unable to be repatriated by our Government, proceeded to work for cash. He endeavoured to put that cash in a bank, and produced false identification. He ended up being committed to the Crown court, and will probably get a jail sentence. He will ultimately be released, and will then have no alternative but to repeat the sequence of events. Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that situation intolerable? We are talking about a man who wishes to work. He may or may not have permission to stay in the country, but he has been rendered stateless by procedures as they operate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that that is of concern not just to—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. That is a rather lengthy intervention.
Dr. Pugh: It is—I apologise, Mr. O'Hara.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I fully understand the circumstances surrounding the case that he described. Clearly, if we do not give people an opportunity to work or receive some other reasonable income, they will be forced into all kinds of circumstances. I fully understand that, and it seems an awful waste of public resources to put such a person in prison when we denied them the opportunity to work in the first place. That is what we should consider.
The Government office for London's first report is welcome. It looks at issues of housing, empowerment and representation at local level. It suggests a need for support for community projects and advice, business advice, and support in training and advocacy work. It gives a good summary of some of the local community projects in London and gives great support for them. I went to the presentation conference organised by that body, at which there were representatives of many local groups, the police and local authorities. There was an understanding that we need better co-operative working on all that, but also that there is a serious underestimation of the size of the Somali population in London.
I have asked many parliamentary questions to various Ministers concerning the numbers seeking asylum, the numbers accepted, and the number of people that have not been accepted but whose cases are
424WH
pending, and whose families can therefore not join them in this country—that is a serious issue that the Minister will no doubt want to address. I have also asked questions about the degree of public funding and support for relevant and various Somali community projects around the country. I hope that the Minister will either give us some good news on that, or be prepared to consider the following question: are we fairly supporting this community around the country to enable it to contribute and promote itself in society?
During my many meetings with the Somali community, I have been impressed by several things. First, there is the sense of injustice about the victims of a war—victims of the civil strife—and all the trauma and horror that go with that. I have talked to young Somali children who have been through that, and they have witnessed things that none of us ever wants to witness; things that we certainly would never want our children to witness.
I recognise that Somali women are often the mainstay of the community. Often, they are living in poor circumstances and find life very difficult. They need support, opportunities for education, and better access to nursery support for their children so that they can educate themselves. The Somali community needs that lift and support so that it can make a greater contribution to our community, and allow its young people to lead richer lives as a result.
I am proud to represent my local Somali community, as, I am sure, are many other hon. Members. It is important that the Government recognise in their reply—I am sure that they will—that there is an opportunity to give much more help and support, which will be repaid many times over in the economic contribution that this important community makes to our national life.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing today's debate. Adjournment debates are a good vehicle for focusing on issues affecting particular constituents, which sometimes are not given time in our other debates in the Chamber across the way. I also welcome my hon. Friend's constituents who have come to give him support.
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the concerns of all his constituents, but that he also recognises that, although people face common issues, each constituency has particular situations that can be exacerbated by several issues. Some of those issues can be caused by people coming to the UK fleeing, as he has eloquently said, the wars and horrors that many of us would find hard to conceive. People find themselves here and, having gone through the processes of being granted refugee status, wonder how they will be able to cope with language and cultural barriers, as well as with all the other problems related to a major city, such as housing, and access to employment, training and education.
The Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration have recognised that, as well as focusing on the asylum system and law, the Home Office and the Government must consider what their responsibilities are. The issue is

425WH
cross-departmental, and if we have given someone indefinite leave to remain, we must consider how we ensure that they are able to take up the opportunities that should be available. If we are honest, we have to say that for decades that side of the problem has not been attended to. That is why, regardless of where people of different cultural and ethnic communities come from, we still have problems with people being able to speak and read English, and with things that follow on from that, such as being able to take up education opportunities, work and volunteering—the very things that could help communities have their voices heard in the regeneration projects that this Government are funding across the country. Every community within a community should have its voice heard.
A key aim of the Home Office is to consider how we can support strong and active communities, while recognising diversity and realising that for some people we may have to think much more creatively about how we ensure that their voices are heard. Part of promoting good and active citizenship is about inclusiveness.
My hon. Friend did not touch on this, but it is important to acknowledge the rise in recent years of right-wing organisations in our elections. They use opportunities to create tensions, exacerbate problems and, in some ways, see difference as a bad thing, rather than recognising that diversity is a good thing. Perhaps we should think more about how we celebrate diversity and make sure that links between different communities within the larger community can be made. It is not a tale of two cities; we do not want that situation. We are trying to address the matter now; if we do not, that will allow the far right to take advantage.
The citizen unit is now in place in the Home Office. It will develop the active citizenship centre. We will ensure that every citizen can take part and be a strong voice in their local communities.
My hon. Friend mentioned legislation. He is constantly considering how we can improve entry clearance and ensure that people are dealt with considerately and effectively in the system. Some of that depends on the large number of applications that different entry clearance posts abroad receive. They are responsible for dealing with such applications abroad and they have targets for that. Obviously such targets depend on the number of applications, but they are trying to meet targets of three to six months.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister ensure that the posts abroad process things quickly and efficiently and that posts in the middle east, particularly Saudi Arabia, do not have a security system that makes it impossible for Somali people working there even to get into the building to make an application? I know that that sounds ludicrous, but one of my constituents had such an experience.
Caroline Flint: I will take that example away as something to consider and pass it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who will write to my hon. Friend. If there are specific examples, we want to hear about them to establish whether we can do anything to alleviate the situation.
We have also tried to consider the needs of Somali people who come to this country, in order to be better able to deal with their applications. There are some new
426WH
initiatives: one involves a Somali expert working in the asylum-screening unit. He sits in on the initial screening interviews and informs the decision-making process. That may be helpful: the issue is not just about refusals, but about granting people access and enabling them to move on in the asylum process. Language testing is also important so that at the screening we can quickly ascertain that a person is who they say they are. That is not a negative resource but a positive one, to ensure that people are identified quickly.
My hon. Friend mentioned children who come to the country alone. We are concerned about that, and my right hon. Friend is considering the issue. A UNICEF report last year discussed the issue of unaccompanied children who come to this country. With social services and other Departments, we are considering what we can do. Linked to that is how we liaise with such children's family members, who may be in their country of origin or in another country awaiting the chance to come to the UK.
Recognised refugees have access to housing and support, although my hon. Friend quite rightly mentioned some problems. I understand that there are particular problems in London. He also mentioned dispersal. The issue for London local authorities is not only space but the sharing of our responsibilities to provide accommodation to asylum seekers. The spreading of the responsibility further around the country was addressed. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the problems that occur when communities give accommodation in part of the country without the backup and support that are available in London. London and the other major cities have generations of development in this respect; my own area of Doncaster has not. However, we have put considerable effort into trying to make those communities also address such issues in ways they have not thought of before.
In my constituency, less than 1 per cent. of people define themselves as being from an ethnic minority. It is important to address these issues regardless of the number of people from different groups who are in our communities; otherwise we end up with a situation in which some parts of the country properly engage in them—in relation to not only refugees but the diversity of children coming into our schools—whereas other parts of the country, where people might not be so visible, do not properly address them. Although there are difficulties, it is important to do that. Even if there is only one Somali family in Doncaster and their children are entering our schools, it is important that they receive some support—just as it is for those groups around the country that have the added resource of community support. We try to do what we can in that respect.
My hon. Friend raised a number of housing issues. I have mentioned employment, training, education, health and welfare rights. Many of those issues are about people being able to access services and make demands about what they want. The situation can be undermined if people in different communities feel that services are not relevant to them and do not address their needs. Some people also cannot engage because they do not have a voice, as they cannot speak English as well as they speak their first language. That is part and parcel of what we have to address.

427WH
We have to deal with the situation of people who have been here for many years, as well as that of younger groups and children when they are born. We must have different strategies to deal with those different generations. As my hon. Friend said, the Government office for London has been working hard to tackle some of those issues.
I want to mention a project in Toxteth run by the Merseyside Cultural Organisation. It provides support and advice to local residents, many of whom are asylum seekers and refugees from the Somali and Yemeni communities. It runs a community interpretative course, language courses, weekly cultural classes for children, weekly benefits advice and Jobcentre Plus surgeries. From what we have seen so far, that project shows that there is enormous potential for the development of self-help services in such communities.
My hon. Friend made a very important point. We must not just provide services that we think are right for different communities or tell people how they should do things; we must recognise what the problems are and respond to them according to local needs. Self-help is also important, which is why we need to make sure that the Somali community and many others are able to get involved in these projects.
Another example of such projects is the new deal for communities project in Bristol. It has shown how local residents can actively engage in improving their localities. There are also a number of other projects. It is important to recognise that although new deal projects and neighbourhood renewal projects are not necessarily directed at one community, we should
428WH
encourage different communities to engage in them so that economic and social renewal means as much to them as it does to anyone else.
I have been making the point that neighbourhood renewal projects and new deal for communities projects should address the issue of drugs as well as improving the built environment and looking at jobs. Social issues are very important. Under the refugee integration challenge fund, we fund the East London Somali Association. That project aims to help Somali refugees to access services and to understand and take advantage their rights, and to offer emotional and physical support to people who have suffered terrible horrors, which is why they are here in the first place. It also aims to help Somali refugees to help themselves and to solve problems associated with their refugee status. We are also developing a programme of learning for new arrivals, which will include Somalis. That will build on the active learning for active citizens project.
We are considering ways to address the problem of khat misuse. We are commissioning research that will give us an update on the Griffins report of—I think—1998. It will look at the relationship between khat use and other drug use, khat and crack use among Somali women and a number of other issues. In our drug strategy, we are also looking at diversity. We know that we cannot make assumptions about drug use. We have to understand it. We also have to understand—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Air Transport White Paper
2 pm
John Barrett: It has been almost two months since the Department for Transport published its much-anticipated and much-delayed White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport." When the Secretary of State made a statement to the House last December, time constrained and limited the number of questions that could be asked, and as a result many Members here today were unable to ask questions. When that issue was raised on points of order, Madam Deputy Speaker said that there would be many more occasions on which the White Paper could be discussed. This debate is the first such occasion, and it is to the Government's discredit that they have not afforded Members an opportunity during their time to discuss what is an important national issue and, for many of us, a major constituency issue.
For both of those reasons, I am pleased to have secured today's debate. Despite time constraints, I hope that I will be able to allow many Members to raise specifics points, ideas and concerns. For my part, I want to make some general comments about the overall implications of the White Paper. I am sure that Members will understand, however, if I focus some of my remarks on Edinburgh airport and the impact that the proposals will have on those of my constituents living around it.
The fact that almost 500,000 responses to the consultation papers were received illustrates the interest that people have in the issue, and the importance that they place on it. For all concerned, the fact that the White Paper was published after great uncertainty and delay was welcome. Many people are now in a clearer position than they were before, but others face even greater uncertainty. In some cases, that uncertainty could go on for the best part of 15 years.
Mr. John Taylor: On the question of uncertainty, I have something in common with the hon. Gentleman as regards Birmingham airport. Is he satisfied that there should be a voluntary blight compensation scheme funded by the airports, or should there be a standard national compensation scheme whereby everybody at least knows where they stand?
John Barrett: I shall talk about blight and compensation later. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that constituents living in areas that have to be protected for airport expansion cannot have their future put on hold, as is currently planned for many people. The Government have estimated and made projections for transport growth, and have produced a set of plans on which such growth can be accommodated. That, in its most basic terms, is predict and provide, and few outside Government believe otherwise.
One of my greatest concerns about any airport and air transport expansion is the environmental impact. After all, air transport remains one of the most polluting forms of transport and any significant increase in air travel could wipe out all gains in CO2 emissions, which the UK will have to meet under the Kyoto protocols. The fact that the Government devoted an entire chapter
430WH
of the White Paper to environmental impacts shows the importance that they place on the issue. The question is, what do we do to minimise the impact and ensure that the air industry makes an appropriate contribution to meeting the environmental costs that are incurred?
Unfortunately, the Government's chapter on the environment did not go down too well. The Aviation Environment Federation described the measure contained in the White Paper as "inadequate and ineffective". The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that
"the White Paper fails to take account of the serious impacts that the projected increase in air travel will have on the environment. It favours commerce over vital carbon dioxide reduction measures."
Other organisations, such as the Environment Agency, were equally critical. It is regrettable that there is a strong feeling among the environmental lobby, which was part of the consultation process, that its views were ignored.
David Taylor: Is not the core challenge the fact that, in the period covered by the White Paper, CO2 emissions from aircraft may rise from the proportion that they contributed in 2000 of 5 per cent. to 30 per cent? Should there not be fiscal incentives to tackle that problem?
John Barrett: I agree that the air industry gets off relatively lightly. There is not an even playing field for how alternative forms of transport are taxed. We will address the fiscal action that could be taken later.
The White Paper effectively pins environmental hopes on air traffic measures—more research and development and, most of all, emissions trading. However, it entirely lacks any sense of urgency and any practical targets as to how the industry's impacts on climate change will be controlled. The aviation industry supports an open emissions trading scheme but has called on the Government to resist introducing any other interim taxes or solutions. That is not surprising, as no industry wants to pay more tax—just as the average constituent does not enjoy paying income tax. However, those taxes are for a common good. The aviation industry is unlikely to be incorporated into international trading schemes until 2012, and progress so far does not fill me with confidence. Doing nothing in the short term is not an option.
Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee produced a first-class report entitled "Budget 2003 and Aviation", which laid down an environmental challenge for the Government on air transport. I agree with that Committee's frustration about double standards over transport taxes. We tax car fuel to high heaven, but aviation fuel gets away relatively scot-free. We slap VAT on to vehicles but not on to passenger tickets. There are a number of inequalities in fiscal measures in different areas of transport.
This is not only about fiscal measures. If the Minister's Department truly believes in an integrated transport policy, there must be a much greater focus on air-rail substitution. I was disappointed that in a White Paper of 49,000 words, only 560—little more than 1 per cent. of the entire document—were devoted to air-rail substitution. It concerns me that the Government are not taking this matter as seriously as they could. Short-haul flights are the most polluting flights.

431WH
An excellent report by the Commission for Integrated Transport of only two days ago showed the degree to which short-haul flights could be replaced by high-speed rail. With the proper investment, Edinburgh to London rail times could be as short as two and a half hours. That journey takes me three to four hours on average—it took my assistant more than four hours today. Such times could easily be reduced if the present journeys were substituted by good high-speed rail links.
I checked the flight information for Edinburgh airport today. Of the 103 arriving flights, some 65—almost two thirds—were from airports that can be reached by rail. If the Government were to take on the mantle of air-rail substitution, we could help protect the environment and reduce the passenger forecast on which they have made so many of their projections.
Edinburgh airport is in the centre of my constituency, so I have another reason for taking a strong interest in the Government's aviation policy. It has already experienced considerable development and expansion. Between 1993 and 2002, passenger numbers increased from 2.5 million a year to almost 7 million. It makes a massive contribution to the economy of Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland. Many of my constituents are employed as airport staff, security personnel, hotel and car rental staff, and so forth. However, the airport's greatest contribution is perhaps that it acts as a gateway to the rest of Scotland—people arrive in Edinburgh, the capital, and they then move on elsewhere in the country. That brings millions of tourists to a city that is heavily dependent on tourism. It also brings businessmen and women to the rapidly expanding business parks around the city, such as Edinburgh park. It is also increasingly used by politicians who are visiting the Scottish Parliament—or who will be when, as is hoped, it is completed later in the year.
The White Paper lays out a strategic plan for the airport. The Government were right to put an emphasis on making the maximum use of the airport's existing facilities—increasing terminal capacity, extending the current runways and taxiways and increasing capacity, and specifically increasing the number of direct international air links. That will be of great benefit because it will bring more people to the city and offer my constituents greater choice for their holidays and business trips.
The biggest and most headline-grabbing part of the White Paper for Edinburgh was the go-ahead for a new parallel runway that will be constructed by about 2020. It does that on the basis that passenger demand will increase to 20 million passengers a year by 2030. Now many people, including some very knowledgeable people within the air transport industry, have told me about their doubts about whether that figure is realistic. They say that the true figure will be considerably fewer than 20 million per annum. BAA plc has acknowledged the great uncertainty contained in the Government's projections of air transport levels. That is why I said that the decision on the second runway did not have to be taken at this stage and that land to the north of the existing runway should be conserved for possible future use.
432WH
However, the Government decided to take that decision now, stating in paragraph 5.7 in the White Paper that
"there is…a good economic case for a phased development…constructing a new parallel runway, probably around 2020".
I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government have come out in favour of a second runway when clear uncertainty over passenger numbers remains. Why does his Department conclude that a second runaway is needed for 20 million passengers a year, when Gatwick handles more than 30 million passengers a year with only one runway? If he simply responds by saying that there would be smaller planes and that that means more plane movements, I must return to what I said earlier about air-rail substitution.
I deviated quite strongly from the White Paper about the second point in paragraph 5.7, which states that there should be
"more use of the current crosswind runway for departing aircraft—although this will provide only a relatively small amount of additional runway capacity".
Of course, there is strong case for having a standby runway in the event of essential maintenance or for other reasons. However, there is a world of difference between using the crosswind runway on the odd occasion that it is required, and using it for all departing aircraft, as the White Paper proposes. When do the Government predict that the crosswind runway will start being used more "intensively", as they put it? The White Paper, in paragraph 9, states that it would be used only "for a limited period." With the new parallel runway not expected until as late as 2030, a potential 26 years is hardly a limited period.
The Secretary of State, in both written answers and answers given to me on the Floor of the House, has made much of the issue of noise improvements for people living in Cramond, which is part of my constituency. That is all fine and well, and I welcome those improvements, which will be seen by my constituents in that part of the city. However, the Minister's Department never makes any mention of the hundreds of people in North Gyle, Gogarloch and Wester Broom, which are parts of my constituency, who will experience a significant increase in noise levels above their houses.
Will the Minister—he may have to write to me on this point—tell me more about the safety issues surrounding the use of two intersecting runways at the same time? I have been advised that such a scheme could break Civil Aviation Authority rules, and that there is no similar scheme in any other UK—or even European Union—airport. On a practical basis, the idea of using two runways that lie almost perpendicular to each other simultaneously sounds dangerous to me, and I fly out of the airport every week.
The White Paper has added considerable uncertainty to about 33 households in my constituency, which are within the new airport boundary—as outlined on page 66. I accept that the map is only indicative. However, it is safe to say that the airport will have to expand its boundary and that the map took in households in Carlowrie and Lennymuir. For all intents and purposes, those people have—as I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—had their lives put on hold while the local planners updated and while BAA came forward with concrete plans.

433WH
Some of my constituents have contacted me to say that they are suffering from stress. Some are uncertain about the future schooling of their children and all of them are effectively living in unsaleable properties. I have impressed on BAA the importance of keeping those residents fully up to date with any developments, whether they be positive or negative. As hon. Members can probably imagine, in such small communities rumours can quickly evolve. My office has already had to deal with a number of the concerns of local residents—those are only the people who live within the boundary of the new airport. Many thousands of people live—and will be affected—immediately outside the airport.
I am hopeful of having a meeting with BAA management in the near future, at which these concerns can be raised and expected time scales for action can be agreed. I strongly believe that BAA should enter into early negotiation with these residents about buy-out schemes.
Mr. Paul Truswell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for airport operators to be required to publish a plan which describes future developments, the impact that they will have and what is being done to address that impact, so that there can be full public participation in that process?
John Barrett: We certainly agree on that point, although the planning process in Scotland may be slightly different from that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, a major worry for constituents is that they are being kept in the dark—either deliberately, or by omission, because someone has not bothered to contact them. People should be brought into the dialogue at an early stage, and the airport operators are the ideal organisations to do that.
As I said earlier, in the case of my own constituency, waiting until BAA needs the land, possibly in 15 years' time, is not an option. I accept that planning issues north of the border are not an issue for the Minister, but I hope that he will work closely with Scottish Ministers to ensure a cross-border policy that protects the interests of those people and no doubt thousands more who are in a similar position throughout the UK.
The decision to propose an airport plan that takes over the land currently occupied by the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland was also very disappointing. The Department for Transport estimates that the Royal Highland showground would have to relocate by 2013. I appreciate that those issues are beyond the Minister's remit, but I tell him that there is considerable opposition to moving the showground. More than £10 million has been spent in the past four years developing the site into a world-class exhibition area. Since the first show there, 40 years ago, the showground has developed into a major centre that now attracts more than 1 million visitors every year and raises more than £200 million for the local economy—hotels, bed and breakfasts and shops throughout the city benefit from it. I cannot think of any other site in or around Edinburgh that can provide 18,000 sq m of space and parking for 20,000 cars. The proposal would mean that the show would have to move out of Edinburgh, and some have estimated the cost of moving to be about
434WH
£500 million. I make no comment on who would pick up the bill. The society itself has understandably produced a number of determined statements opposing the idea of moving, but I have no doubt that the issue will rumble on for quite some time.
I shall end my remarks on a positive note. I was in complete agreement with the conclusions in the White Paper on the importance that it placed on improving surface access to the airport, and in particular the emphasis placed on the airport-rail link. The information document produced by the Scottish Executive at the beginning of the planning development for the rail link showed that only 16 per cent. of passengers travelling to and from Edinburgh airport did so by public transport, which is an outrageously low figure. That has put considerable strain on traffic flows on the A8—the nearest major road to the airport—and has added to the considerable pollution faced by my constituents in the villages of Ratho Station and Newbridge.
The detailed rail-link plans unveiled last week are a considerable commitment and run contrary to many of the doom-and-gloom predictions that such a scheme would never take off. Work is now expected to start in two years' time, and although there may be some disruption while construction takes place, I am hopeful and confident that people will benefit from an excellent new service from 2010.
I am aware that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I hope that this will not be the last opportunity that we have to discuss the White Paper and that the Government will not leave it to Back-Bench Members to test their luck in further Adjournment debate ballots. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister's comments on the issues that I have raised.
2.19 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing the debate. I also echo the comment that he made at the beginning of his remarks—more than 150 Members stood to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at the time of the original statement. It is a pity that since that statement was made in December there has not been a full debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. This afternoon, Mr. O'Hara, nearly 15 hon. Members are seeking to catch your eye, and it is a shame that the debate is so truncated. I will therefore keep my own contribution short.
I wish to make three points on behalf of my constituents in Putney, of which the first is the omission of rotary-wing aviation from the White Paper. Perhaps there is a sister or daughter paper that I have not identified—I understand that some 27 papers were published last night, and it might be contained in those. I am concerned that heliports and helicopters are not properly dealt with.
The Battersea heliport is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), but entry and departure from it is along the river between the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and mine. The route should continue along the river and turn north or south at Barnes common and the wetland centre, but it has not been

435WH
followed. I have had meetings with Battersea heliport representatives. I wish the Minister to ensure that there he has control not just over fixed wing, but rotary wing aviation. The helicopters have to come in below the Heathrow flight path, and they are coming in far below it. That problem is becoming much greater, particularly with the deviation from the route that I described, and is hitting people in east Putney and Southfields.
There is a need to ensure that security controls cover not only the larger helicopters, but the smaller ones, which are currently not regulated and offer a considerable potential terrorist threat to London. The British Helicopter Advisory Board would like the Minister to take those matters forward in a daughter document dealing with rotary aviation.
Secondly, the proposal to end the alternation of Heathrow runways, which is covered in the White Paper at paragraph 11.66, was reported in the press on the basis that it was about to happen almost overnight. On reading the document, it can be seen that that proposal is not due to come into force immediately. My discussions with officials at the Department have led me to believe that that is potentially about five years off, if it will even happen then.
There will be full consultation with all Members and groups. Before the consultation starts, an air quality study will be needed to validate and improve the noise modules relating to what any potential change in alternation would mean in terms of the appalling conditions that my constituents in Putney would suffer not every other week, but every other day.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a range of opinions about the future of Heathrow. However, the one thing that unites us all is an implacable opposition to any change to alternation.
Mr. Colman: I am extremely pleased that that unites everybody in the Chamber. The Minister should make it clear that the end of alternation is a tentative proposal and does not have the support of the Government at this time.
Thirdly, I should like to deal with the third runway at Heathrow. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will be able to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, and will go into that matter in significantly more detail. I was pleased that the EU NOx limits were quoted and must be met in terms of any possibility of a third runway. I was pleased to hear from Jeff Gazzard of the Aviation Environment Federation, who said:
"The White Paper puts a really big barrier in the way of more development at Heathrow—legally enforceable 'never exceed' air quality limits are good news for the people of Putney. The EU limit for Nitrogen Oxides, produced in increasing volumes by aircraft exhaust emissions over West London, will undoubtedly have a major effect and could well limit future growth at Heathrow. The Government, airlines and BAA simply have to comply and actually work to reduce pollution in real terms."
Amen to that. In the Minister's response to a debate on sustainable aviation on 18 November, he said:
"I look forward with some trepidation to the next ICAO meeting because ICAO … needs a kick up the proverbial backside to push things on far more than it has done…We can
436WH
act as an exemplar to ICAO to pull its finger out and get things done more readily." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 18 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 246WH.]
I am not sure whether it is good or bad news, but ICAO, in its meeting last week, failed to set strong limits for nitrogen oxide emissions for airports, and by doing so made it almost impossible for a third runway to be built at Heathrow. The Minister could not attend that meeting but I hope he will be able to attend future meetings. In a sense, the officials did the people of Putney a good turn by not objecting to the weak NOx standards that were set at the time.
I have been brief, as many of my colleagues want to speak. The White Paper sets the limits on NOx, which means that the third runway will not be built. I should like confirmation that the Government are not proposing the end of alternation and I look forward to stronger controls on helicopter use, especially the use of the Battersea heliport.
Mr Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): I remind hon. Members that winding up speeches in the debate will start at 3 o'clock.
2.27 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: I shall be brief. I simply ask the Minister why, in the case of Luton, he has backed a different proposal from the two options on which consultation was taken? Why, instead of building a new runway, is he proposing to build more than a kilometre of additional runway at the end of the existing one, which points into my constituency? Why has he ignored the fact that the consultants ruled out such an option before the original consultation document? Why has he ignored the fact that the original consultation document stated that if a new runway was built at Stansted and at Heathrow, the proposed additional runway would be twice what was needed and, by implication, should not be built? Why, in the White Paper, have the Government doubled their forecast of the use of Luton if runways are built at Stansted and Heathrow? Why is the Minister proposing that Luton should be expanded to the size of Gatwick, although the surface area of the airport is only 40 per cent. of Gatwick's? Luton depends far more on people arriving by car as there is no direct rail access, and it gets a higher proportion of its revenues from parking charges.
Finally, why do the Minister's proposals make no provision for new infrastructure to cope with 30 million passengers being disgorged on to the already overcrowded roads of Hertfordshire, with the inadequate rail infrastructure?
2.28 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to have this brief opportunity to argue against a further runway at Stansted.
Most hon. Members will have driven through the Stansted area on the M11 and some will have gone to the airport, but many may not be aware of the nature of the countryside and the heritage that surrounds Stansted airport. It is generally recognised as an area of unspoilt countryside and historic villages; my constituency includes Finchingfield, which is often regarded as the most beautiful village, if not in England, certainly in

437WH
Essex. Nearby is Great Bardfield, the home in the 1950s of a renowned group of artists. This unique area of countryside would be greatly damaged if the expansion envisaged in the White Paper were to go ahead. Until 1998, the throughput of passengers was about 7 million, then came cheap flights and bargain-basement aviation, which has boosted the turn around at Stansted to almost 19 million. The growth is based on the giveaway flight policy.
In Belgium, there was a recent ruling against cross-subsidy, which may knock cheap flights there on the head. There may be similar prohibitions here in a year or so to prevent cross-subsidy. If that comes about, the number of passengers using Stansted will not grow at anything like the rate that it has in the past few years. In respect of Stansted, the White Paper is based on the use of the motor car and road transport; indeed, it queries the existing rail capacity for Stansted and makes no detailed analysis of how it could be increased if the colossal increase envisaged takes place.
The reliance on roads is contrary to so many other policies that the Government are bringing forward. The expansion of Stansted is based on that concept, and can only be further detrimental to that part of Essex and Hertfordshire. The White Paper chooses the most expensive option: building a runway a considerable distance from the existing runway and outside the existing boundaries. Consequently, there will be extensive acquisition of land, far beyond what would have been contemplated if other available options had been adopted.
The White Paper states that
"The area around Stansted has an attractive, varied landscape. with many villages and smaller settlements, including much valuable architectural heritage. We believe that these characteristics should be preserved as much as possible".
The White Paper goes on, along the lines of, "I hear what you say, but at the same time it is important to consider the potential growth of the airport". Later, it states that the
"new runway at Stansted would require a substantial land take and the loss of around 100 properties. The loss of two Scheduled Ancient Monuments and 29 Grade II listed buildings was a cause of particular concern in the consultation."
The report recognises that problems are there, but has very little to say about how they will be dealt with. It goes on to generalise blight, as other hon. Members have mentioned. It comes up with suggestions—frankly, quite inane suggestions—that people might be helped to relocate before the airport is built. It is very difficult to relocate when one's property is blighted. I am pretty certain that such help would not include financial help.
I understand that those who represent areas adjacent to other major airports have been affected by noise for far longer than we have, but the White Paper anticipates that by 2015, 8,000 residents in north-west Essex and Hertfordshire will be affected and that by 2030, 14,000 will be affected. In my view, the entire judgment is flawed and adds to the overheating of the economy of the south-east. It contemplates a vast increase in Stansted's work force, although the unemployment levels are way below the national average. Extra employees could only come to Stansted using the road system. Although that is being improved, the numbers of employees and passengers that would be generated would be immense compared with what we have known hitherto.
438WH
The thinking behind the White Paper is misconceived. It would be far better if we took a more realistic view of the place of air transport in our economy and if we thought again about the over-subsidy of air transport that takes place in practice, the obsession with cheap flights and the failure to address the taxation question. If all those points were considered more thoroughly, the villages in my area and in the adjacent constituencies, the ancient monuments and the listed buildings could still be there for generations to come.
2.34 pm
Mr. John Randall: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for securing the debate. I have sympathy for all those affected by the blight of airport expansion.
I am pleased to see that Members for the Cliffe area are representing those who are not here today. Perhaps we can all drop out one by one. If the Minister wants to respond to fewer people, he should take Heathrow out of the equation and we will be quite happy.
I have asked several times what sustainable aviation actually means; I am always promised an answer, but I am still waiting. What do the Government propose to do about aviation emissions, which, as the Minister will realise, are the most rapidly growing source of emissions in the UK? Something has to be done about that problem, or it will drive a coach and horses through the Government's climate change policies.
Mention has been made of Heathrow and air pollution, which, as far as I can see from the White Paper, is our best reason for not allowing any further expansion. I have a few questions about that. Who will do the monitoring, how can we be sure that it will be independent, and which Department will pay? I hope that the money will not come from the ratepayers of Hillingdon. Who will make the decision? How open will it be about where the monitors will be? Over what period of time will the monitoring take place? I would like to see what figures we have already, to see whether the reduction is genuine.
I am getting a bit cynical in my old age, so I wonder whether alternation is simply being threatened. Alternation would be a living hell. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) recognises that it is a terrible option, and I wonder whether that threat is a way of ensuring submission: the Government will put pressure on the local residents, saying, "If you don't start agreeing to a third runway, I'm afraid you'll have to have alternation, and that'll be worse." Perhaps I am over-sensitive.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned that some of the issues that have come out of the White Paper were not in the consultation paper. A sixth terminal for our area in west London was not mentioned in the consultation paper. Whether Northolt would have to close if a third runway was built and whether realignment would be needed were mentioned during the course of the consultation, but residents of my constituency and surrounding areas had no idea what implications a third runway might have for their lives.
There are questions that I would really like answered, but most of all I ask the Government to try to find some time so that we can discuss in more depth not only the

439WH
issues that are relevant to our areas, but the whole subject of aviation and its sustainability. Otherwise, in effect, there will be just a statement and a few questions.
2.37 pm
John McDonnell: I echo the request for a full debate on this issue. Yesterday, the Minister kindly published the 27 supporting documents for the White Paper. Those papers contain more pages and words than the Hutton report, but are probably more directly related to identifying the true elements behind the Government's decision. The papers contain many details that few hon. Members have been able to take in in the 24 hours since they were published. They contain elements that allow us the opportunity—I put it no stronger than that—to contest some of the published conclusions in the White Paper.
When the White Paper was published, several of us made it clear that we did not believe that the Government had taken fully into account the environmental issues affecting our areas. In fact, it is evident in the papers published yesterday that there still has not been an overall environmental impact assessment of the development of Heathrow. Looking at the papers, I doubt that the other proposals in the White Paper have been assessed in any depth. In addition, the supporting papers prove our contention that no adequate assessment was made of alternatives to Heathrow, and that the White Paper contained no adequate appraisal of the economic case for development other than at Heathrow. I will discuss that briefly, drawing on the papers.
Although I congratulated the Government on the publication of the White Paper and do so again today, because this is the first time that any Government have said to the aviation industry that it will not automatically be able to develop further at Heathrow, I am worried about the change of emphasis that occurred in the weeks before the White Paper was published. Most hon. Members expected the Government to conclude, based on submissions from a range of interests that included the aviation industry, environmentalists and local communities, that there would be no third runway unless air pollution and other environmental effects were tackled. However, the Government's position changed subtly, but importantly, from, "No third runway, unless," to "Yes, a third runway, if." That brings me on to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). We want to debate in detail on the Floor of the House how the "if" relating to air quality is assessed. I have read the paper on air quality assessments that the Government published yesterday. Despite all the measures proposed by BAA to reduce the impact of emissions in the area, my constituents will still be poisoned by air pollution under the 2015 to 2020 timetable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned, we were relying on the industry to take responsibility for the development of new technology. The Minister made it clear in the last debate that pressure would be applied at the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to set stronger environmental limits for future aero-engines,
440WH
but in fact the limits that have been set are extremely weak. There will continue to be a lack of pressure on the aviation industry to improve its technology to reduce emissions and the environmental and health impact.
When the White Paper was published, we were told that all examination of the options in the south-east had been undertaken fundamentally. Several hon. Members in various debates have emphasised the Marinair proposal, which examined how, in the long term, airports could be located out at sea, so that they had a minimal environmental impact. The published assessment of Marinair, which was not reported in the White Paper, states:
"The development of a major airport offshore is entirely feasible and offers advantages of high capacity and much reduced environmental impact."
The costings of Marinair, as outlined in that publication, compare favourably with the realistic costings of the development of a third runway at Heathrow and of the blight and loss of homes, schools and community resources that would result from that development. However, that information was published yesterday in the supporting paper, not in the White Paper.
The White Paper debate focused on the economic benefits of airport development, particularly in the south-east, and the fact that Heathrow is fundamental to maximising those economic benefits. The supportiing paper published last night on air traffic demand and airport capacity stated:
"Calculations reported in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", show that the greatest economic benefits accrue from a dispersed pattern of activity around the South East—and not from concentrating capacity at a single new 'megahub'."
That is completely contrary to what the aviation industry told us and to statements made by Ministers and others.
It is worth examining the 27 papers. There is a paper on Northolt that illustrates the impact on air traffic control and the risk to Northolt's current capacity for military and other air traffic. That warrants a separate specific debate, and I am sure that the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge will encourage that debate.
I suggest that, when we have a wider debate, the Minister comes forward with strategic proposals rather than a commentary. The first proposal should be about monitoring air pollution. All of us facing new developments want independent monitoring of air pollution in the area, and an independently set baseline for our airports. We want to establish adequately funded local working parties of all stakeholders to enable transparent and open ongoing monitoring. European Union experts who can compare airports throughout the EU should be included. We need to revisit the development of aero-engine technology and its relationship to global warming and try to develop an international strategy to reverse some of the decisions that have been made. I also plead for support for local primary care trusts in monitoring the health impacts of airports. We know about the Chicago research that has demonstrated a link with cancer, but the experience of primary care trusts and GP surgeries in our areas suggests that respiratory conditions are caused by airport development.

441WH
I want the wider debate to tackle blight. The White Paper refers to the need to safeguard land in my constituency for a third runway, which means that people no longer have security in their home and long-term future. Blight affects more than homes: three schools are situated along the proposed runway, which means that 1,400 children may be displaced at some point. I do not believe that they will be displaced, but that is a risk. No proposals have been made about the impact on long-term education planning in my borough of the runway being built.
Referring to the south-east and east of England regional air services study, we need to identify the accurate information in the 27 documents that we have been given. I was told that that 300, not 33, buildings would be affected, but a study launched by the Government 10 years ago said that 4,000 homes would be affected and 10,000 people would be displaced or would find themselves living in an area that was so polluted that they would be poisoned. We need the debate to draw out the accuracy of the papers that have been published.
The cost assessments of individual developments have not been as robust as possible in term of embracing the full range of concerns, and we have not addressed the problem of terrorism and the threat to airports. That was mentioned in relation to helicopter pads, but there has been no assessment by independent experts of the risk caused to urban populations by siting airports so close to them, particularly in view of the fact that the risk of terrorist attack is greatest on landing and takeoff.
We must restructure the debate to develop a strategy in which all stakeholders can participate. We need a national aviation advisory forum of which the Government can ask questions and which can commission independent research to advise the Government on future policy. Until we have that, we will continue to rely on research by BAA, British Airways or others that, even with the best of intentions, is always tainted by their objective of further development.
2.48 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall speak briefly about an airport that has not yet been mentioned. East Midlands airport is sited wholly within the county of Leicestershire, but has recently changed its name to Nottingham East Midlands airport. That may interest the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and those of us who live and work in Leicestershire. No one is better qualified to comment on the subject than my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who lived for many years in Leicestershire and previously represented Derby, North.
The airport company undertook no consultation about changing the name of the airport. Interestingly, the same company owns Manchester airport, and we suspect—we can do no more—that the desire to increase the number of night flight freighters coming into and out of East Midlands airport has much to do with the capacity of Manchester airport, which is reaching satiation. The company wants, understandably, to
442WH
ensure that its business and ability to expand are protected, so that should its desire to expand Manchester become unwelcome, it can use Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it is now called, to increase its business.
I do not base my remarks solely on suspicion. I understand that the largest freight airport in Belgium is coming under considerable local and national political pressure. Companies such as DHL, which do an enormous amount of freighting work, might remove themselves from the Belgian airport and seek to relocate to East Midlands airport. That is not merely a fanciful fear: East Midlands airport already has planning permission for three new freight cargo terminals, resulting in 220,000 sq ft of aircraft accommodation in addition to the existing capacity of 210,000 sq ft.
That is the background. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) wants to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, so I shall be brief. Not only will the increase in flights lead to increased movement of aircraft into and out of East Midlands airport, but the new flight path for the freighters will be over south and east Leicestershire, which covers my constituency and those of my neighbours. Aircraft altitude is apparently measured from sea level. Many of the villages in my constituency that will be directly under the flight path are 500 to 800 ft above sea level. The relative distance above the ground of the aircraft as they come into and out of East Midlands airport will therefore be much less than the measurements indicate. The noise factor will be huge. As the aircraft take off from East Midlands airport they will be using maximum thrust to get their heavy loads airborne, and as they come into land they will be doing the aircraft equivalent of braking. The noise from their engines will be at its worst and they will be at their lowest as they fly over the villages in my constituency.
There has been precious little consultation by the company that owns East Midlands airport, by the Civil Aviation Authority, or by any of the other interested Government bodies to assist my constituents and those of my neighbours to come to terms with the proposal to increase the number of aircraft flights at night. The territory of the airport comes under Leicestershire county council, which has not been consulted at all. The district councils, particularly those on the east and south of the county, have received precisely one letter each from EMA. Had EMA been interested in consulting prior to submitting its proposals to the CAA and persuading the Government to allow them to proceed, one would expect it to have done rather more through advertising and publicity schemes to make its plans better and more widely known. It has not done that. It took action at a public meeting on 19 January in Billesdon in Harborough district to bring the company face to face with the scale and intensity of public concern. Now, we are beginning to get some sort of action from the company. I ask the Government through the Minister to ensure that it is not too late.
Some other Members of Parliament and I will meet the chief executive tomorrow and we hope to see the Secretary of State for Transport on 23 February. In the meantime, I ask the Minister to ensure that the CAA and the airport company fully comply with their moral, if not legal, obligations to consult fully with the affected

443WH
people in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and obviously, speaking as the Member for Harborough, south-east Leicestershire.
There is a great deal more I could and want to say. I hope that the Minister will understand that the calm and rational way in which I make this complaint is no indication of the great sense of ill use felt by my constituents. I can assure him that EMA will have a lot more trouble unless it is more thoughtful and more sensitive to the entirely legitimate needs, desires and wishes of the people of south and east Leicestershire. I look forward to his assurance that he will apply pressure on them and the CAA.
2.55 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I will concentrate on one point. My constituency borders East Midlands airport and many of its flights traverse villages along the Trent valley. I accept the growth of the airport within its existing capacity, and welcome the fact that no second runway has been encouraged by the White Paper. I welcome the alternative provision for express freight within the UK. The implicit strategy of concentrating everything at East Midlands airport was both logistically crazy and extremely damaging to local residents.
The critical question is how are we to achieve the stringent noise controls referred to in the White Paper as a requirement for granting support for expansion? We must recognise that local negotiations about those controls are inequitable. A well-resourced, large company deals with a diverse range of small councils, individuals and representative groups, who desperately need a template on which they can base their negotiations so that they know what sort of things they are supposed to achieve from the process. I will list some of measures that I wish to see in place.
First, there must be clear targets for the obligation to use chapter 4 aircraft—and any subsequent technological standard of aircraft. Secondly, provision must be made showing how to limit flight volume and noise generated, particularly at night. The consultation paper made it clear that three-minute intervals between night flights were a possibility, but that is unacceptable to residents of my constituency. Thirdly, there should be clear obligations regarding surface logistics. Public transport links to East Midlands airport are all but non-existent. It is a freight airport, and reliance on the road system to transport that freight to other places is completely against Government policy.
Fourthly, I expect some attempt to be made to control the routes of aircraft heading in to land. At the moment, the airport authorities seek to control the routes of aircraft taking off and track them—including the times that they fly over my house. We must attempt to control the landing routes as far as possible. I recognise that weather and other conditions make that harder, but it should be possible to make more effort than is currently undertaken. Fifthly, the airport is popular for aircraft training of various kinds, and trainees often chose to fly at antisocial times. Those flights should be controlled.
Sixthly, there should be clear parameters for the various types of ground operation that generate noise. There should be a package of compensation measures
444WH
aimed at those whose houses are closest to the airport. My constituency contains few such houses; most are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). I give the airport authorities credit for thinking about that matter. Seventhly, there should be transparency about the monitoring process. Currently, monitoring is done however the airport authorities choose. There should be an independent audit trail.
Finally, and critically, all controls should be clearly related to the growth of traffic through the airport. It is surely in the best interests of the airport and people in the area to have some certainty about the future. The company can then invest in the airport knowing that, provided that it stays within the controls, it can achieve what it wants, and residents will not have to revisit the issue time and again.
I wish I could speak more on that subject. I look forward to speaking on it again.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): With an eye on the time, I call David Wilshire.
2.59 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I take your point, Mr. O'Hara, about three o'clock and will tear up 90 per cent. of what I was going to say.
Of those constituents of mine who have jobs, 26 per cent. depend directly or indirectly on Heathrow for their livelihood. It is therefore not surprising that I focus not only on the environmental issues, but on the economic issues as well. I accept that there is a hugely powerful economic argument in favour of ensuring that Heathrow remains Europe's No. 1 hub airport, but if that means further growth, it cannot be growth for its own sake. That is the starting point for my concerns.
There are good reasons to worry about the future of Heathrow. Some 13,000 jobs are being lost there and another 3,000 job losses were recently announced. It is difficult to say exactly how many, but at least 10 per cent. of those 3,000 who are leaving are likely to be my constituents. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that I want to talk about economics. There is the problem of the loss of routes at Heathrow and a possible worry about the growth of hubs elsewhere in Europe. Like the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), I accept that there are huge and serious environmental issues to consider. However, I do not have time to list them.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who said that we need more facts. There is claim and counter-claim, assertion and counter-assertion: we need the truth. The ultimate decision at Heathrow must be that if those environmental issues cannot be overcome, there cannot be another runway. We need first to decide whether they can be overcome.
The only thing that I have time to say to the Minister—I hope that he will respond to it—is that airport White Papers always produce a huge volume of correspondence of shrill campaigns saying, "Don't do this here. Do this, that and the other somewhere else." I carried out research in my constituency, which could not be any closer to Heathrow and managed, one way or

445WH
another, to get some 35,000 questionnaires to my 70,000 constituents. Just over 51 per cent. of the replies said that they supported another runway and just over 47 per cent. said that they opposed it. I plead with the Minister not to listen exclusively to pressure groups. He should do the research and ask everybody involved because the replies are sometimes different from those that the pressure groups adopt.
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. It is important in such debates that every hon. Member who wishes to catch your eye has the opportunity to do so. I am willing to sacrifice two minutes of my winding-up speech, and I invite the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) to do likewise, to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to catch your eye.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The next person to catch my eye on the Government Bench will be the Minister.
Mr. Knight: I am happy for hon. Members to have half a minute each, as it is important that their voices are heard.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): What does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) wish to do?
Mr. Paul Marsden: I am more than happy to give up a minute of my time, as I shall keep my remarks very brief.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): We are running out of time: we have only 27 minutes left. We should proceed. Much as I appreciate what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggests, I do not think that we can achieve the outcome that he seeks.
3.4 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I shall be more than happy to take any intervention.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing this important debate. The subject is of great concern to many of his constituents and literally millions of other people across the country. It is disappointing that two months after the publication of the White Paper, we are still waiting for the Government to give us some real time in which to debate it. I agree that it is only right that those with real constituency issues should be allowed far more time to air their grievances and concerns because the issue will affect future generations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reply not just to questions raised today, but to the concerns of those who are unable to contribute.
The Liberal Democrats want air travel to be sustainable, but the fear is that the White Paper only pays lip service to that. It says:
"The Government invites airport operators to bring forward plans for increased airport capacity in the light of the policies and conclusions set out in this White Paper."
There is almost a presumption that that is going to happen, no matter what, but we think that it should be a last resort. [Interruption.] I am more than happy to give way; the Minister is muttering, but he is more than welcome to intervene.
446WH
The Minister must acknowledge that the White Paper's approach is flawed. The blame cannot be completely laid at the Government's door. Eleven years ago, a Conservative Government were warned about an increase in air traffic and that something needed to be done urgently, but the problem was not addressed then.
There are some key predictions with regard to environmental issues. Some 500 million passengers will use UK airports by 2030, the south-east will need the equivalent of three more runways by 2030, and ticket prices may fall by up to 60 per cent. If we manage demand better, those predictions may turn out to be totally wrong.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the European directive on strategic environmental assessment will come into force on 21 July? That assessment requires plans and programmes that have an environmental impact and that are in the process of being prepared, to have an environmental impact assessment before any decision is made. The directive warns that it is retroactive for any plans and programmes that have not completed all legislative phases of the procedure and achieved final adoption by 2006. The spirit of the directive would have required the horse to be put in front of the cart and for an environmental impact assessment to have been carried out before the White Paper had been published.
Mr. Marsden: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I hope that the Minister will address it.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned concerns about air pollution at Heathrow. By 2015, the air around Heathrow will contain higher concentrations of nitrogen dioxide than are legally permitted by the European Commission, even without a third runway. Emissions from airports and vehicles using the road access routes are a major contributor to that. The Government are not addressing those fundamental environmental concerns. As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, there should be a full impact assessment for every regional airport.
The consultation process has been flawed. It started in July 2002. We want an end to the predict-and-provide approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned that. There has also been no proper assessment of the fact that the aviation industry receives an £8 billion subsidy from UK taxpayers. The assumption that air travel will simply increase and more capacity will be required will presumably lead to more subsidy also being required, which will come from the taxpayer.
I appreciate that some residents have legitimate concerns about whether the capacity of regional airports will be increased, but we must make better use of their existing capacity. The right balance must be struck. My hon. Friend said that it is clear that we need direct international connections between the regional airports so that we do not have to funnel everything down to the south-east, as we are currently do. We are not moving in a sustainable direction.
I want quickly to mention fuel taxation. There is no defence for rail paying 3p a litre duty and private motorists 45.8p a litre duty on their fuel while airlines pay no duty. That is not right and it is not in line with

447WH
the lip service that the Government pay to sustainability. Airlines currently pay about 18p a litre for their duty-free fuel. I suggest that a duty of 3p a litre, at the very least, would bring the industry in line with the costs currently paid by other operators of public transport.
There are many concerns about connecting with hub airports in Europe. There are also concerns about landing fees and departure tax. I want the Minister to reply to the welter of issues presented today. I also hope that he will deal with the demand for a much wider debate to be held on the Floor of the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Knight: I am disappointed, Mr. O'Hara, that you did not act on my point of order. Perhaps I should place on record that I meant no slight.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): The right hon. Gentleman can achieve the same purpose by being generous by taking interventions from his hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).
3.10 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I want to place on record, Mr. O'Hara, the fact that I meant no slight to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). He was sitting studiously, so I thought that he had become a Parliamentary Private Secretary and was not seeking to intervene in the debate. I hope that he will have his day on another occasion. That underlines the point that the Government should have provided Government time for the debate on the Floor of the House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing this interesting and useful debate. I am probably the only Member here today who, at one time, lived near an airport. My house was next to Derby airport. That is not so grand as it sounds as it is a field in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). I did not suffer the sort of horror stories that we have heard from some hon. Members today, although on one occasion I recall that an aircraft that had run out of fuel nearly crash-landed on the top of one of my classic cars, which gave me some cause for concern.
I want to start my remarks by reminding hon. Members that we have recently celebrated the centenary of powered, controlled flight. It is therefore right and proper that we place on record the congratulations that many of us think are due to the United Kingdom's aviation industry for playing a major role in both civil and military aviation during that period. Aviation is critical to the UK's prosperity and we must all recognise that air travel is essential for business and for economic success. About 180,000 people are employed directly by the industry and more than 500,000 jobs depend on aviation.
Much of our tourism depends on the availability of air travel; people in more remote parts of the United Kingdom often require air services for essential journeys. I applaud the industry for successfully competing in a deregulated market in recent years and
448WH
on opening up air travel to all through lower fares. The British people and the airline industry want not only improvements but certainty. That is of particular importance to those living close to our airports. I must say to the Minister that the White Paper has not ended that uncertainty. In many respects, it has prolonged it and we regret that.
The inadequate consultation process has been widely criticised. I hope that the Minister will admit today that the process was flawed. As he knows, the Government were eventually forced to extend the consultation process because, to start with, they failed to include Gatwick in their proposals. The Environmental Audit Committee has been particularly critical of the Government and of the fact that the airport consultation process did not include a formal environmental impact assessment. Indeed, the Government did not even follow their own guidelines, so at some point we must have an apology from the Minister about that.
I must tell the Minister that the flaws in the White Paper are so serious that that is likely to lead to sustained legal challenges in the months and years that lie ahead. I am not talking only about Gatwick: the proposed new runway at Birmingham airport was not subject to proper consultation as the Government refused to reissue the consultation documents to include some aspects of the proposals.
The south-east has been mentioned by some hon. Members. As for Stansted, can the Minister tell us what plans he has for extending the M11 and creating a dedicated rail link? How does that fit in with the Deputy Prime Minister's recent announcement of his plans to build thousands of more homes in the M11 corridor? Does it not show that one Department appears not to know what another Department is planning? How does the Minister intend to resolve that apparent contradiction?
Noise control has also been mentioned. I refer the Minister to paragraph 3.14 on page 34 of the White Paper, which makes a commitment to introduce new legislation to
"strengthen and clarify noise control powers both at larger commercial airports and at smaller aerodromes."
Can the Minister tell us when he expects that legislation to be introduced? When it is introduced, will it be subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny process? In our view, it should be. This is not a party issue; members of all parties have a genuine constituency interest in introducing the right legislation.
On page 35 of the White Paper, the Government dismiss the idea of making any changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973. Will the Minister look at that again? Some of us think that there is a case for looking at some aspects of that Act, especially the provision that does not come into play until 12 months have elapsed after a development. There is a case for revisiting that.
Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister lies the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I am sure he is also aware that in that Bill are requirements for community involvement before any decision making. There are also provisions for compensation for blight, which go beyond the airy-fairy suggestion in the

449WH
Department for Transport's White Paper that somehow the airport operators must find all the money to provide for standardised blight. There seems to be a lack of joined-up thinking between those two Departments.
Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister can prove to us that the Government have at last got their act together on this issue.
Page 38 of the White Paper deals with local air quality. I wonder what the Minister meant by the following paragraph:
"local authorities and transport bodies working with airports to limit road traffic emissions associated with air passengers and employees, including through increased use of public transport".
What changes does he think that he can make by encouraging more passengers to use public transport to go to the airport? The likely effect will be insignificant. Does he accept that not all travellers can use public transport when going to an airport?
As for Heathrow, part of its environmental impact is generated by road congestion in the area, yet the White Paper makes it clear that the Government have no further plans for motorway widening. Will the Minister reflect on that? If traffic is kept moving in the vicinity of Heathrow, would that not, by itself, make a large contribution to improving air quality?
The hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and for Edinburgh, West both mentioned fiscal proposals. What discussions is the Minister, or his counterpart at the Treasury, engaged in, not only with our EU partners but with other countries, to introduce some form of fiscal scheme? He will agree that if we were to introduce a scheme on a unilateral basis without securing agreement elsewhere, it would have an extremely negative impact on our industry, and would do little to solve the problem.
The issue of safety, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), is important. We welcomed the Government's announcement to introduce air marshals. We realise that the Government need to be careful about what they reveal about their plans, but does the Minister accept that announcing a number of security measures can in itself inspire public confidence? Will he update us on some of the issues mentioned in relation to the programme of action on page 146 of the White Paper, in particular on the action points that it indicates will be implemented in 2004?
Air travel has shown the fastest growth of any type of travel in recent years, but changes are needed to reflect the growing concerns of the population, not just around London airports but throughout the UK. I hope that we will hear some answers to those problems from the Minister.
3.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): To the extent that I can answer 14 contributions in nine minutes, I shall endeavour to do my best. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing the debate and I welcome the chance to respond on behalf of the Government.
At this stage, I want to take a thematic approach to some responses, and I apologise to hon. Members if I do not deal with every local issue. Before publication, I met
450WH
at every opportunity Members who wrote to ask to see me about any specific or general issues. I have since told them that the White Paper marks the start of the next process and is not its definitive end, especially not, as has been suggested, in the case of airports, where we start from the premise of optimising existing capacity. That brings with it a range of issues before we get on to talking about additional capacity, such as in the case of East Midlands airport. Those matters are worthy of discussion, and I thank everyone for the serious way in which they have been discussed.
I will not dwell on partisan points about the consultation process, which, however flawed, elicited 500,000 responses. Nor will I dwell on the delay to the White Paper that was caused in part by that consultation process. I want to concentrate on some broad themes. Anyone who knows anything about the genesis and history of what used to pass for aviation White Papers will understand that to describe the paper in a dismissive way merely as "predict and provide" is simply wrong. By any token, that description is wrong if one reads the whole piece. It is not simply a matter of "predict and provide". Indeed, in his own words the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) belied the notion that the paper was so by saying that it forecast 500 million passengers and three new runways in London and the south-east. If he looks very closely, he will see that we are only giving the two.
Mr. Marsden: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: No, I will not. I do not understand how that is "predict and provide".
I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that I am more than happy to see him and discuss further the particular issues. Representatives from The Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland have already met the Secretary of State, and there is still much to be discussed by the Department for Transport, Edinburgh and the Scottish Executive. I am more than happy to pursue that.
To dwell on one local issue, there is a particular safety issue in using the crosswind runway, which I have visited, as it will be used only for departures for a limited period. The interaction between the main runway and the crosswind in the limited times that it will be used would not impact on safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in error when he read from the White Paper that all departures would be from the crosswind. Clearly, it does not say that. It says that some departures would be from the crosswind runway "for a limited period." I am happy to discuss local and wider issues with anyone, and am meeting representatives from the East Midlands airport in a few weeks to discuss its name change. The three real themes that I have picked up on—
Mr. Paul Truswell: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: No, I will not give way, with respect. I have about six minutes left, and I want to do justice to earlier comments.
Three major themes that emerged were: the environment, which is entirely proper; what I would call master planning; and infrastructure or surface access

451WH
issues. Again, in comparison with any other White Paper or substantial policy document on aviation, the White Paper goes some way in trying to redress the balance between environmental concerns and the future of the aviation industry. Indeed, on pages 40 and 41, paragraphs 3.40 to 3.43, we talk about emissions and other issues that hon. Members have raised, and about the adoption by airports, airlines and air traffic controllers of working practices that minimise the impact of their activities. In addition, they discuss research and development by aerospace manufacturers of new technologies to reduce climate change. We will press them on all of them.
The White Paper also talks about voluntary actions by airlines, airports and aerospace companies to control greenhouse gas, the point about the International Civil Aviation Organisation and action at a European level. We say clearly in paragraph 3.42:
"We reserve the right to act alone or bilaterally with like-minded partners if progress towards agreements at an international level proves too slow."
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is right in the sense that there are elements of things that one can do at a national level, at regional level and at international level. We need to take the balance and interaction of all three enormously seriously.
The comments made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and by others about specific local infrastructure are again well made points. Throughout chapter 12—under delivering surface access improvements—we say that we would expect those matters to be addressed.
On some of the other points raised about environment, investment and appraisals—and others too—a strategic policy document, which will be a material planning matter when it comes to discussion of planning applications, should not be confused with the planning applications themselves. Many of the points that are worthy of substantive consideration that are made by hon. Members are rightly matters of detail for planning applications, not for a strategic policy document that lays out where the Government think that aviation should go in future. That applies to the
452WH
points raised by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about environmental impact assessments, the issues about blight and everything else.
Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the legal opinion on this matter is that the White Paper is very prescriptive and that it goes beyond being purely a strategic document. If a legal opinion on that is not enough, take the view of the public who, once faced with the White Paper, will feel powerless to challenge it.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Lady should not traduce the planning process in such a way, and her constituents—and anyone else who does not like the absolute detail that is subsequent to any area addressed in the White Paper—should make full use of that planning process. Her point on public consultation in the genesis of regional spatial strategies and the local development framework is well made and it is statutorily in the Bill now in terms of planning and compulsory purchase.
All those processes are not precluded or ignored by the White Paper; it is not a planning document. It says quite clearly where we think that aviation should go over the next 30 years. It is entirely in order, by the by, for anything that we have rejected or something else to drop out of the blue in terms of an application. Nothing in the White Paper precludes anyone from making any sort of application that they want in terms of airport capacity. The White Paper is the way in which the Government suggest that things should go over the 30-year horizon. It will be a material planning matter when it comes to inquiries and applications. Given that it is a material matter, it will be incorporated into strategies. Therefore, the strategic policy document should not be confused with the planning document.
I know that I will run out of time. However—this is for the business managers, not for me—I would welcome a fuller debate on this issue, either on individual matters and applications or in a broader debate than that. I would say, not least because of the 27 documents and because of a range of work programmes, that we have held up pending the publication of the White Paper. However long it may seem to individuals—given their serious concerns—it is a tad premature to have that fuller debate until everything is in the public domain that needs to be there. Many things were held up because of the process—
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order.

Dental Services (East Devon)
3.30 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the provision of dentistry in East Devon.
The chronic shortage of dentists in East Devon is by no means a recent phenomenon. It is widely acknowledged that there has been a long-standing need to develop capacity, especially in Exmouth, and the problem is simple: as dentists who do work on behalf of the NHS become exclusively private practices or retire, they are not being replaced. At a time when the East Devon primary care trust recognises that capacity should be increasing, it is being lost.
The East Devon primary care trust underlined the uncertainty among dental professionals about the future of their businesses and pointed out that no practices in East Devon were registering new NHS patients. The emergency dental clinic based in Exeter is testament to that dire situation, as shortages in my own and neighbouring constituencies have led to extreme pressure on the service and a tripling of the number of patients attending the Sunday session. The primary care trust notes that the services are struggling to manage the demand from patients. Because there are so few NHS dentists, the emergency clinics are being stretched to breaking point.
The growing population in Exmouth should have necessitated two extra dentists to cover the demand, but instead it has lost one and is shortly to lose another. No successors have been appointed and, with local practices full to capacity, patients wishing to register with an NHS dentist are faced with unacceptable journeys—in some cases, round trips in excess of 50 miles—just to see a dentist.
The retirement of Martin Lewis and that of Bernard Jones, whose practice is on the Exeter road, will result in some 5,000 people having to re-register with practices as far away as Cullompton or Crediton. There is even talk locally of patients having to travel as far as Plymouth. For many, that is too much of a strain. One of the reasons for Mr. Jones's retirement is the cost of adapting his premises to meet the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A further problem in Exmouth is with Mr. Alistair Danby's attempt to open a clinic in Rolle road. I urge the primary care trust and East Devon district council to resolve the matter urgently and help to locate Mr. Danby in suitable premises in Exmouth.
Some 32.3 per cent. of my constituents are of pensionable age, the second highest proportion in the country, compared with a United Kingdom average of only 18.5 per cent. Not only are there many older, vulnerable people in my constituency, but because of demographics and the sparseness of settlements, it is tricky for many people to travel so far to see a dentist. In my constituency, only 5 per cent. of people use public transport as a means of travelling to work; the United Kingdom average is 14.6 per cent. That shows that access to public transport is limited in many areas, and it is relatively slow, time-consuming and costly and for many older people it takes a great deal of effort.
Surprisingly, East Devon is the 139th most sparsely populated of the 659 constituencies in the United Kingdom. The access domain of the indices of
454WH
deprivation 2000, which ranked all 8,414 wards in England based on the April 1998 boundaries by geographical access to services, showed that East Devon contains many wards with low-ranking access to services.
Colaton Raleigh, Beer, Colyton and Sidmouth Rural are all in the top 25 per cent. most access-deprived wards in the United Kingdom, while many parts of Exmouth are in the top 50 per cent. Not having a dentist within easy reach merely exacerbates the problems that many of my constituents already face.
In assessing the cost and time of making the seemingly inevitable journey from Cullompton to Exmouth, I have acquired the following figures: a daily bus pass from Exmouth to Cullompton costs £6 for an adult, £4 for a child and £3 for an old-age pensioner. That is by no means the worst of it. If, having been in the unlikely but extremely fortunate position of catching a bus from Exmouth, one were to catch a connecting service from Exeter without any delay, it would take one and a half hours to reach Cullompton. In the very best case scenario, that would involve a three-hour round trip. In reality, that journey is likely to last anything between four and five hours, which is quite simply preposterous.
Scores of letters from concerned constituents, extremely worried by the prospect of having to travel so far, have prompted me to secure this debate. I have also received my first ever letter from a stalwart of Exmouth, the Exmouth town crier, the estimable Tregarthen Gibson. He asked for my help for the population of Exmouth, which is, after all, Devon's largest town. Unless we get urgent extra dentistry in Exmouth, even Mr. Tregarthen Gibson's teeth might be under threat. The prospect of a whimper rather than a cry from our town crier is too tragic to contemplate—but I digress.
A typical letter comes from Mr. Yorke from Exmouth, who, reliant on incapacity benefit and pension credit like many others, has been told that he will have to travel to Cullompton to register with a dentist. He says:
"I find it appalling that to get dental treatment I am expected to make a round trip of about 40–50 miles. To do this on public transport would probably take me a whole day and cause me considerable pain and distress."
Exmouth town council has also written to me, expressing its concern about the shortage of NHS registered dentists. It outlines two very important factors as to the effects the shortages are having.
"Appointments have to be made some 3 months ahead in many cases as dentists' books are full. The result is that problems can soon turn into an emergency, resulting in premium charges being levied. Private treatment is already expensive for the average person. The number of Dentists who are practising National Health Service Dentists are now few and far between."
I do not wish to trespass on my neighbour's turf, but during my research for this debate I spoke to David Lidden, whose dental practice in New street, Honiton looks after the Swire family's teeth. His story is not untypical. The practice consists of four dentists, each of whom see 30 to 40 people a day, not so much to earn money—although that is unquestionably a factor for some dentists—but to get through the ever-increasing numbers of people queueing to see them. The result is that the dentists cannot spend enough time with each patient, and are, in David Lidden's own words, administering "pastoral care"—that is, putting patients

455WH
out of pain—nothing more. The practice has an average 10 calls a day from people inquiring about treatment. The practice policy is not to turn people in acute pain away; none the less, they turn people away each and every day. I will not stray over the border any more; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) wishes to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Has the Minister agreed that the hon. Lady may speak?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am happy for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to take part, as long as I have enough time to reply.
Mr. Swire: I took the precaution of telephoning the Minister's office this morning to clear that in advance.
Dr. Kenneth Croft, a dentist based in Exmouth, is extremely concerned about the shortages and the proposed changes to the dental profession. His concerns relate largely to the uncertainty that will hit the profession when the budget and commissioning for NHS dentistry devolve to primary care trusts from 1 April 2005. There is consternation about the many unknowns that face dentist professionals. As such, many are not prepared to wait and are opting instead for the relative security of exclusively private practice.
Dr. Croft is as anxious as any other dentist about the outcome. He says:
"Dentists are cagey as they don't know what's going on so won't take on NHS patients".
Many are frustrated because they do not yet have the details to enable them to plan and budget for the changes. Payment is projected to be based on 2002 earnings while taking account for inflation by 2005, yet dentists who already own computer equipment will be expected to upgrade it so that they may be monitored by the local primary care trust. For Dr. Croft. that has been estimated at £4,000. He argues that that is an investment that dentists in their mid to late fifties, who are nearing retirement at 60, simply will not make.
I asked Dr. Croft about the additional £10 bounty that I read was being offered in parts of Exeter—a claim made by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I understand that that has been dismissed by many local dentists as nothing more than a gimmick. I will give an example to show why. Dr. Croft charges £31 for a private assessment with X-rays, and is paid £6 for an NHS assessment. With the extra £10, he would receive only £16, which is just over half of what he would receive privately.
Dr. Croft is, unsurprisingly, cynical about what the Government are doing, and sees it as being along the lines of dentists making the investment and the Government taking the credit. He believes that the Government are ultimately trying to force dentists out of the health service. With the retirement of Bernard Jones, there will be seven registered NHS dentists left in Exmouth, of whom one is part-time; I hope that the reduction stops there, but I doubt that it will.
456WH
The Government also appear to be failing in getting the public to take oral health seriously. When my party left office in 1997, 68 per cent. of under-18s were registered with dentists. By December last year, that figure had dramatically reduced to 60 per cent.—a reduction of more than 1 million teenagers and children. Likewise, for over-18s, the figures make for worrying reading: more than 52 per cent. were registered in 1997, but that has dropped under the Government to 45 per cent., which represents 3 million fewer people registering.
Speaking in the House of Lords on 1 December 2003, Lord Colwyn, himself a dentist, alluded to many of the problems facing dental surgery that Dr. Croft referred to. In his anticipation of the abolition of the Dental Practice Board in 2005, he said that
"we must not forget that there are practice owners who have borrowed money, mortgaged their houses and invested capital to provide the premises from which this service is to be provided, and they are now going to be subjected to a limited income. It will be obvious to the Minister that no one who has invested in their own business in this way will be happy with this restriction. So there is still a real risk that many dentists will either leave the NHS or increase their private work in the face of this uncertainty."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 134.]
Until the Minister addresses those genuine concerns, we cannot hope that the situation with which we are faced will improve. Also, when will the review of the dental work force—promised in 2001 by the then Minister with responsibility for dentistry, Lord Hunt—be published?
The British Dental Association believes that there is a need for a 25 per cent. increase in the annual graduation figures for dental students. There are currently 800 a year. Last year, there were more entrants to the General Dental Council's register from abroad than from new graduates in the United Kingdom. Many of the issues surrounding the dearth of NHS dentists may partly be explained by the fact that dentistry's share of total NHS spend has fallen over the years from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent.
Such experiences are being repeated not just in my part of Devon but all over the county. In North Devon, the same problems emerge. I have spoken to Orlando Fraser, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for North Devon, whose research suggests that, because of the past parsimony in respect of NHS funding, more dentists are choosing to treat only, or mostly, private patients other than children and pregnant mothers—a development that he says is leading to shortages of NHS dentists in North Devon and, by inference, greater waiting times for NHS patients.
The problem that we must overcome is not just a short-term one; it is a medium and long-term one, too. It is not just local, but national. However, despite promises of cash injections by the Government, it has become apparent that newly qualified dentists, crippled by debt, are avoiding NHS work. Young dentists are opting for better-paid private work rather than NHS jobs in clinics in a bid to improve their finances faster.
A British Dental Association survey found that average debt among dental students rose by 23 per cent. in 2002 alone, with final-year students being an average of £12,700 in debt. The percentage of graduates with debts over £30,000 has also more than tripled since 2001.

457WH
A third of those taking part in the survey said that their level of debt would influence their career choice, with the influence stronger where there were higher levels of debt.
A survey published earlier this year found that over half of dentists' income comes from treating private patients and that more than a quarter of UK dental patients now pay privately for their care. A report by the Audit Commission published last September showed that 40 per cent. of dentists will not take on new NHS patients. We have even heard that the Welsh Assembly has begun offering grants of up to £50,000 to encourage dentists to set up practices in areas where the shortages are worst. A team from Pembrokeshire's local health board is apparently combing recruitment fairs as far afield as London to try to find more dentists.
It is quite possible that we will end up with a better system as a result of "Options for change"—which, incidentally, was last heard of in a military context as there was a 1991 paper with the same name. The fear is that by putting dentists on a salary, which is what it will do, fewer patients will be treated. What can the Government do? I hope that the Minister will resist the temptation to throw figures at us this afternoon as the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), does when questioned. We hear that a total of £1.2 billion is devolved to primary care trusts; £59 million—
3.47 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.59 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Swire: This morning, BBC Radio Devon asked me, in a rather cynical fashion, what the point of the debate was, as if it would not achieve anything, but I earnestly hope that it will. I hope that the Minister will not re-announce the old figures of £1.2 billion and £59 million—all the figures that have been thrown around the Chamber over the past few months. I also hope that she will not blame everything on the last Tory Government and what happened back in 1992. Equally, if she refers to the 20 per cent. cuts, that argument is wearing a bit thin, given the pronouncements made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that we would at least match, if not exceed, Labour's expenditure on the NHS.
If the Minister's mailbag in Welwyn Hatfield is anything like mine, she will be aware of the problems. I hope that she will give some hope to my constituents who, as I hope she will have realised from what I have said, are increasingly worried about the lack of dental provision.
4 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing the debate. I shall add some points to those that he made, because part of East Devon district overlaps with my constituency, and we adjoin the city of Exeter. I, too, speak on behalf of constituents in East Devon, including very elderly frail people, some of whom are in residential care. For
458WH
example, there is a lady in residential care in Broadclyst, in my constituency, whose dentist in Exeter no longer takes NHS patients.
In the Mid Devon part of my constituency, there are practices open—in Crediton, Cullompton and Tiverton—but the problem is the time taken to journey there from East Devon, coupled with the fact that no more dentists in the city of Exeter are taking on NHS patients. Over the past month I have corresponded with Jill Ashton, chief executive of Exeter primary care trust; she tells me that the trust urgently needs the dental access money that the Government have promised. It intends to use that money to give financial support to existing practices so that they can take more NHS patients, and to use it for out-of-hours work. I am concerned that if no one is taking on any more NHS patients in Exeter or in East Devon, the pressure on the Mid Devon part of my constituency will become acute.
The Minister should bear it in mind that that money is urgently needed. The primary care trust has to bid for it, and I do not know how long the process takes. I hope that she can give us some reassurance that that money will come through to the trusts very shortly.
4.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) secured the debate, because it has given us the opportunity to discuss dentistry in East Devon and NHS dentistry in general.
The oral health of the population has improved enormously since the NHS was set up. However, that improvement has been uneven and there remain areas, both in inner cities and in rural England, where dental disease remains high. The Government are committed to reducing those health inequalities. Equally challenging is the fact that, in some areas, people have difficulty in finding an NHS dentist—a problem that the hon. Gentleman highlighted.
Hon. Members will be aware that dentists are self-employed, independent contractors, and that they can accept as many or as few NHS patients as they wish and alter that commitment at will, without reference to the primary care trust. In addition, dentists can, quite legally, accept only certain categories of patients, such as children and adults who are exempt from patient charges.
The existing funding arrangements are unsatisfactory because they reflect the history of dentists' varying willingness to treat rather than the NHS's need to secure dentistry. That goes back a long time in the history of dentistry. If dentists in an area reduce the amount of NHS work that they do, the associated financial resources are reduced and that money is lost to the PCT. We therefore recognise that primary care organisations—in England, the PCTs—have little influence and few levers with which to manage the dental service at the local level, or to make the best use of the £1.8 billion, including patients' contributions, currently spent on general dental services.
Against that background, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 is now on the statute book. One set of clauses that was welcomed

459WH
by both sides in both Houses covered the reform of NHS dentistry; that was the first real reform since the NHS was established.
We know that in some areas our constituents experience problems in accessing NHS dental services, so it might help if I make it clear that our policy—as expressed in the recent Act—aims to change the status quo, rather than to maintain it. It aims to widen access to NHS dental services and provide a more up-to-date legal framework that will better allow primary care trusts to develop and plan those services strategically.
The general principles proposed for the new primary dental service were set out in the report produced in August 2002 under the leadership of the then chief dental officer, Dame Margaret Seward, "NHS dentistry: Options for change". The report built on the outline programme for NHS dentistry that was set out in the NHS plan of 2002. One of the key recommendations of "Options for change" was that there be local commissioning of high-quality dental services, responsive to the needs and wishes of patients and better able to address inequalities in oral health. The report proposed that money should also be devolved to the local level to allow PCTs to secure provision of the new services. Under the new legislation, which provides a framework to take forward "Options for change", PCTs are given new powers to provide or secure the provision of primary dental services. The existing powers, under the National Health Service Act 1977, will be repealed to make way for new dental services contracts between PCTs and dental practices. The key aim of local commissioning is to provide a greater degree of operational control for the NHS locally, addressing the problem that I identified earlier, so that it can match planned services to the financial resources available to it. That would mean contracts for an agreed level of service over a fixed period of time, to be delivered to agreed quality standards.
The new system will make it possible to pass to PCTs the £1.2 billion of financial resources that are currently held centrally. Current spending will be protected and, once the reform system is in place, it will be possible over time to adjust and grow NHS allocations to take account of the health inequalities that would persist under the old system. As I have said, existing patterns of expenditure on dentistry reflect the varying willingness of dentists to treat, rather than the needs of the NHS to secure dentistry. In the longer term, NHS funding allocations for dentistry will need to take oral health needs into account, as general allocations currently do in relation to general health needs. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 will result in a modernised primary dental service, properly integrated with primary care services in the rest of the NHS.
Following the publication of "Options for change" the dental profession was invited to come forward with ideas for testing the proposals in the report. The response was overwhelming: work is under way with dentists in 50 different sites testing ideas, 20 of whom are considering ways of paying for the service. We already have five years' experience of local commissioning of dentistry under the personal dental services pilot programme, where resources are devolved to the front
460WH
line. Those pilots are now treating 750,000 people a year and have shown what works well and what less well. The field sites are building on that learning to refine a simple but robust "base contract", which all PCTs and dentist should have in place by April 2005.
Dentists' gross earnings will be protected for three years from April 2005, and will be assessed on the most recent gross earnings, and we are in discussion with the dental IT system suppliers in preparation for that change. More detailed proposals have been sent to the BDA in recent days, which hon. Members may not have caught up with yet. That would be understandable.
The main issue, which is difficult to address locally, lies with work force numbers. It has proven very difficult to attract new dentists into the East Devon area, either for GDS or salaried posts in the dental access centre. There are a number of unfilled posts across the South West Peninsula area. Numbers of dentists in the general dental services nationally are now fairly stable after steady increases for many years, but the current GDS system has provided no method of securing any overall increase in the volume of NHS treatment provided by an increase in the work force. That underlies the need to move to the new contractual framework that I have set out.
The review that was undertaken in response to the Health Committee report fully involved the dental profession—professional bodies, the BDA, dental academics and so on. We expect to announce the outcome of that review shortly. We are taking measures to sustain NHS dentistry until implementation of the Bill allows the NHS to address local historical anomalies. Last August we announced additional funds to support PCTs as they get to grips with the new agenda. We have established an NHS dentistry support team backed by £9 million to help PCTs tackle local access problems in the run up to local commissioning in 2005.
Last September we announced additional funding of £65.2 million to support change and help improve access quality and choice for patients. That funding is now being targeted at PCTs where access is a real problem: £35 million is being used to enable PCTs to improve access, choice and quality for patients, £30 million is being used for information technology to integrate dentistry, and £200,000 is being used to develop dental leadership skills. That funding comes on top of the £9 million that I mentioned. A further £15 million of revenue in 2004–05 for access was announced on 25 November 2003.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman has brought to our attention the local position in East Devon. In my early remarks, I noted that there was a high level of discontent with the current arrangements. Dentists tell us that the current remuneration system feels like a treadmill, it is the main cause of dissatisfaction amongst dentists and patients, it is regarded as inefficient, and it leads to poor-quality services. It is the main barrier to dentists agreeing to undertake NHS work. Notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has spoken about the availability of dentists in parts of her constituency. The picture is not universally difficult, even in East Devon.
The new legislation will establish a new foundation for taking forward NHS dentistry by agreeing longer-term contracts between PCTs. I am aware that the East

461WH
Devon PCT is working on a plan to improve access to NHS dentistry in its area. Over £1.5 of the access money that we have announced is available in the South West Peninsula strategic health authority area. How that money is to be used to improve access is a decision for the NHS to take locally.
Finally, an increasing number of dentists committed to providing NHS services have indicated that they cannot wait until April 2005 to move away from the treadmill that I mentioned. PDS pilots offer PCTs and dentists an opportunity to experience the new ways of working in advance of the implementation of the Act in April 2005.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order.

Whistleblowers (Employment Tribunals)
4.13 pm
Ross Cranston: First, I must declare my interest as a member of the council, and formerly a chairman, of the charity Public Concern at Work. It gave me great satisfaction that, within weeks of the 1997 election, the charity was able to promote with the Government the Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that became the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. That legislation has been in force for four and a half years, and appears to be working well. It has become an international benchmark, while at home it is one of the few employment law measures of the past 15 years that has not been criticised by either business or unions.
The essential change that that legislation secured is that, where there is a danger of threat to the public interest in the workplace, employees can now be assured that the law will stand by them and provide a safe alternative to silence should they speak up for the interests of others. In order to strengthen organisational accountability, the law encourages the employee to raise the concern internally first, if that is practicable. The Act also protects disclosures to regulators and the wider public. It does that by providing that if employees are sacked or victimised by the employer for public interest whistleblowing, they will be fully compensated for any losses.
One consequence of that legislative framework is that, if employees are victimised or sacked for internal whistleblowing and then settle their employment tribunal claims, the danger or threat to the public interest will remain concealed unless they decide to disclose that the information or their claim is on the public record, which was Parliament's intention when it passed the 1998 Act.
Three current examples of such a threat will suffice to illustrate the importance of the PIDA legislation. First, someone victimised because they warn an employer about the dangers facing migrant workers engaged to gather cockles at Morecambe bay. Secondly, someone forced out for questioning an employer about the validity of the statistical approach used in legal proceedings to assess the risks of cot death. Thirdly, someone sacked for challenging the way that a major insurance company has misled investors about the strength of its assets by understating the impact of the guaranteed annuities that it provides.
Let us say that in each of those cases an employee brings a case under PIDA. If the employer settles the claim, there is a suggestion that information about the wrongdoing would be confidential and the claim would be kept out of the public domain. The suggestion is that that should be the case even though the claim is brought under the Act in a public forum at public expense and relates to a danger to the public. If that were the case, the only way for that information to reach a regulator or those at risk would be if the now ex-employee made a further disclosure after settling the claim. That places too heavy a burden on an employee who has already lost their job through raising the matter. It does not make sense that advancing the public interest should be delegated to a private citizen.
Let me recount some history. In 2000, the Employment Tribunals Service refused to give access to any information in PIDA claims. It maintained that

463WH
such access would assist the activities of ambulance chasers that made unsolicited approaches to parties. That was despite the Department of Trade and Industry's accepting that, for example, Public Concern at Work had a legitimate right to information about PIDA claims, especially the perceived wrongdoing, the person to whom the concern was disclosed, and the reprisal that the employee claimed to have suffered. That organisation rightly argued that it needed that information to monitor how the Act worked and to advise employers and employees accordingly.
Public Concern at Work sought judicial review of the decision and the High Court ruled that it was entitled, under the then rules, to know the gist of whistleblowing claims brought under the Act. Addressing the issue of public interest, the conclusions that Mr. Justice Jackson reached were:
"(1) There are respectable and conflicting arguments as to whether the disclosure of details of claims initiated in employment tribunals is in the public interest. The policy arguments are not so overwhelming in either direction that I should strive to avoid what appears to be the natural meaning of the regulations.
(2) It is sometimes embarrassing for a party to employment tribunal proceedings to have certain details of his claim made public. On the other hand, claimants in the court suffer similar embarrassment. That is part of the price which all citizens pay in order to have the benefit of an open system of justice.
(3) It has always been the policy of the law that, so far as possible, litigation should be conducted under the public gaze and under the critical scrutiny of all who wish to report legal proceedings.
(4) The principle of open justice applies to employment tribunals with just as much force as it applies to court proceedings".
Although the court ordered that Public Concern at Work should be given access to PIDA claims, the effect of the judgment also applied to all employment tribunal claims. That prompted the CBI, which accepted that there should be access to PIDA claims, to express concerns about general access to all employment claims.
Immediately before the summer recess in 2000 the Department of Trade and Industry introduced the new regulations without consultation. Those required that for the first time the addresses of the parties should be placed on the public register, which could only assist the work of ambulance chasers.
The Minister's predecessors insisted that the regulations were temporary while the issue was given proper consideration. During the next 12 months DTI Ministers gave written undertakings on six occasions that the issue would be consulted on in a "fair, reasonable and informed" way, as the present Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said. The issue was touched on briefly in the 2001 consultation paper titled "Routes to Resolution". Despite the failure to set out fully the background that I have outlined, twice as many respondents to that paper favoured making public the particulars of employment claims as those that opposed it. Three times as many respondents would have preferred the position that existed prior to the temporary regulations. Incidentally, the 2000 regulations remain in place.
464WH
Let me turn to the current consultation paper on the draft revised employment tribunal regulations and rules of procedure, which was issued in December 2003. I am disappointed that the section of the paper on the register may mislead consultees. The paper begins the story in August 2000, thereby avoiding some of the background that I have outlined. It suggests that the current regulations reflect the status quo and omits to mention that they form a temporary measure that removes the public's right to know the gist of claims being brought in employment tribunals. It makes no reference to Mr. Justice Jackson's judgment, which I have quoted, nor does it detail the public interest reasons that his lordship relied on in favouring open justice. It does not say that the 2000 regulations for the first time required the register to detail the addresses of parties, thereby causing the Government to receive, in its own words, which I accept,
"numerous complaints from parties who have found it very intrusive and highly unwelcome to be contacted by third parties offering advice or other services."
The paper then refers to the earlier paper—"Routes to Resolution"—and says:
"A large majority of respondents opposed"
any change to the rules to make available the particulars of a claim. Given what I have said, that is not a complete analysis of the responses to that earlier consultation document.
In setting out the case for and against an open register, the paper suggests that there can be no right to know the gist of tribunal claims without also revealing the addresses of the parties, and thereby enabling unsolicited and unwelcome approaches to be made to them. As with the earlier consultation, no reference is made to the public interest in open justice. That omission is more surprising when the paper states:
"On the other hand each individual claim is a private matter. Individuals have"
a right
"to privacy."
As I said, Mr. Justice Jackson held that right to be overridden by the public interest in open justice. The paper goes wrong in suggesting that the present level of public access to information about employment claims is greater than that in the civil courts. Under civil procedure rule 5.4, as has always been the case in the High Court, the public have the right to inspect the document by which a claimant initiates proceedings.
The paper sets out five options in paragraph 70. Unfortunately, the options do not include any suggestion of returning to the trouble-free position prior to August 2000, treating whistleblowing claims differently, or including on the register the gist of employment tribunal claims. It is with considerable regret that I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I find it difficult to reconcile the current consultation with the undertakings that his hon. and right hon. Friends have given to consider this matter and consult on it in a fully informed way. As an aside I have to express considerable surprise that Public Concern at Work was omitted from the list of pre-consultees.
On the substantive policy, the correct way forward would seem to be for the new rules to provide a right of public access to claims brought under PIDA and, I

465WH
suggest, the responses too, to ensure that anyone seeking the information can see a balanced picture. The CBI has stated that there should be access to PIDA claims. The TUC, among others, has also accepted that they should be treated differently from other employment claims. After all, PIDA is legislation that the House passed about public interest disclosures. I emphasise that. It seems paradoxical, to say the least, to disapply the basic principles of open justice from such claims, whatever reasons there are for doing so for other employment cases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will see the merit of the approach that I have described and accept that it is the correct way forward.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that the debate will finish at 4.43 pm and the Minister needs at least 10 minutes to respond adequately.
4.25 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) for initiating this short debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for indicating that he would accept a brief contribution from me.
I was, in one sense, the parliamentary means by which the measure went on to the statute book, because it passed through the private Member's Bill procedure. Its passage was achieved only because the measure had the committed support of the Government, including the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who was then a Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. He was a constant supporter of the concepts behind the Bill after it first emerged during the last Conservative Government's period of office. I am therefore grateful on a number of fronts: getting the Bill on to the statute book could not have been achieved without the Government's support; and, by the time it was introduced, I had convinced the Conservative Opposition that it was a necessary and proper measure, so it completed its passage without opposition in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
When I introduced the Bill, there was a right of access to the gist of a claim. The essence of the debate is that that has since been removed, in circumstances that have caused the ombudsman to investigate. I make it clear that, whatever the outcome of that investigation, I would have put the provision in the Bill as a matter of policy if I had had the slightest idea that the DTI would be minded to keep such information secret. I know that the Government at that time were aware of the implications of making information available.
Mine is a simple point, because the case has been laid out well by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North. The Government should honour what was a clear understanding, even though that is not, in itself, a big deal. I hope that the Minister will make that clear this afternoon. I have reason to know that he is one of the world's greatest experts on Burns—indeed, no man knows more about the sense of liberty and fairness that runs through the works of Burns. I hope that, as was the case last night, he will give us a bonny answer.
4.28 pm
Tony Wright: I thought that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is my neighbour, would continue for a little longer. Indeed, I was not even sure that I would be able to contribute because of the need for the debate to stop by 4.43 pm, but perhaps I can detain colleagues for a moment.
We all like to claim some role in the paternity of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and I want to enter my claim. It began life as a ten-minute Bill many years ago under a previous Government. I was delighted when, after one or two little episodes on the way, it finally saw the light of day through the efforts of my neighbour. Under the Conservative Government, it was opposed: they would not accept it, so it went through the process and was destroyed. I am delighted that it was a Labour Government who produced this major public interest legislation.
Two questions matter to me. The first is, how on earth was the mess that was forensically described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) allowed to happen? The parliamentary ombudsman is to conduct an investigation into whether the consultation procedures were maladministrative. To be fair to the Government, they have made great strides in improving the quality of consultation and have strict rules about how it should be conducted. To test whether they were followed in this case is a depressing, but important exercise. My concern is about the process and whether the consultation worked well enough.
My second concern is more fundamental. The only question that needs to be asked is: where does the public interest lie? Hon. Members will recall that that question was endlessly, but interestingly, debated during the passage of the 1998 Act. The question now is whether the public interest lies in having it known what claims made under the Act are about. We have only to ask that question to know the answer. Of course we need to know that if we are to make any judgment about how the Act is working and if the public interest is to be maintained.
My conclusion is simply that if we are to be consistent with the founding principles of the 1998 Act, we must know the basis on which claims are made. I am sure that the Minister, who is full of good sense and generosity, will agree and will reply in an encouraging way.
4.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I apologise to the Chamber on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers, who has ministerial responsibility for this subject. He has other duties, namely the matter of aerospace, to deal with in the House at this time. I am glad to be able to stand in for him, particularly in such distinguished company.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on securing a debate on such an important matter. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who did so much to advance the cause and secure historic legislation. It is a pleasure also to listen to my hon. Friend the Member

467WH
for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) who, as well as being Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, played a significant role as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor when the legislation was debated. We await his memoirs with great interest.
I want to touch on the core of the issue. I remind the Chamber that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 came into force in July 1999 as an employment protection measure. It added whistleblowing to the statute book and made whistleblowing on wrongdoing in the workplace an employer's responsibility. It ensured that protection against victimisation was available as provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996 and allowed workers who are victimised to complain to an employment tribunal and to receive unlimited compensation.
The measure that we are currently discussing, which is the subject of a consultation paper, has been commented on by informed outsiders. I pay tribute to the work of Public Concern at Work and Guy Dehn in highlighting their concerns about the content of the consultation document, and those concerns have been echoed and elaborated on by hon. Members today. The Government believe that there is a need for a public debate on the future of the register of employment tribunal applications. The current open consultation is designed to help colleagues to judge where the balance of public interest lies. None of that removes the importance to Public Concern at Work and other such organisations of information on employment tribunal claims. Their interest will be an important consideration in the Government's judgment about the future of the register.
The register of applications serves a number of important purposes for the moment. It allows information about the enforcement of employment rights to be publicly available. It assists bona fide special interest groups, such as Public Concern at Work, who may wish to monitor certain types of case and allows them to monitor the Act. It also enables those who have particular services to offer, such as employment law advice and representation at a tribunal, to make unsolicited approaches to applicants. Provided that solicitors and others advertising their services act with due propriety, the Government's view is that they are capable of significantly extending access to justice and the rule of law to individuals.
Concern has been expressed about the number of so-called ambulance chasers who have been touting for business in ways that have received unfavourable publicity. There have also been allegations of blacklists of employment tribunal applicants, which may be checked by certain unsavoury organisations before
468WH
recommending staff for recruitment. One of the recommendations of the employment tribunal system taskforce, which hon. Members will know is an organisation made up of tribunal judiciary, ACAS, the TUC, the CBI and other representatives of tribunal users, said that the register of applications should be abolished. The consultation document ensures that all possible views are included.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, the question about the public register of tribunal applications continuing unchanged is posed, and posed directly, in question 16. I should not like him to think that the document was produced by anyone with a closed mind or preconceived notions or that it was merely an insignificant consultation paper that could not influence decisions that have already been taken. That is far from the truth. With the number of PIDA applications rising in recent years—there were 524 two years ago and the last available figure showed that they had risen to 657—there is clearly a demand for this and there have been some well-publicised cases.
I have noted with concern some of the key points that have been made. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers is willing to meet my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North and other hon. Friends and Members to discuss their concerns and to take on board the points that they are making both on their own behalf and on behalf of their constituents and special interest groups.
It is in everyone's interest to ensure that there is as much public disclosure as is practical and that this type of legislation is as effective as possible. I, for one, do not want to see anything that might deter people from using the power that they have been given and enlisting any help they may need to pursue their claims. Nor is it desirable that other responsible people should not have access to a database. The consultation document is about how the practical database may be made available. It also takes on board views directly opposed to those that have been expressed today, such as the employment tribunal system taskforce's view that the register should be abolished.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers will review all representations that are currently being made on the consultation paper both by hon. Members and informed outsiders and weigh them up seriously before coming up with the final proposals, which will be subject to debate in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. David Blunkett)
  Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of part IV of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in 2003, which will be laid before the House today.

  I am grateful to Lord Carlile for his work and am pleased to note that he is again satisfied that I have certified persons only in appropriate cases and that I have exercised my independent judgment in each case having given due regard to advice from officials.

  I welcome Lord Carlile's recommendations which I will be considering in detail over the next few weeks. They will provide a useful contribution to the debates.

  Ms Sarah Woodhouse
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes)
  I am pleased to inform the House that Ms Sarah Woodhouse has been appointed as the independent monitor of certification of claims as unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

  Ms Woodhouse has been appointed as monitor for two years. She will monitor the operation of the use of the power to certify an asylum claim or human right claim (or both) as unfounded under section 94 of the NIA Act 2002. In particular she will consider the procedures used to determine whether claims are unfounded and the quality and effectiveness of decisions made under this procedure. She will report annually to the Secretary of State who will then lay a copy of the report before the House.

  Police Firearms
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety(Ms Hazel Blears)
  The statistics for 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued was 14,827. The number of occasions on which conventional firearms were discharged by police was 37, which covered 10 incidents. There were also four occasions where a baton round was used as a less lethal alternative to a conventional firearm.

  Armed response vehicles were deployed on 11,818 occasions and there were 5,763 authorised firearms officers in England and Wales.
  70WS
  Full details are set out in the tables below:

  Number of operations in which firearms were authorised

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  TOTAL

  10,915

  11,109

  13,991

  14,827

  AVON & SOMERSET

  90

  65

  195

  262

  BEDFORDSHIRE

  190

  294

  237

  301

  CAMBRIDGESHIRE

  75

  71

  114

  57

  CHESHIRE

  386

  545

  419

  451

  CLEVELAND

  76

  28

  37

  170

  CITY OF LONDON

  125

  3

  40

  131

  CUMBRIA

  24

  30

  71

  77

  DERBYSHIRE

  178

  167

  275

  401

  DEVON &CORNWALL

  65

  151

  101

  96

  DORSET

  79

  174

  184

  193

  DURHAM

  114

  40

  89

  83

  ESSEX

  497

  435

  323

  312

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE

  52

  48

  165

  185

  GTR MANCHESTER

  224

  357

  580

  518

  HAMPSHIRE

  103

  114

  198

  162

  HERTFORDSHIRE

  73

  86

  112

  172

  HUMBERSIDE

  193

  158

  297

  187

  KENT

  85

  83

  115

  137

  LANCASHIRE

  267

  242

  232

  238

  LEICESTERSHIRE

  222

  217

  300

  268

  LINCOLNSHIRE

  155

  336

  477

  392

  MERSEYSIDE

  489

  825

  1,020

  628

  METROPOLITAN

  2,862

  1,862

  2,447

  3,199

  NORFOLK

  239

  226

  175

  200

  NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

  57

  58

  43

  138

  NORTHUMBRIA

  465

  708

  1,440

  1,275

  NORTH YORKSHIRE

  61

  72

  92

  100

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

  255

  233

  384

  452

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  237

  127

  258

  463

  STAFFORDSHIRE

  174

  203

  232

  281

  SUFFOLK

  165

  176

  163

  270

  SURREY

  143

  221

  245

  247

  SUSSEX

  185

  353

  248

  204

  THAMES VALLEY

  110

  153

  179

  167

  WARWICKSHIRE

  194

  233

  130

  149

  WEST MERCIA

  110

  36

  117

  91

  WEST MIDLANDS

  362

  485

  822

  902

  WEST YORKSHIRE

  813

  822

  757

  604

  WILTSHIRE

  19

  66

  45

  58

  DYFED POWYS

  37

  18

  28

  29

  GWENT

  39

  30

  20

  37

  NORTH WALES

  371

  195

  302

  259

  SOUTH WALES

  255

  363

  283

  281

  Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  TOTAL

  6,262

  6,064

  5,776

  5,763

  AVON&SOMERSET

  150

  135

  116

  84

  BEDFORDSHIRE

  46

  45

  48

  53

  CAMBRIDGESHIRE

  77

  73

  56

  71

  71WS

  Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  CHESHIRE

  75

  74

  81

  89

  CLEVELAND

  80

  75

  85

  80

  CITY OF LONDON

  73

  74

  73

  72

  CUMBRIA

  98

  94

  92

  87

  DERBYSHIRE

  77

  81

  80

  69

  DEVON & CORNWALL

  119

  100

  108

  115

  DORSET

  66

  67

  57

  59

  DURHAM

  101

  101

  86

  102

  ESSEX

  228

  195

  180

  184

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE

  77

  72

  71

  80

  GTR MANCHESTER

  218

  240

  219

  202

  HAMPSHIRE

  111

  100

  87

  94

  HERTFORDSHIRE

  52

  44

  46

  47

  HUMBERSIDE

  97

  102

  96

  96

  KENT

  136

  136

  113

  93

  LANCASHIRE

  143

  132

  138

  129

  LEICESTERSHIRE

  90

  85

  69

  68

  LINCOLNSHIRE

  78

  80

  91

  87

  MERSEYSIDE

  96

  103

  78

  84

  METROPOLITAN

  1,977

  1,940

  1,805

  1,823

  NORFOLK

  110

  114

  104

  109

  NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

  75

  77

  51

  56

  NORTHUMBRIA

  114

  109

  125

  99

  NORTH YORKSHIRE

  59

  66

  66

  64

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

  116

  137

  136

  131

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  100

  98

  92

  100

  STAFFORDSHIRE

  81

  67

  71

  63

  SUFFOLK

  98

  90

  90

  80

  SURREY

  71

  72

  62

  48

  SUSSEX

  131

  118

  120

  141

  THAMES VALLEY

  187

  185

  156

  180

  WARWICKSHIRE

  54

  45

  50

  51

  WEST MERCIA

  129

  130

  125

  131

  WEST MIDLANDS

  93

  83

  111

  110

  WEST YORKSHIRE

  110

  117

  116

  132

  WILTSHIRE

  89

  71

  71

  78

  DYFED POWYS

  65

  61

  77

  62

  GWENT

  68

  66

  57

  60

  NORTH WALES

  92

  67

  83

  75

  SOUTH WALES

  155

  143

  138

  125

  72WS

  Number of operations involving armed response vehicles (ARVs)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  TOTAL

  8,276

  8,179

  11,574

  11,818

  AVON & SOMERSET

  78

  56

  173

  215

  BEDFORDSHIRE

  172

  253

  172

  269

  CAMBRIDGESHIRE

  54

  36

  43

  45

  CHESHIRE

  330

  441

  523

  337

  CLEVELAND

  25

  16

  13

  63

  CITY OF LONDON

  24

  30

  39

  131

  CUMBRIA

  21

  27

  53

  45

  DERBYSHIRE

  167

  152

  253

  363

  DEVON & CORNWALL

  52

  121

  76

  32

  DORSET

  69

  155

  182

  180

  DURHAM

  67

  31

  57

  66

  ESSEX

  244

  206

  165

  176

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE

  44

  39

  140

  166

  GTR MANCHESTER

  173

  302

  528

  406

  HAMPSHIRE

  90

  84

  116

  108

  HERTFORDSHIRE

  44

  65

  81

  129

  HUMBERSIDE

  181

  136

  273

  170

  KENT

  58

  64

  89

  132

  LANCASHIRE

  250

  177

  192

  185

  LEICESTERSHIRE

  144

  195

  292

  232

  LINCOLNSHIRE

  141

  324

  470

  367

  MERSEYSIDE

  466

  75

  974

  547

  METROPOLITAN

  1,812

  1,380

  1,667

  2,447

  NORFOLK

  210

  192

  157

  186

  NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

  21

  35

  25

  90

  NORTHUMBRIA

  397

  655

  1,349

  1,204

  NORTH YORKSHIRE

  40

  54

  60

  67

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

  232

  207

  333

  397

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  214

  103

  221

  280

  STAFFORDSHIRE

  131

  136

  208

  241

  SUFFOLK

  101

  103

  116

  160

  SURREY

  110

  192

  225

  240

  SUSSEX

  172

  245

  189

  111

  THAMES VALLEY

  108

  108

  174

  167

  WARWICKSHIRE

  158

  194

  104

  31

  WEST MERCIA

  98

  26

  100

  81

  WEST MIDLANDS

  138

  243

  563

  592

  WEST YORKSHIRE

  787

  785

  609

  565

  WILTSHIRE

  15

  48

  43

  39

  DYFED POWYS

  37

  18

  28

  29

  GWENT

  27

  17

  16

  16

  NORTH WALES

  354

  155

  265

  198

  SOUTH WALES

  220

  298

  218

  253

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department have been(a) investigated, (b)suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what the amounts involved were in each of the cases listed. [151648]

  Alun Michael
  Records only exist for the period since Defra came into existence in June 2001. There have been no cases in that period.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether there are(a) physiological and (b) neurological differences between rabbits and moles, and badgers, which would affect their response to poisoning by fumigants, in terms of the distress and pain caused. [153926]

  Alun Michael
  All pesticides used as fumigants are subject to strict regulatory control and must be approved by Ministers before they can be marketed or used in the UK. Those seeking approval for such products are required to provide data to ensure that the product is safe, effective and humane.

  No specific assessment is made of physiological or neurological differences between rabbits and moles in response to poisoning by pesticide fumigants.

  However, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides considered a report in 1996 on humaneness of vertebrate control agents, which resulted in the loss of one pesticide fumigant substance and approval for the remaining pesticide fumigant products to continue. Data on humaneness of pesticide fumigants in relation to the target test species, such as rabbits and moles were considered.

  Use of pesticide fumigants against badgers, which are protected species, is not permitted, except in special circumstances, and as such would not have been considered.

  Crematoriums
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will conduct(a) quantified and (b) qualified research into mercury emissions from crematoriums prior to reaching a decision on whether gas cleaning systems should be fitted. [153430]
  1442W
  Alun Michael
  I refer to the reply to my hon. Friend on 17 November 2003,Official Report, column 624W, concerning the consultation paper the Department issued containing an assessment undertaken by the Environment Agency of the case for tackling mercury emissions from crematoria. The assessment included a review of the available mercury monitoring data and of estimates of mercury emissions from crematoria. Several of the responses to the consultation raised concerns that the emission estimates were uncertain. We recognise that there remain uncertainties and that these will have to be taken into account in reaching a decision on the extent to which gas cleaning will be required. The uncertainties do not extend to the health impacts of mercury nor affect our long-standing policy approach, as summarised in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on 14 October 2003, Official Report, columns 99 and 100W.

  Officials are currently in discussion with representative cremation organisations to develop a fair mechanism for reducing emissions from a proportion of existing crematoria which is what is needed to fulfil the Governments policy objectives. We will be consulting in due course on detailed proposals, including what that proportion should be.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the(a) thickness and (b) stiffness of twine on the escape properties of a trawl net; [150237]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the use of double twine in the construction of trawl nets on the selectivity of gear; and what the effect has been of permitting the use of different thicknesses of twine on the size of fish caught in North Sea fisheries; [150238]

  (3) what the impact of lightweight high-strength fibres on the (a) selectivity properties and (b) fishing performance of trawl nets is. [150482]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The effect of the thickness of modern twines on selectivity of whitefish gears was first studied in 1993 at the FRS Marine Laboratory Aberdeen. Since then several further UK studies have been completed. Thicker twine has been found to reduce selectivity. In the case of double twine a decrease in thickness from 6mm to 4mm has an effect equivalent to increasing mesh size by 10mm. A codend made of 8mm single twine has similar selectivity to that made of 5mm double twine.

  As a result of this research, legislation was introduced, initially by UK and then EU authorities, to limit the thickness of twines. It is not possible, however, to isolate the effect on stocks of this one measure limiting twine thickness as many other changes have been made to gear designs during the same period.

  Mathematical models of codend geometry have shown that stiffer twine limits the expansion of the codend as the catch builds up and hence limits the openness of the codend meshes in the area where the majority of fish escape.
  1443W
  Nets made of lightweight, high strength twines will have lower drag for a given size. This will allow fisherman either (a) to reduce his fuel bill and maintain the same catch or (b) to tow faster (with the same fuel bill) and possibly increase his catch per unit time or (c) to buy a larger net to increase catch at the same towing speed.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what trials have, been carried out in British waters of the Icelandic Ex-It cod excluder device. [150312]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As far as is known, no trials with the Icelandic Ex-It excluder device have been carried out by any UK government departments or agencies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people seconded to her Department from outside organisations are helping to draft Answers to honourable Members'(a) oral and (b) written Parliamentary Questions. [153913]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's Ministers see secondment and interchange as a key means of complementing the skill and experience of the civil service, drawing in expertise from such fields as business, local government and the voluntary sector as well as other Government Departments. This is assisting Defra's commitment to playing its part in developing a modern, flexible outward looking Civil Service that works in partnership with all sectors of society. Interchange is seen as a key tool in meeting this commitment. Defra continues to promote and encourage the interchange of personnel between the Department and range of other organisations.

  Slaughter Premium Scheme (SPS)

  County

  Amount paid (£)

  Claims paid

  Amount unpaid (£)

  Claims unpaid

  SPS 2001 scheme year

  Powys

  949,142.78

  4,067

  1,966.90

  133

  Gwynedd

  1,145,295.95

  3,400

  0

  1

  Dyfed

  2,170,937.55

  7,932

  7,702.28

  30

  Clwyd

  1,089,531.08

  3,798

  0

  47

  South Glamorgan

  189,144.07

  517

  0

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  101,975.55

  428

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  127,252.07

  442

  0

  0

  Gwent

  347,648.32

  1,220

  68.98

  2

  Total

  6,120,927.37

  21,804

  9,738.16

  214

  SPS 2002 scheme year

  Powys

  1,936,838.88

  4,530

  16,421.97

  199

  Gwynedd

  1,902,937.06

  3,211

  2,309.23

  170

  Dyfed

  4,111,194.14

  8,152

  10,058.93

  320

  Clwyd

  1,863,821.23

  3,422

  16,700.55

  131

  South Glamorgan

  286,707.70

  441

  134.54

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  202,331.81

  437

  288.30

  15

  West Glamorgan

  229,556.44

  416

  809.64

  16

  Gwent

  654,392.94

  1,253

  7,343.73

  63

  Total

  11,187,780.20

  21,862

  54,066.89

  923

  1444W
  The term "secondee" is used within the civil service in a more limited sense than the meaning used outside the civil service. In the civil service a secondee is a person "borrowed" from an organisation outside the Civil Service for a period of between three months, and three years (exceptionally five years), without affecting employment status. During the secondment period the secondee would remain an employee of the parent organisation but would be expected to abide by the Defra Staff handbook and the Official Secrets Act 1989. At the end of the secondment the secondee would return to the parent organisation.

  Defra currently has 41 secondees from outside organisations. All are at Higher Executive Office grade and above. The secondees are appointed on the basis of the match of competencies and skills required for the post and in the case of the 41 formal secondees from outside organisations in Defra at present this may include drafting answers to PQ's. Although some details of the secondee and the parent organisation are held centrally, duties undertaken on a day to day basis would be a matter for their managers and are not centrally recorded. Detailed information could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what value of payments(a) have been made and (b) remain unpaid from the Rural Payments Agency to Welsh farmers, broken down by (i) constituency and (ii) local authority area for each year since the scheme began. [151726]

  Alun Michael
  The following figures relate to payments made to Welsh farmers under the schemes administered by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) since its creation on 16 October 2001. The information has been provided by county, as breaking down the data by constituency and local authority area could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.
  1445W

  Slaughter Premium Scheme (SPS)

  County

  Amount paid(£)

  Claims paid

  Amount unpaid(£)

  Claims unpaid

  SPS 2003 scheme year

  Powys

  814,884.68

  2,872

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  Gwynedd

  532,338.62

  1,739

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  Dyfed

  1,631,216.48

  5,082

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  Clwyd

  886,446.12

  2,092

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  South Glamorgan

  160,487.66

  278

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  Mid Glamorgan

  73,947.73

  230

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  West Glamorgan

  88,914.76

  234

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  Gwent

  282,670.33

  789

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  Total

  4,470,906.38

  13,316

  1Unknown

  1Unknown

  12003 scheme year still on-going figures as at January 2004

  Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS)

  County

  Amount paid(£)

  Claims Paid

  Amount unpaid (£)

  Claims unpaid

  OTMS payments 16 October 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Powys

  843,391.22

  2,828

  12,000

  32

  Gwynedd

  775,822.93

  2,655

  9,000

  24

  Dyfed

  4,419,479.41

  14,970

  34,875

  93

  Clwyd

  1,079,744.08

  3,633

  10,125

  27

  South Glamorgan

  146,974.88

  478

  750

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  119,429.71

  410

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  135,249.99

  472

  1,500

  4

  Gwent

  570,685.83

  1,868

  3,750

  10

  Total

  8,090,778.05

  27,314

  72,000

  192

  OTMS payments 2002

  Powys

  3,717,572.46

  12,422

  37,875

  101

  Gwynedd

  2,773,056.53

  9,439

  31,875

  85

  Dyfed

  13,436,464.53

  45,786

  96,000

  256

  Clwyd

  4,291,106.78

  14,399

  44,250

  118

  South Glamorgan

  434,365.31

  1,378

  3,750

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  458,556.67

  1,527

  3,000

  8

  West Glamorgan

  433,968.41

  1,497

  9,750

  26

  Gwent

  1,718,300.68

  5,753

  16,500

  44

  Total

  27,263,391.37

  92,201

  243,000

  648

  OTMS payments 2003

  Powys

  3,491,120.13

  12,151

  35,250

  94

  Gwynedd

  2,281,981.75

  8,155

  37,125

  99

  Dyfed

  10,753,321.43

  38,393

  141,000

  376

  Clwyd

  3,867,087.60

  13,434

  42,750

  114

  South Glamorgan

  338,412.43

  1,127

  1,500

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  341,557.64

  1,160

  3,375

  9

  West Glamorgan

  296,161.28

  1,076

  5,625

  15

  Gwent

  14,531.26.91

  5,103

  29,250

  78

  Total

  22,822,769.17

  80,599

  295,875

  789

  1 The Rural Payments Agency's OTMS payment system does not calculate animal values until they are eligible for the scheme, The figures for unpaid animals have been calculated using an average payment of £350 each.

  Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (LW(D)S)

  This scheme has since been discontinued and there are
  no outstanding payments to be made to any Welsh
  farmers.

  County

  Amount paid (£)

  Claims paid

  LW(D)S payments 16 October 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Powys

  3,223,518.38

  1,889

  Gwynedd

  818,603.48

  799

  Dyfed

  1,542,907.28

  810

  Clwyd

  624,018.76

  421

  South Glamorgan

  77,391.02

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  271,002

  175

  West Glamorgan

  172,199.04

  81

  Gwent

  327,034.63

  193

  Total

  7,056,674.59

  4,373

  L W(D)S payments 2002

  Powys

  83,615.19

  135

  Gwynedd

  113,093.69

  105

  1446W

  County

  Amount paid (£)

  Claims paid

  Dyfed

  68,914.98

  67

  Clwyd

  172,903.61

  66

  South Glamorgan

  1,100

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  34,370.78

  29

  Total

  473,998.25

  404

  LW(D)S Slaughter Premium Scheme (SPS) top up payments

  County

  Amount paid (£)

  Claims paid

  Powys

  418,597

  1,658

  Gwynedd

  68,085

  432

  Dyfed

  283,481

  680

  Clwyd

  132,118

  337

  South Glamorgan

  6,301

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  16,553

  39

  West Glamorgan

  24,591

  40

  Gwent

  85,763

  99

  Total

  1,035,489

  3,292

  1447W

  The Agrimonetary Scheme—16 October 2001 to April 2002

  County

  Amount paid(£)

  Number entitled

  Clwyd

  97,793.70

  543

  Dyfed

  313,785.30

  1,976

  Gwent

  43,708.64

  221

  Gwynedd

  32,048.30

  265

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,231.90

  43

  Powys

  50,077.70

  338

  South Glamorgan

  11,362.02

  63

  West Glamorgan

  5,516.54

  54

  Grand total

  561,524.10

  3,503

  This scheme for dairy farmers was introduced with the intention of offsetting the reduction in prices received by UK dairy farmers resulting from currency fluctuations during 1999 and 2000.

  There are no outstanding payments for this scheme.

  The RPA made these payments from October 2001 to April 2002.

  Sudden Oak Death
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated on whether spores of sudden oak death are carried by(a) the air, (b) water and (c) human movement. [149263]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The disease "Phytophthora ramorum" (or Sudden Oak Death) was described as a new species in October 2001. As it was a new species very little was known about the disease and no research had been conducted which could be evaluated to determine how the spores are dispersed.

  From June 2002 Defra and the Forestry Commission have commissioned research to investigate the biology of the disease including how spores of this organism are spread. The research programme is on-going. However, preliminary investigations have detected spores in water, soil and leaf litter but not so far in air. More intensive air sampling is planned for the spring when conditions are more conducive for spore production. The possibility of dispersal via wind blown mists cannot be ruled out. Studies are also assessing the role of vertebrates in spreading the pathogen. If humans or animals come into contact with infected soil/debris or other contaminated material it is possible that they could spread spores of the disease but it is unclear how significant such dispersal would be in establishing new infections. Defra and FC scientists are also keeping in close contact with colleagues in the USA who are investigating this disease.

  Swill
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to enforce the ban on feeding swill to pigs on farms and smallholdings. [152255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following the introduction of the ban that was introduced in May 2001 the State Veterinary Service made a series of visits to all former swill feeders to ensure compliance was achieved. It is now Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 which prohibits the feeding of catering waste to farmed animals and the enforcement powers laid down in the Animal By-Products 1448W
  Regulations 2003 are exercised by the local authorities. The Chief Veterinary Officer, however, continues to ensure that local authorities and the State Veterinary Service are reminded of the importance of remaining vigilant on compliance during all visits and inspections.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to prevent wild birds feeding at landfill sites containing disposed swill, in relation to the prevention of the spread of disease to livestock. [152256]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra and the Environment Agency have reminded operators of landfill sites of the animal health risks from waste food and of their obligations to ensure precautionary measures are taken to help prevent scavenging by wildlife. These include prompt burial with progressive covering with non food waste to ensure waste food is not left exposed, and robust vermin and pest control measures.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of farms and smallholdings which may still be feeding unprocessed swill to pigs. [152257]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It has long been illegal to feed unprocessed swill and since May 2001 it has also been illegal to feed processed swill. There should therefore be no farms or smallholdings feeding such material to pigs.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Safety
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1)what special safety inspections are made, and with what regularity, on the aircraft of airlines that are allowed to use UK airports but are banned on safety grounds from using some other European airports; [153666]

  (2) what his policy is on data sharing on aircraft safety with other European countries; and what his policy is on the proposed EU Directive on this. [153686]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have consistently supported data sharing arrangements established under the European Civil Aviation Conference's Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) programme. The reports of all inspections of foreign aircraft carried out under the programme are entered on a central database and may be accessed by all participating states. We also support the proposed EC Directive on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, which is based on the SAFA programme.

  My answer to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 546W, explains why the SAFA database cannot be used to determine whether an airline currently has restrictions on its operations to an ECAC State. The database only contains details of aircraft inspections and immediate corrective action. In most cases such action relates to the specific aircraft inspected and the airline would be free to operate flights using other aircraft. Moreover many restrictions last for only a few days while the issue identified is addressed.
  1449W
  The record of inspections on an airline's aircraft by other states is taken into account in determining our own programme of inspections.

  The SAFA programme is under constant review and we are working with our European colleagues to extend and refine the information on the database.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety inspections are undertaken on aircraft flying from the UK which are owned by airlines that are banned on safety grounds from landing in certain other European countries. [154216]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to him today (ref 153666, 153686).

  Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on(a) overnight parking facilities for commercial vehicles and (b) dedicated rest areas. [150217]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Two representations have been received on these matters since July last year.

  Driver, Vehicle and Operator Group
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the resources which agencies within the Driver, Vehicle and Operator group will require from 2003–04 to 2006–07 to carry out vehicle enforcement responsibilities previously carried out by police forces in England and Wales; from which sources the extra resources will come; and if he will make a statement. [153204]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency is progressively taking over the role from the Police of stopping vehicles, in order to carry out roadside compliance checks using its own staff and vehicles. The estimated costs are £1.7 million per annum. The Department is providing finance for the setting up period but, in the long run, this activity will be funded through fees.

  Edinburgh Airport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1006W, on Edinburgh airport, if he will place in the Library a list of addresses for the 33 households. [154168]

  Mr. McNulty
  The figure of 33 residential properties that would need to be taken if a new close parallel runway were to be built at Edinburgh airport comes from a map based appraisal analysis designed to enable comparison of options. This exercise was not designed to be a highly detailed or final assessment of specific options. Individual addresses were not therefore recorded as part of it.

  The Air Transport White Paper called for the preparation of the airport masterplans. The masterplan for Edinburgh airport will be incorporated into the strategic planning framework for West Edinburgh and future local development plan revisions. This will enable a more definitive view to be taken of exactly which properties will be affected when future planning
  1450W
  applications are made. This will in turn allow the owners of those properties which may be affected to seek redress under the terms of the non-statutory scheme for Edinburgh which BAA are currently considering.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) Network Rail and (b) rail operators protect their (i) stations, (ii) tracks and (iii) rolling stock from graffiti; [153614]

  (2) if he will co-ordinate a programme of cleaning graffiti from tracks, stations and rolling stock. [153615]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail has responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the national rail network infrastructure, including the removal of graffiti. In 2003–04, £2.5million was allocated in Network Rail's Safety and Environment Plan to tackle environmental issues like graffiti, rising to £3.5million in 2004–05. Network Rail is also taking forward a number of partnership projects with local authorities in different regions to enable graffiti removal from roadside parapets and walls of Network Rail-owned bridges.

  Train operating companies (TOCs) have responsibility for removing and preventing graffiti on those railway stations that are leased to them and on their rolling stock. The SRA's new franchising agreements contain key performance indicators in the areas of station security and the on-train environment. This further incentivises the prevention and removal of graffiti by train operating companies by tying the issue of cleanliness firmly to their profits. The SRA also encourages all train operating companies to seek accreditation under the Secure Stations and Secured Car Park award schemes. Such schemes have proven their value in reducing all types of crime, including the prevention of graffiti.

  The Home Office's Anti-Social Behaviour Unit is taking forward a national action plan—'Operation Scrub-It'—aimed at developing initiatives to tackle graffiti. This is being taken forward in partnership with the British Transport Police, Crime Stoppers, Network Rail, London Underground and other transport providers.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of international trends in the use of liquefied petroleum gas for road vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [153672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is limited information on international trends in the use of LPG for road vehicles. There were an estimated 107,000 LPG vehicles in the UK in 2003. In contrast, there are estimated to be over one million LPG vehicles in Italy which has the largest European market.

  The European Commission Alternative Fuels contact Group recently presented their report on The Market Development of Alternative Fuels. The report argued that a combination of alternative fuels had the potential to achieve a 20 per cent. market share by 2020 and identified LPG as having the scope to achieve a 5 per cent. Market share by 2010.
  1451W
  Globally, significant markets for LPG also exist in South Korea, Japan, Australia and North America.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed in the UK in the road vehicle liquefied petroleum gas industry. [153673]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest estimate of the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association is that there are 2,500 people employed in the industry in the UK.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles in the UK have been converted to run on liquefied petroleum gas; and how many have been converted with the aid of a PowerShift grant. [153674]

  Mr. Jamieson
  According to the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association, approximately 107,000 vehicles had been converted to run on LPG by the end of 2003.

  Since 1997, 17,383 vehicles have been converted to run on LPG with the aid of a Powershift grant.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Chancellor about the impact of fuel taxation measures on(a) liquefied petroleum gas conversions, (b) environmental damage and (c) public health. [153675]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government issued a joint DfT/HMT/HMCE consultation document in June 2003, which sought views on the future structure of the Government's support for road fuel gases and natural gas in the short to medium term. The consultation is available on the DfT website. The consultation summarised the growth of the LPG sector incentivised by fuel duty differentials, reduced vehicle excise duty and the availability of grants under the Transport Energy programmes. Further, the consultation made an illustrative comparison of the environmental performance of LPG vehicles in comparison with conventionally fuelled vehicles.

  The Government are currently considering the responses to this consultation and will announce their decisions in Budget 2004.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many re-fuelling sites are available in the UK for(a) liquefied petroleum gas and (b) compressed natural gas. [153670]

  Mr. Jamieson
  According to the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association and the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, there are approximately 1,300 LPG re-fuelling sites in and 18 compressed natural gas re-fuelling sites in the U K.

  M5
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of upgrading Junction 10 of the M5 to allow northbound and southbound traffic to join and leave the motorway. [153783]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of upgrading Junction 10 of the M5 to a full movement junction would be in the region of £,15 to £30 million at current prices, depending on the design and the cost of land required.
  1452W

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what works are being carried out adjacent to the southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway between junctions 14 and 13 in Buckinghamshire which relate to alleviating motorway noise; when this work was authorised; and what estimate he has made of the cost. [153248]

  Dr. Howells
  These noise mitigation works are being constructed outside of the highway boundary by a private landowner and are not publicly funded.

  Planning consent for a 6 metre high, 150 metre long screening bund was granted by Milton Keynes Council in May 2003.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail freight miles were travelled in each year since 2003; and if he will make a statement. [150011]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rail freight moved in Great Britain is published by the Strategic Rail Authority each quarter in "National Rail Trends". In 2002–03, rail freight moved was 18.7 billion tonne-kilometres.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries there have been on the (i) A12, (ii) A134, (iii) A120 west of Colchester, (iv) A 120 east of Colchester, (v) A137 and (vi) A133 in Essex in the past 12 months. [152079]

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

  Casualties from Road Accidents: 20021

  Fatal

  Serious

  A12

  15

  125

  A133

  2

  21

  A134

  4

  24

  A137

  2

  16

  A1202

  4

  6

  A1203

  4

  29

  1Last full year for which figures are available

  2 East of Colchester

  3West of Colchester

  Road Improvement Projects
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate real terms cost inflation for road improvement projects for each year since 1997. [153782]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) monitors prices for new road construction and publishes indices. The DTI's Road Construction Tender Price Index (RCTPI and also known as the ROA DCON Index) is based on priced rates contained in accepted tenders for road construction, motorway widening and major maintenance schemes costing over £0.25 million obtained from the Highways Agency and local
  1453W
  authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. The indices are published every quarter and the first two columns of the table are abstracted from the latest available ROADCON Index figures (December 2003). The third column has been calculated for this answer.

  ROADCON Index

  Year on year "inflation rate " (in ROADCON Index terms) since 1997

  1997

  100

  —

  1998

  99

  -1.0

  1999

  100

  +1.0

  2000

  114

  +14.0

  2001

  117

  +2.6

  2002

  121

  +3.4

  2003

  1122

  +0.8

  1The figure for the year 2003 is an interim figure as (i) the year is not yet complete (the last quarter is January to March 2004), and (ii) the indices for the last two published quarters are provisional and subject to adjustment (when delayed data are received by DTI).

  Roadworks (Al)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for what reasons advance warning was not given of the closure of the exit from the A1 at Newark to the A17 and A46; [153243]

  (2) for what reasons 24-hour working is not taking place on the southbound carriageway of the A1 near Newark; [153244]

  (3) for what reasons and for how long the junction between the Al, A17 and A46 at Newark will be closed; and for what reasons the exit from the Al at this point is closed; [153245]

  (4) for how long he expects the southbound carriageway of the Al to be closed at Newark. [153246]

  Dr. Howells
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Archie Robertson to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Archie Robertson to Mr. Greg Knight, dated 11 February 2004 I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Kim Howells, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about road closures as a result of work being carried out on the Al Trunk Road at Newark.
  The major resurfacing scheme on both carriageways of the Al at Newark is taking place on a heavily trafficked section of road, which includes a busy interchange (with A46/A17) and is situated close to built-up areas. As such, the work is inevitably subject to certain constraints.
  There are two sets of warning signs informing drivers of the closure of the slip roads at Newark, on both the north and southbound carriageways of the A1, together with signs to follow the appropriate diversion routes. Advance signs are also situated on all approach roads to the slip roads, again with diversion signs in place giving instructions on how to access the Al. Additional signs, over and above those required to meet statutory requirements, were erected on the diversion routes on 16 January to give greater clarity for users of the diversions.
  In order to maintain traffic flow, both north and southbound, contraflow working is being used. For safety reasons, and to allow a smooth flow of traffic through the contraflow lengths, the slip roads to the A46/A17 need to be closed. Some resurfacing is also being carried out on the slip roads themselves. Although the
  1454W
  southbound carriageway was reopened on 1 February, it is now subject to contraflow working whilst the northbound carriageway is dealt with.
  Unfortunately, it is not possible to undertake this work on a 24-hour basis due to the close proximity of residential property. For environmental reasons Newark and Sherwood District Council have placed restrictions on working after 10pm so that local people do not suffer undue noise nuisance overnight.
  I am pleased to say that good progress is being made with the resurfacing and all work is on target to be completed by the 16 March. The Agency regrets any disruption that these essential. maintenance works may have caused. Wherever possible, we do try to keep this to a minimum and give advance publicity locally. I note, from these and previous questions you have asked, that you frequently use the north—south route, either via the Al or Ml.
  If you would like any further information the Agency's Route Manager, Graham Littlechild, will be more than happy to assist you. Please let him know if you would like to be included on a circulation list for advance publicity when works of this kind are proposed on these routes in the future. He can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8034.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed cameras there were in Wales in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) police force, (b) constituency, (c) safety camera partnership and (d) local authority area. [151748]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We do not hold information centrally for camera operations other than those operated within the Safety Camera Partnerships. The figures from the South and Central Wales safety camera partnership, which joined the scheme from April 2000 and the North Wales partnership, which joined the scheme in October 2001, are as follows.

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  North Wales1

  2—

  28

  45

  66

  South and Central Wales3

  33

  80

  313

  357

  1 Covers the North Wales police authority area

  2 Prior to joining the safety camera programme

  3 In 2000–01 and 2001–02, covered the South Wales police authority area; from 2002/03, joined by Gwent and Dyfed and

  Notes:

  1. For 2003–04 the number of sites shown are those approved in the operational cases for 2003–04, not all of which may yet be operational.

  2. These figures exclude red traffic-light cameras.

  3. Police authorities also have operational discretion to deploy cameras exceptionally at other locations, including "community concern sites", where there is evidence of speeding causing concern to local residents.

  We do not record this information specifically by police force, constituency or local authority area.

  Uninsured Vehicles
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were killed or seriously injured in accidents involving uninsured cars in the last year for which figures are available. [153939]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on the number of people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving uninsured vehicles is not held by my Department.
  1455W
  Data on accidents collected centrally in the Home Office do not identify the circumstances surrounding the offence.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the average additional cost to car insurance premiums resulting from damage from uninsured vehicles involved in accidents. [154101]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Motor Insurers' Bureau estimates that the average cost to each motorist's insurance premium as a result of uninsured drivers involved in accidents is between £15 and £30.

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on(a) the provision of loans and grants to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and (b) the maximum annual percentage uplift by which the agency may increase its fees and charges. [153203]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), as a Trading Fund, may receive loans or grants to accomplish its objectives that are agreed with the Department. Fees and charges are set periodically, based on the costs and commitments in undertaking functions.

  There is no maximum ceiling for the VOSA's annual fee increases, but all proposals are subject to a thorough series of consultations and submissions both with the Driver, Vehicle and Operator group, the Department for Transport, Ministers and the Trade before any increase in fee levels is agreed. Ministers have to approve all fee increases to be included in Statutory Instruments (SI) and have to sign SIs prior to them being presented to Parliament.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency's contribution to the improvement of road safety and environmental standards and (b) failure rates on checks and tests of (i) heavy goods vehicles, (ii) public service vehicles and (iii)light goods vehicles reported in the Vehicle Inspectorate's Effectiveness Report for 2002–03; and what targets he has set for these checks and tests for 2003–04 to 2005–06. [153205]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency's contribution to road safety and environmental standards is made through its range of licensing, testing (including emissions testing), enforcement, education and training services, and through its supervision of MOT testing. Fleet compliance checks are carried out regularly to assess the base-line condition of vehicles and to compare them against our targeted checks. Failure rates at annual test for heavy goods vehicles, public service vehicles and light goods vehicles remain unsatisfactory. Slightly higher fail rates for heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles in 2002–03 over previous years is mainly due to a new item in the test.

  The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency is increasingly targeting bad practice among operators and owners of vehicles through improved knowledge and intelligence systems. The responsibility for test
  1456W
  failure rates lies with operators and owners, and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has not been set specific targets. The Agency has been set effectiveness improvement objectives for its enforcement activities during 2003–04. Enforcement effectiveness is measured by Performance Gain points, and the Agency is to achieve at least a 2 per cent. improvement across all its activities, including for enforcement of HGV and PSV roadworthiness and environmental standards. No objectives have yet been set for enforcement effectiveness in 2004–05 or 2005–06.

  Performance Gain is an agreed indicator of the outcome value in road safety compliance terms of each of VOSA's specific enforcement activities and has been operating for several years during which annual performance objectives have been met.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are in place to ensure that the owners of untaxed illegal foreign cars are traced and brought into the United Kingdom car tax regime; and if he will make a statement. [153431]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A vehicle which is registered and taxed in its home country may be used by a visitor to Great Britain for up to six months in 12 without being subject to domestic requirements. To qualify for this exemption the visitor must have their normal residence outside GB.

  If at any time a vehicle being used in Great Britain on foreign plates is stopped by the police, it is the responsibility of the keeper to demonstrate that they are eligible to use the vehicle without licensing and registering it here. If they are not eligible, enforcement action will be taken.

DEFENCE

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the training facilities for Apache helicopter pilots to be available; [153973]

  (2) for what reasons training equipment is not available to train Apache helicopter pilots; [153975]

  (3) when he expects there to be sufficient trained helicopter pilots available to enable the helicopters at RAF Shawbury to be put into front line service. [153976]

  Mr. Ingram
  Training facilities for Apache helicopter pilots are already available and being utilised. The Army expects to achieve Initial Operating Capability in August 2004 and a task force capability based on nine Regiment Army Air Corps during spring 2005. The numbers of aircraft in storage will diminish progressively from mid 2004 through to autumn 2005.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department have been(a) investigated, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed,

  1457W
  (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what amounts were involved in each case. [153208]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold this information.

  Civil Contingency Reaction Force
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Civil Contingency Reaction Forces (CCRF) reservists are allocated to each of the regional CCRF units; and if he will make a statement; [153282]

  (2) how many training days members of Civil Contingency Reaction Forces undergo; what is covered at each training day; and if he will make a statement. [153283]

  Mr. Ingram
  500 Civil Contingency Reaction Force (CCRF) reservists are allocated to each of the 14 regional CCRF units. Members of the CCRF receive five days training per year, in addition to their normal reservist training. The additional days are used to ensure familiarisation and integration with the local authorities and the emergency services. They also ensure that the procedures for mobilisation are well practised. This is achieved through practical exercises and study periods and is completed in the context of the normal training regime, which covers areas such as First Aid, Fitness, Nuclear Biological and Chemical drills, map reading and communications.

  SDR (Consultation Document)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals and organisations to whom(a) his Department, (b) its executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible sent a copy of the consultation document, A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review: the role of the reserves in home defence and security. [153851]

  Mr. Ingram
  The consultation document "A new chapter to the strategic defence review: the role of the reserves in home defence and security" was distributed by the Ministry of Defence in June 2002, with a consultation period of three months.

  It is not possible or practicable to list every individual who received a copy of this document. However, I can confirm that the following organisations or groups of people were sent a copy:

  The Chairman and Members of the House of Commons Defence Committee

  Opposition Defence Spokesmen

  Selected Government Departments

  Ex-Chiefs of the Defence Staff

  The Local Government Association

  Local Government Chief Executives

  Emergency Planning Society

  Scottish Executive

  Northern Ireland Executive

  Welsh Assembly

  Libraries of both Houses

  Media (selected broadcast, print and specialist media)

  1458W
  A limited number of copies were also made available to the regular and reserve forces. However, the primary means of consultation for both the internal and external audience was through the MOD website, which carried a dedicated area for the consultation document.

  Decommissioning
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the planned decommissioning dates are for(a) HMS Vanguard, (b) HMS Victorious, (c) HMS Vigilant and (d) HMS Vengeance; [154104]

  (2) what the (a) maximum and (b) planned lifespans are for the UK Trident missile system; [154105]

  (3) when he expects to make a decision on replacing the strategic nuclear deterrent with a new system; and what the latest date is by which this decision must be made. [154107]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 February 2004]I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 3.11 of the Defence White Paper published in December 2003 (CM 6041).

  As with other key defence capabilities, we routinely undertake studies into the optimum operational life and value for money rather than specifying a fixed lifespan.

  Helicopter-borne Forces
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what use the additional investment to reduce the response times of helicopter-borne forces to deal with renegade shipping has been put; and if he will make a statement. [154276]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the SDR New Chapter, a programme of enhancements to the Ministry of Defence's support for Maritime Counter Terrorism has been introduced. This will allow MOD to continue to provide support to the civil authorities in response to this threat. The programme includes enhancements to equipment and the training of additional aircraft crews and engineers.

  HMS Roebuck
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of HMS Roebuck to remain fully operational until its planned decommissioning in 2014. [154280]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Roebuck is planned to begin a ship life extension programme in September 2004. The programme will cover mechanical systems, hull structures, habitability, in-service support and the updating of her survey capability, including a new multibeam echo sounder. It will extend her life until around 2014.

  Human Rights Violations
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr of 2 December 2003, on human rights violations, reference 141740. [154478]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to the hon. Member on 6 February 2004,Official Report, column 1104W.
  1459W

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect of British cluster bombs on (i) Iraqi armed forces during the conflict and (ii) civilians since large-scale hostilities ceased; and if he will make a statement. [147326]

  Mr. Ingram
  We evaluate the performance and effects of all our equipment following the conclusion of every military operation involving UK Forces. The department's 'First Reflections' report included a brief summary and our initial assessment of the effect of cluster bombs during major combat operations in Iraq. Cluster bombs were used by UK forces against dispersed Iraqi military forces in the open or on the periphery of built up areas where they played an important role. Had cluster bombs not been used in this way more powerful and more destructive munitions would have been needed.

  The UK takes seriously its obligations as a member of the coalition to provide a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people. Since the end of major combat operations 675,000 munitions have been cleared in the UK area of responsibility. We do not record individual types of munitions cleared.

  Jan Willem Matser
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received about the case of former NATO employee Jan Willem Matser convicted of forgery and fraud in the Netherlands; what discussions he has had with the NATO Secretary General on the implications of the case; and if he will make a statement. [154454]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have not received any official reports regarding this case, nor have I raised the matter with the NATO Secretary General.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to instruct the(a) Defence Procurement Agency and (b) Defence Logistics Organisation to make an annual report on their work, to include the total amount in bid costs refunded to contractors in respect of procurement competitions being (i) terminated and (ii) substantially altered. [153512]

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

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for replacement oilers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. [146509]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) programme is intended to provide the Royal Navy with a significant element of its future afloat support requirements as the current capability provided by the RFA fleet is progressively withdrawn from service. This will include the 1460W
  replenishment at sea of bulk consumables such as fuel oil, lubricants, water, stores, ammunition, and food. MARS is currently reaching the end of its concept phase prior to the start of its Assessment Phase during which the project team will work with industry to establish how best to deliver this capability. As MARS comes into service, it will progressively replace those existing oilers due on current plans to be withdrawn from service over the next decade with the exception of the two new Wave Class Auxiliary Oilers which came into service in 2003.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2004,Official Report, column 505W, to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on Sea King helicopters, whether the helicopters in the collision were equipped with accident data recorders. [154503]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. The only Royal Navy helicopters fitted with accident data recording equipment are some of the Merlin Fleet.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2004,Official Report, column 505W, to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on Sea King helicopters, what assessment he has made of the need for fleet-wide night vision capability since the collision; [154505]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether senior officers are satisfied that there was no malfunction of equipment during the exercise; [154494]

  (3) what (a) lights and (b) equipment were not permitted for use on this occasion that are permitted in normal night-time flying conditions; [154500]

  (4) what experience the crews of the two helicopters had had of flying in these conditions in respect of (a) use of radar, (b) use of radio, (c) lighting, (d) restricted vision and (e) restricted flight path; [154493]

  (5) whether the crews of each helicopter had radio communications with Mission Control on board HMS Ark Royal; [154497]

  (6) what recommendations from the Board of Inquiry report have been acted upon by his Department; [154507]

  (7) whether the crews of each helicopter had a radar surveillance and advice warning from Mission Control on board HMS Ark Royal; [154496]

  (8) what assessment of rules and procedures for night flying senior commanders (a) had made before the mission and (b) have made since the mission; [154504]

  (9) whether both Sea Kings had been permitted radio contact with (a) each other and (b) HMS Ark Royal throughout the exercise; [154495]

  (10) what other helicopters were operating in the area; [154491]

  (11) how many sorties each helicopter had completed before the accident; and whether they had reported difficulty with (a) flying conditions, (b) restricted vision, (c) restricted flight path and (d) malfunction of equipment. [154492]
  1461W
  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested, and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2004,Official Report, column 505W, to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on Sea King helicopters, when the Royal Navy Flight Safety and Accident Investigation Centre will publish its report on the accident. [154506]

  Mr. Ingram
  The accident investigation into the loss of the Sea King helicopters from HMS Ark Royal will take at least another six months. A copy of the resulting accident summary will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's definition is of a weapon of mass destruction. [154249]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said on 28 January 2003,Official Report, column 769W, there is no universally

  Seminar

  Lecture

  Date

  Seminar for Potential Nominated Care Judges

  The Paediatric Witness

  7–9 May 1997

  Seminar for Potential Nominated Care Judges

  The Paediatric Witness

  6–8 May 1998

  Seminar for Potential Nominated Care Judges

  The Paediatric Witness

  5–7 May 1999

  Seminar for Potential Nominated Care Judges

  The Paediatric Witness

  9–12 May 2000

  Continuation Seminar for Nominated Care District Judges

  Paediatric Reports

  22–24 May 2000

  Seminar for Potential Nominated Care Judges

  The Paediatric Witness

  1–4–May 2001

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department have been(a) investigated, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what amounts were involved in each case. [153868]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has had no reported cases of staff involved in benefit fraud in the last six years.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the criteria are by which the sequence by region of digital switchover will take place; and if she will make a statement. [154174]

  Estelle Morris
  Digital switchover will be a phased process, with different regions switching at different times. Part of the work of the Digital Television Action Plan is to agree the order in which different regions are switched. The reports from the BBC and Ofcom and the Digital Television Consumer Expert Group expected at the end of March, will help inform our considerations.
  1462W
  accepted definition of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", but it is generally held to refer to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many cases in the last five years initial charges of causing death by dangerous driving have been reduced to the charge of careless driving. [154332]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) holds no central records on particular charges, or on the amendments made to charges.

  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Roy Meadow
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Solicitor-General on what occasions Sir Roy Meadow has given lectures to judges and other court officials on the subject of infanticide and harm of children at the hands of their parents. [151029]

  The Solicitor-General
  Details of the lectures given by Sir Roy Meadow at seminars organised by the Judicial Studies Board appear in the following table.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives her Department has undertaken to encourage communities to become involved in graffiti prevention. [153823]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport works with other Government Departments and agencies, including the Home Office and Youth Justice Board, to deliver initiatives that seek to reduce antisocial behaviour, such as graffiti, by offering developmental sports and arts activities as an alternative. These include:

  Positive Futures:

  We are key partners in this national sports, based social inclusion programme targeted at marginalised 10 to 19-year-olds in the most deprived areas. It aims to build relationships between responsible adults and young people based on mutual trust and respect in order to create new opportunities for alternative lifestyles.

  Positive Activities for Young People:

  We are one of a number of Government Departments and agencies that work together to deliver Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP). PAYP is a three year cross Government and Lottery funded school holiday activity programme that aims to reduce street crime, build community cohesion and encourage children and young people to return to education or

  1463W
  training by engaging them in high quality sport and art activities. It is targeted at young people most at risk of truancy or offending and areas with high levels of street crime or community cohesion problems.

  Historic Buildings (Gift Aid Relief)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with charity owners of historic buildings on the impact of the changes to gift aid relief against admission ticket revenues announced in the Pre-Budget Report. [154402]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS officials have been talking to Inland Revenue colleagues and representatives of a variety of associations and representative bodies about the implementation of changes to the Gift Aid Scheme announced in the pre-Budget report with a view to ensuring that the changes do not cause unnecessary problems for the charities affected.

  Licensing Act
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the administrative costs to(a) local authorities, (b) individual licensees and (c) central government of the changes to the licensing regime resulting from the Licensing Act 2002; and if she will make a statement. [154061]

  Mr. Caborn
  Proposed fee levels and the expected costs of compliance with the 2003 Act were set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which accompanied the Licensing Bill and is available from the House Library. Regulations setting out the fees to accompany applications for licences, club premises certificates and other applications will be laid before Parliament shortly, showing the cost to individual licensees and applicants.

  The Department is working closely with the Local Government Association to produce licensing fees which are set at a level to provide for full cost recovery in respect of administration, inspection and enforcement. In those cases where the Department has announced that there will be an exemption from the payment of fees in certain circumstances the costs will be met by central government.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for Lottery grant funding have been received in the last year from Cunninghame, South; what the total value was of these applications; and how many of these applications were successful. [153215]

  Estelle Morris
  This Department has never collected comprehensive information on either the number or value of applications for Lottery grants received by the Distributing Bodies.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications were made for Heritage Lottery funding in(a) Trafford and (b) Altrincham and Sale, West in each of the last five years. [153221]
  1464W
  Estelle Morris
  The number of applications that were made for Heritage Lottery Funding in(a) Trafford and (b) Altrincham and Sale, West in each of the last five years were:

  Financial year

  Trafford

  Altrincham and Sale West

  1997–98

  4

  3

  1998–99

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  1

  0

  2000–01

  1

  1

  2001–02

  1

  1

  2002–03

  2

  1

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Heritage Lottery funding has been awarded in the Altrincham and Sale, West constituency in each of the last five years; and how many projects were awarded funding. [153222]

  Estelle Morris
  The amount of Heritage Lottery funding awarded to Altricham and Sale, West constituency in each of the last five years together with the number of projects funded was:

  Financial year

  Heritage lottery funding

  Number of projects

  1997–98

  257,800

  3

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  2000–01

  44,000

  1

  2001–02

  0

  0

  2002–03

  0

  0

  Repeat Offenders
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what programmes her Department has set up to encourage the reform of repeat offenders. [153824]

  Estelle Morris
  There are a number of ways in which the Department seeks to prevent offending, including repeat offending, through engagement by young people in arts and sports activities, for example:

  Positive Futures:

  We are key partners in this national sports—based social inclusion programme targeted at marginalised 10 to19-year-olds in the most deprived areas. It aims to build relationships between responsible adults and young people based on mutual trust and respect in order to create new opportunities for alternative lifestyles.

  Unit for Arts and Offenders:

  Funded through the Arts Council of England, the Unit for Arts and Offenders is a national umbrella organisation that supports the development of the arts within criminal justice settings.

  Positive Activities for Young People:

  We are one of a number of Government Departments and agencies that work together to deliver Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP). PAYP is a three year cross Government and Lottery funded school holiday activity programme that aims to reduce street crime, build community cohesion and encourage children and young people to return to education or training by engaging them in high quality sport and art

  1465W
  activities. It is targeted at young people most at risk of truancy or offending and areas with high levels of street crime or community cohesion problems.

  Sport England
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) technical and financial contracts, (b) technical consultants used

  Name

  Service

  Type of service

  Cost(£)

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Tax/VAT Advice

  Regular, ongoing technical advice

  72,479.63

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Communications; Electronic Document Records; Cash Management and Procurement Strategy

  One off consultancies; financial

  76,069.50

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Internal Audit Advice/Services

  Regular, ongoing financial

  17,841.90

  Mazars

  Internal Audit Advice/Services

  Regular, ongoing financial

  67,945.00

  Baker Mallett

  Quantity Surveying and Project Management

  Regular, ongoing financial

  24,200.00

  Capita Property Management

  Quantity Surveying and Project Management

  Regular, ongoing financial

  91,878.50

  EC Harris

  Quantity Surveying and Project Management

  Regular, ongoing financial

  167,180.21

  JR Knowles Capital

  Quantity Surveying and Project Management

  Regular, ongoing financial

  239,414.59

  Pick Everard

  Quantity Surveying and Project Management

  Regular, ongoing financial

  65,921.50

  Turner & Townsend

  Quantity Surveying and Project Management

  Regular, ongoing financial

  160,250.47

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the income expected this year is from fishing licences in the British Indian Ocean Territories; and what it was in each of the past five years. [153941]

  Mr. Rammell
  Income this year (financial year 2003–04) to 31 December 2003 from fishing licences was £534,309. We cannot predict the expected income for the final quarter, but it is unlikely that revenue will reach that of previous years.

  Income from fishing licences in the past five years in the British Indian Ocean Territory was as follows:

  Financial year

  Income(£)

  1998–99

  2,271,595

  1999–2000

  744,042

  2000–01

  1,108,072

  2001–02

  822,497

  2002–03

  613,060

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the evidential basis was for the comment by the Minister for State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Mike O'Brien), on Newsnight on 3 February that Iraq is the only country to use weapons of mass destruction. [153927]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my hon. Friend knows, Iraq under Saddam Hussein is the only country to have used weapons of mass destruction against both neighbours and its own people. This is a fact that neither my hon. Friend nor any other hon. Member has disputed in the past.

  It was this point that I was attempting to make in the discussion when I was interrupted by the presenter of the programme.
  1466W
  on a call-off basis and (c) financial consultants used on a call-off basis by Sport England since 1 January 2003., what the nature of the assignment for each consultant was; and what the value of work done by each consultant was. [154122]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of contracted consultants for Sport England in the calendar year starting on 1 January 2003 are as follows.

  Passports/Visas
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States on their policy that all visitors from the United Kingdom travelling on passports issued after 16 October without a biometric chip will require a visa; and if he will make a statement. [154470]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the US Secretary of State on 16 December 2003 to express concern at the US legislation and suggest that a joint FCO/UK Passport Service delegation visit Washington to discuss ways forward. The team visited Washington from 21–23 January. It asked the US to extend its deadline of 26 October 2004 for visitors' new UK passports to contain either a biometric identifier or a US visa. The US noted the UK position, and a formal response is awaited.

  The scale of the technical challenge currently makes the US requirement unachievable for the UK, and most other countries, before the end of 2005.

  British citizens visiting the US with machine-readable passports issued before 26 October 2004 are not affected by the new US requirement.

  Tristan da Cunha
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits the Governor of Tristan da Cunha has made to(a) Tristan da Cunha and (b) the Ascension Islands in the last five years. [154198]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Governor has made four visits to Tristan da Cunha since 2001, the latest of which was in January this year.

  The Governor has made 14 visits to Ascension Island in the last five years.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ministerial visits have been made to(a) Tristan da Cunha and (b) the Ascension Islands in the last five years. [154199]
  1467W
  Mr. Rammell
  There have been no ministerial visits to Tristan da Cunha in the last five years. I visited Ascension Island in November 2003 and took the opportunity to meet with Island Councillors at their Chamber. Ministers also regularly transit the Island on their way to and from the Falkland Islands.

  UK Businesses (Exports)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department(a) encourages and (b) assists UK businesses to export. [153866]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A key role of UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) (formerly British Trade International)—a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Trade and Industry department—is to present the benefits of internationalising business as well as equipping firms with the information and capabilities to fulfil their export potential. UKTI encourages and assists business by offering a range of services to companies, details of which are contained in its current Departmental Report issued in May 2003 (Cm 5915). UKTI's Departmental Report for 2003–04 will issue in April 2004. Copies of Departmental Reports are laid in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the extent of the clearing of landmines in Afghanistan in each of the last two years; and what the contribution of the United Kingdom has been. [148115]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  According to figures produced by Landmine Monitor and the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), clearance of landmines and associated activities in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, the last years for which reports are available, have been as follows:

  2001

  2002

  Minefield clearance (sq km)

  15.6

  19.0

  Battle area clearance (sq km)

  81.2

  92.6

  Minefield survey (sq km)

  14.7

  25.2

  Battle area survey (sq km)

  80.8

  92.5

  Mine awareness training (people)

  730,000

  2,448,151

  DFID has provided the following sums for mine action in Afghanistan: £3 million in 2001–02 and £1.8 million in 2002–03.

  We are currently considering further support for UNMAS in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent estimate he has made of the number of Afghan refugees in(a) Pakistan and (b) Iran. [149972]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The most recent estimate by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UN HCR), of Afghan refugees in Pakistan is 1.6 million 1468W
  individuals. The number, however, is difficult to assess accurately as there has not been a registration since 1995. In addition, there are significant numbers of Afghans in Pakistan who are not refugees. In Iran UNHCR's estimate is 1.9 million. Here most of the Afghan refugees are registered, although there may be a significant margin of error.

  Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what plans his Department has to assist African governments with the implementation of the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Declaration; [153151]

  (2) what plans he has to discuss the implementation of the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Declaration with the Government of Cameroon; and what steps he is taking to assist the implementation of the indicative actions relating to bushmeat; [153154]

  (3) what plans his Department has to combat illegal logging in (a) Ghana and (b) Cameroon in the next 12 months; [153210]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the World Bank concerning the implementation of the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Declaration; [153212]

  (5) if he will discuss the implementation of the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Declaration with the Government of Ghana; and what plans he has to assist the implementation of the indicative actions relating to the issue of bushmeat. [153214]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) Conference was held in Cameroon in October 2003. The Declaration commits timber producing and consuming countries to tackle illegal logging and associated trade. It includes an extensive list of "indicative actions". The Declaration suggested that the World Bank finance a meeting of regional representatives of the AFLEG process and decide on the next steps and the next meeting of the United Nations Forum on Forests, in Geneva in May, is the most suitable occasion for this follow-up and we are in discussion with the World Bank about this. We have also discussed with the World Bank a review of the effects of economic reform programmes on forest law enforcement and governance, as called for in the Declaration.

  The UK's support to the AFLEG declaration will be delivered through the EU and through the programmes of the Department for International Development (DFID). The UK is working with the European Commission and member states on the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. The Action Plan provides for Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) between the EU and timber producing countries. Initial discussions with Cameroon and Ghana on VPAs took place in London in December. Further discussions will be organised by the European Commission and member states with these and other African countries in the coming months.
  1469W
  At the London meeting in December officials from Cameroon explained that they would incorporate AFLEG follow-up actions within their sector reform programme (the Forest and Environment Sector Programme). This Programme spans forest and wildlife management. It aims to improve governance and will emphasise the involvement of local communities in management. DFID has, with other development agencies, supported the development of this Programme and is currently in discussion with the Government of Cameroon about their future support. Our support will be to the programme as a whole and not to any particular elements of it. In addition to this, over the next twelve months we will continue our support to independent monitoring of timber harvesting by Global Witness.

  In Ghana DFID has been supporting a broad programme of forest and wildlife sector reform over many years. This has radically changed the institutions and the way natural resources are managed, promoting better governance and greater accountability. Over the next 12 months the new timber concession system will be implemented which includes better environmental standards and social responsibility agreements with forest fringe communities. In addition, DFID is supporting two new initiatives to improve the involvement and oversight of civil society and Parliament in forest and wildlife management.

  The list of "indicative actions" included in the AFLEG Declaration is not a plan of action. We have not singled out support to any "indicative actions" related to bushmeat. Our support to sector reforms in both Ghana and Cameroon does, however, aim to strengthen the capacity of those countries to deal with wildlife and poverty issues. It is for the governments concerned to prioritise actions within their sector reform programmes.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of staff employed within his Department are over 55 years of age; and what(a) number and (b) percentage of staff recruited over the last 12 months are over 55 years of age. [145929]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The following table shows the number and percentage of staff in DFID aged 55 and over at 1 April 2003. The figures are based on the headcount of permanent civil servants.

  Number and percentage of staff in DFID aged 55 and over at 1 April 2003

  DFID

  Age 55 plus

  150

  Others

  1,490

  Total

  1,640

  Percentage of staff aged 55 plus

  9.1

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Rounding may lead to inconsistencies between the sum of individual cells and the totals are calculated from the unrounded numbers.

  Source:

  DFID
  1470W
  The following table shows the number and percentage of recruits to DFID over the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 who are aged 55 years and over. Figures are based on the headcount of Permanent civil servants.

  Number and percentage of recruits to DFID over the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 aged 55 and over

  DFID

  Age 55 plus

  10

  Others

  120

  Total

  130

  Percentage of recruits aged 55 plus

  8.1

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Rounding may lead to inconsistencies between the sum of individual cells and the totals are calculated from the unrounded numbers.

  Source:

  DFID

  Liberia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure greater transparency in the Transitional Government in Liberia. [153346]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) has agreed, with the support of the international community, a Results Focused Transitional Framework to guide the process of reconstruction during its two-year period of office. It includes benchmarks on improved governance, democratic development, the rule of law, and transparency and accountability of public institutions (including those responsible for the financial sector and procurement)

  The NTGL has taken several steps to improve public financial management. It has made the Ministry of Finance solely responsible for tax and revenue collection and has made it a criminal offence for other officials to collect them; it has ended the monopolies on rice and petroleum products; and it has announced audits of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company, the Forestry Development Authority, the National Port Authority, the Bureau of Maritime Affairs and Roberts International Airport. It has also set up committees to examine measures needed to bring order to the forestry and diamond industries and to the aircraft registry. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed in August 2003, provides for free and fair elections in October 2005.

  We support the NTGL in these objectives. For 2003 and 2004, we have committed a total of £16.6 million in bilateral aid and £13 million as our share of the EU budget for Liberia.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Tom Kelly
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons he has not dismissed Mr. Tom Kelly as his official spokesman following the publication of Lord Hutton's criticism of him. [154056]
  1471W
  The Prime Minister
  My official spokesman made an immediate and very full apology at the time, and he repeated it to the inquiry. Lord Hutton deals with this in his report.

  Cabinet Secretary
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 713W, of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on what dates (a) the then Cabinet Secretary reported that he had been approached by IBM UK to join its advisory board, (b) the then Cabinet Secretary sought the Prime Minister's permission to take up the appointment and (c) the Prime Minister gave his approval for the appointment to be taken up; and what the conditions were on that approval. [154362]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 2 February 2004, Official Report, column 13W. This appointment was accounted for in the second report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what the first date was on which he told President Bush that the UK would be prepared to go to war with the US against Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [154457]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 868W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to(a) re-examine and (b) change the renewables obligation on electricity suppliers; and if she will make a statement. [154231]

  Mr. Timms
  A review of the Renewables Obligation will take place in 2005–06. Last December, the Government announced an increase in the level of the Obligation for the years between 2010 and 2015 so that it increases in stages to 15.4 per cent. by 2015–16.

  There will be a statutory order to give effect to some technical changes from 1 April 2004 following a consultation exercise last autumn. The statutory consultation needed to implement the extension of obligation will take place later this year and may contain other proposals to mitigate the risk of future shortfalls in the renewables buyout fund.

  Baku to Ceyhan Pipeline
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of the Baku to Ceyhan pipeline; and if she will make a statement. [153744]
  1472W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  ECGD carried out a rigorous assessment of the environmental, social and human rights impacts of the BTC pipeline project in accordance with its Case Impact Analysis Process.

  ECGD assessed the project using World Bank and EU environmental guidelines and standards. The Department studied over 11,000 pages of project documentation covering the environmental and social impacts; met with, and received comments from, interested third parties, including those arising out of ECGD's public disclosure procedure, and carried out a site visit. Independent environmental consultants were also employed to assess the project and assist in ECGD's analysis.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the US Department of Energy regarding the BNFL contract to build a nuclear processing plant in Idaho; and if she will make a statement. [142132]

  Mr. Timms
  BNFL's subsidiary BNFL Inc. has a contract with US DoE to manage waste at a facility in Idaho—the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant. My officials have liaised with USDoE and the company on the settlement of claims for compensation under the terms of the contract. These discussions are a commercial matter.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her Written Statement of 11 December 2003,Official Report, columns 93–95WS, on BNFL strategy review, if she will make a statement on the future of BNFL's US subsidiaries. [R][148979]

  Mr. Timms
  As set out in my announcement, the priority for BNFL going forward is to focus on UK clean up. Against this background, the objective relating to the US activities is to manage the businesses to deliver value and in a way that limits and controls risk to the UK taxpayer. In relation to the Westinghouse business, the Government have agreed with the BNFL Board that steps will be taken to enable the business to operate with greater financial independence from its parent, so that possibilities for private sector participation are opened up.

  Broadband (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on roll-out of broadband in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley; and how (i) urban and (ii) rural businesses will benefit. [153842]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave on 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1167W, covering the roll-out of broadband in Lancashire. The roll-out of broadband is primarily a matter for the Operators. According to BT's website (www.bt.com/ broadband/), Chorley's telephone exchange has been enabled for broadband via ADSL since 30 June 2002. Broadband in Chorley may also be available over cable television, satellite and fixed wireless networks.
  1473W
  In November 2003, I called for public bodies, broadband providers and community organisations to work together to bring broadband availability to every community in the UK by the end of next year. BT and others have since come forward to support this target.

  Broadband will enable urban and rural businesses to become more productive, innovative and competitive. The joint DTI/DEFRA Rural Broadband Unit has recently published a toolkit to help businesses in rural areas understand the issues and benefits of broadband. Further information for the benefits small businesses can get from broadband is available on the UK Online For Business website, including an availability checker, (http://www.ukonlineforbusiness.gov.uk/cms/template/ general-content.sp?id = 249178)

  Building Maintenance (Door-to-door Sales)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to address problems caused by the door-to-door selling of building maintenance. [153569]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government are concerned about the practices adopted by some doorstep traders and welcomed the Office of Fair Trading's investigation of the doorstep selling market. The investigation report is expected in the next couple of months. Recommendations resulting from the investigation will be considered very carefully.

  Business Links
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses were helped by each Business Link operator in England in 2001–02. [153577]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The following table shows the number of businessses assisted by Business Link Operators from April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  Number

  County Durham

  1,585

  Northumberland

  516

  Tees Valley

  3,293

  Tyne and Wear

  3,286

  Cheshire and Warrington

  3,714

  Cumbria

  4,916

  East Lancashire

  2,973

  Manchester

  10,873

  Merseyside

  5,860

  North and West Lancashire

  3,156

  North Manchester

  2,894

  Humberside

  5,392

  North Yorkshire

  7,160

  South Yorkshire

  3,986

  West Yorkshire

  14,761

  Derbyshire

  5,399

  Leicestershire

  4,425

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  4,026

  Northamptonshire

  2,224

  Nottinghamshire

  4,659

  Birmingham and Solihull

  9,179

  Black Country

  4,645

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  4,392

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  4,875

  Shropshire

  1,629

  Staffordshire

  5,195

  Bedfordshire

  1,997

  1474W

  Number

  Cambridgeshire

  2,790

  Essex

  5,441

  Hertfordshire

  7,100

  Norfolk

  3,894

  Suffolk

  2,746

  London

  27,090

  Berkshire

  3,146

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight (Wessex)

  6,204

  Kent

  8,063

  Milton Keynes, Oxon, Bucks

  7,077

  Surrey

  5,879

  Sussex

  11,001

  Devon and Cornwall

  9,872

  Dorset (Wessex)

  2,659

  Gloucestershire

  3,509

  Somerset

  1,979

  West

  5,699

  Wiltshire

  4,183

  Total

  245,342

  Innovation and Growth Teams
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what feedback she has received from each sectoral innovation and growth team in relation to the impact of regulation on(a) innovation and (b) competiveness in their sectors. [153553]

  Ms Hewitt
  The aim of any Innovation and Growth Team (IGT) is to identify the key issues which will shape the future of a particular industry and how the UK cart best respond to the competitive challenges which it will face. In view of this, regulation, innovation and competitiveness issues are at the core of all IGTs.

  So far, IGTs covering the automotive, chemicals, environmental, aerospace and bioscience sectors have published final reports which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. IGTs covering software/digital content and electronics are still under way. A similar initiative covering the retail sector is due to lead to a final report by the Retail Strategy Group in April 2004.

  Civil Partnerships Bill
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the timetable for the publication of the Civil Partnerships Bill. [152618]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]The Government hope to introduce the Civil Partnership Bill into Parliament this session.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of projected surplus capacity of electricity supply for the next winter; and if she will make a statement. [153370]

  Mr. Timms
  National Grid Transco, in a January update to their 7-year statement, project a generation plant margin of between 22.7 per cent. and 22.9 per cent. for the winter of 2004–05.
  1475W
  NETA places strong incentives on suppliers to contract for their customers' demand and also places strong incentives on generators to deliver the power that they have contracted to deliver.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the non-disclosed conclusions of the report of her investigation into the power cuts that affected(a) areas of London and Kent on 28 August 2003 and (b) the West Midlands on 5 September 2003. [153920]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 22 January 2004, in which I explained that the conclusions and recommendations of the investigation undertaken by DTI's Engineering Inspectorate were being passed to the electricity companies concerned on a confidential basis, so that they could take the necessary action to enhance the robustness of their networks.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has made requests to the Board of National Grid Transco to permit her to disclose the findings of the Engineering Inspectorate's investigation into the cause of the power cuts in London and the West Midlands last August; and if she will make a statement. [154213]

  Mr. Timms
  As I explained to the House on 22 January, recommendations and conclusions of the Engineering Inspectorate's investigation were being passed to the companies concerned on a confidential basis. The Engineering Inspectorate is holding confidential discussions with the companies concerned and monitoring the action they take. In my statement I drew attention to the fact that, the material gathered in connection with the investigation is commercially sensitive and its disclosure is restricted by the provisions of the Utilities Act 2000. Those considerations continue to apply to the on-going discussions between the Engineering Inspectorate and the companies and therefore no requests have been made to the companies for agreement to disclosure.

  Employment Agencies (Migrant Worker Prosecutions)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment agencies have(a) been (i) prosecuted and (ii) fined for offences relating to the exploitation of migrant workers under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and (b) had allegations against them regarding the exploitation of migrant workers investigated by her Department's Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate in each of the last five years; how many persons have been banned from being associated with operating an employment agency or employment business after being prosecuted in relation to the exploitation of migrant workers in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [153008]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In the last five years the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate has prosecuted 24 employment agencies and prohibited 7 individuals from operating as employment agencies or employment business.
  1476W
  The Inspectorate has also undertaken 5,607 investigations during the last five years.

  The records do not specify whether the work-seekers involved were migrant workers.

  Employment Rights (Ministers of Religion)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that ministers of religion have the same employment rights as other employees. [153394]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have been considering the current coverage of employment protections as part of the Employment Status Review, including the position of the clergy; we hope to make an announcement shortly.

  EU Regulations
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about her request for EU Finance Ministers to commit to a timetable to eliminate wasteful regulations. [146083]

  Ms Hewitt
  I discuss a wide range of business competitiveness issues with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Finance Ministers of the four member states that will hold the EU presidency in 2004 and 2005, including the UK, launched a Joint Initiative on Regulatory Reform on 26 January. This reflects the Government's priorities in this area, including simplification of EU legislation in key areas affecting business, and will reinforce the work of the Competitiveness Council which has a 'horizontal' remit to consider any EU legislation with an impact on competitiveness.

  I have placed a copy of the letter that launched the initiative in the Libraries of the House.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each year from 1996 to 2003. [153935]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]The average number of whole time equivalent persons employed (including senior management) during the years 1996 to 2003 was as follows:

  Year

  Average number

  1995–96

  444

  1996–97

  397

  1997–98

  382

  1998–99

  359

  1999–2000

  360

  2000–01

  380

  2001–02

  372

  2002–03

  378

  1477W

  Faroes Vessel Claims
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been submitted to her Department under the revised deadline for vessels classed as Faroes Vessels. [152392]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department received representations that 95 Vessels be considered for addition to the list of Qualifying Icelandic Water Vessels. A further 25 vessels, in respect of which appeals are currently with the scheme's Independent Adjudicator, were also considered by officials for addition to the list.

  Transgenic Fish
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many patent applications are pending which relate to transgenic fish. [153869]

  Ms Hewitt
  Two patent applications relating to transgenic fish are pending before the UK Patent Office. There may be others among the thousands of applications early in the application process, which have not yet been sorted into specific subject areas.

  Fur Trade (Domestic Animals)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the European Union regarding an EU ban on the trade in domestic dog and cat fur. [152853]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Government's view is that any action on the issue of the alleged trade in domestic cat and dog fur would be most effective if taken at EU level. In November 2002, my noble Friend, the then Minister for International Trade and Investment publicly supported calls by the European Parliament for an EU ban on the trade in these furs. Late last year, the UK Government also supported Denmark and the Netherlands in calls for the European Commission to consider measures to put an end to any import of domestic cat and dog fur. The Government continue to be in regular contact with other interested member states to discuss what proportionate action on this issue may be appropriate at EU level.

  Low-carbon Technologies
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policies she is pursuing to encourage a shift towards low-carbon technologies. [154219]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are pursuing a wide range of policies and measures to encourage a shift towards low carbon technologies. These are described in the Energy White Paper "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy" which was published in February 2003. They include giving priority to renewables, promoting energy efficiency and making the EU Emissions Trading Scheme a key part of our future market framework.

  Key measures for which the DTI is responsible include the Renewables Obligation and capital grants for renewables, clean coal technology, and carbon capture and storage.
  1478W
  In addition, the Research Councils support a broad range of energy research, which will be given increased focus and coherence with the establishment of a new UK Energy Research Centre later this year.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much nuclear waste has been(a) imported into the United Kingdom,(b)reprocessed in the United Kingdom and (c)subsequently exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [153371]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK does not allow the import of radioactive waste, but foreign spent fuel is received in the UK for reprocessing. Details of fuel deliveries and the programming of reprocessing fuel are operational and commercial matters for BNFL and its customers, but the total amount of foreign spent fuel to be reprocessed during THORP's baseload period of operation is 4,547 tonnes.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tons of radioactive waste were shipped to the United Kingdom for storage in each year since 1997; and what the projected figures are for each of the next four years. [152984]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK does not allow the import of radioactive waste, but foreign spent nuclear fuel is received in the UK for reprocessing. Details of fuel deliveries are operational and commercial matters for BNFL and its customers.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the contract for the consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution, published in January 2004, was put out to competitive tender; how NAC International Consultancy was chosen to prepare the document; who the other bidders were; and what account was taken of NAC International's existing contracts with BNFL in making the selection. [154206]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI issued an invitation to tender (ITT) to undertake the study on Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Substitution on 18 November 2002.

  Bids were received from six companies by the due closing date of 6 December 2002. All complied with the ITT and in material respects, with all other commercial evaluation criteria laid down by the Department's procurement manual. The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Exemption 13 Third Party's Commercial Confidences) exempts the bidders from being named.

  NAC were selected on the basis of relevant experience, value for money and the ability to deliver a quality report to agreed timescales. NAC, together with four other companies provided statements of independence with their tenders.

  NAC is an international company providing consultancy services on a wide range of nuclear issues. We are advised by NAC that its work for BNFL amounts to around 0.3 per cent. of current turnover. Most of NAC's turnover is generated from work conducted outside of the UK.
  1479W

  Manufacturing Jobs (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many manufacturing jobs were lost in Shrewsbury and Atcham in(a) each year since 1997 and (b) each month in the last 12 months. [151362]

  Jacqui Smith
  The data for manufacturing jobs in Shrewsbury and Atcham for each year since 1997 are not available.

  However the figures for manufacturing job losses over the past year month by month are as follows:

  Month

  Total manufacturing jobs lost

  Companies where losses occurred

  October 2002

  129

  RAPRA Leoni Wiring Eden Vale

  February 2003

  120

  Perkins Engines

  April 2003

  132

  Comau Estil Leoni Wiring Churchill and Bramhall

  August 2003

  37

  Stadco Leaf Metals

  September 2003

  33

  Scott and Newman

  December 2003

  79

  Perkins Engines

  January 2004

  50

  Doncasters

  Source:

  Job Centre Plus Telford

  Where a month is not shown no manufacturing job losses were recorded.

  Offshore Call Centres
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the potential impact upon an individual's rights under UK data protection legislation arising from the move of call centres and data processing offshore. [153731]

  Ms Hewitt
  Where a company established in the UK either processes personal data itself in another country or has personal data processed on its behalf under contract by a company in another country, the UK company retains full responsibility for ensuring that the processing complies with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. In particular, UK companies must comply with the eighth Data Protection Principle which prohibits the transfer of personal data from the UK to a country or territory outside the EEA unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of data protection.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the(a) Government and (b) European Commission are taking to prevent improper support payments to contractors and subcontractors by (a) governments and (b) government agencies competing for construction work in Britain's offshore gas and oil industries. [154272]

  Mr. Timms
  The EU state aid rules are intended to prevent improper payments that can distort competition in the Single Market. The rules apply impartially to funding from all member states and to all levels of government and government agencies. The European Commission is the guardian of the state aid rules and 1480W
  they must examine aid to ensure that it does not distort the Single Market. All aid must be notified to and approved by the European Commission before it can be granted. The Commission is also obliged to investigate any allegations of illegal aid and if necessary take action. This may include recovery action in some cases.

  The Government strongly support the state aid regime and all Government funding must be given in accordance with the rules. The Government will also bring to the Commission's attention allegations of illegal aid in other member states.

  Part-time Workers
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures have been introduced since 1997 to improve employment rights for part-time workers. [153603]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 introduced new rights for part-time workers ensuring that part-timers are not treated less favourably than comparable full-timers in their terms and conditions, unless it is objectively justified.

  The measures reinforce the Government's policy of putting in place decent minimum standards whilst promoting a flexible and competitive workforce.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how many businesses have been helped by each regional development agency; what the average sum of money received by these businesses is; how many of the businesses helped are still operating; and how many of these businesses have increased their profitability. [148189]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 January 2004, c. 376 W]Unfortunately the table referred to in the final paragraph was not provided. Following is the complete text.

  England's Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) help businesses both directly and indirectly through a range of activities and programmes including skills development, upgrading infrastructure and improving business competitiveness of the region in general.

  Information on how many businesses have been helped, the average sum of money received, how many are still operating, and how many have increased their profitability, is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The number of businesses added to the regional economy as a direct result of RDA activity is available for financial year 2002–2003 and is broken down by Agency in the following table. The information is also available on the DTI website at http://wwv.dti.gov.uk/rda/info/.

  1481W

  RDA

  Total number of new businesses added to the regional economy in 2002–03 as a direct result of RDA activities

  Advantage West Midlands

  170

  East of England Development Agency

  156

  East Midlands Development Agency

  225

  London Development Agency

  1,368

  North West Development Agency

  603

  One North East

  717

  South East of England Development Agency

  141

  South West Regional Development Agency

  525

  Yorkshire Forward

  826

  Total

  4,203

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regional development agency projects are being evaluated; and when the results will be known. [153586]

  £000

  Research Council

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  BBSRC

  206,648

  206,863

  209,127

  230,697

  248,681

  275,752

  CCLRC

  118,624

  117,819

  115,015

  118,345

  129,019

  124,158

  EPSRC

  392,870

  389,889

  400,366

  429,157

  541,962

  573,425

  ESRC

  65,993

  69,083

  72,119

  77,265

  82,167

  88,107

  MRC

  320,115

  311,513

  344,383

  372,753

  438,057

  456,566

  NERC

  218,397

  223,876

  242,025

  259,465

  280,012

  278,665

  PPARC

  215,869

  207,480

  184,703

  216,613

  230,380

  267,387

  Total expenditure

  1,322,647

  1,319,043

  1,383,035

  1.487,682

  1,719,898

  1,796,673

  Notes:

  1. Figures shown are sourced from the Research Councils financial accounts and exclude notional cost of capital.

  2. Figures shown are total spend by each council, financed from all sources.

  Small Business
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses increased their profits above £15,000 in each year since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each year. [153556]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table gives the figures requested:

  First year

  Second year

  Number of businesses with profits1,2 above £15,000 in second year but below £15,000 in first year

  Percentage moving above £15, 000 of the total below £15,000 in the first year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  245,000

  7.8

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  260,000

  8.3

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  266,000

  8.5

  2000–01

  2001–02

  284,000

  9.0

  1 For Incorporated Businesses, profits chargeable to Corporation Tax.

  2For Unincorporated Businesses, Taxable Profits.

  Supermarkets
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with the Office of Fair Trading in respect of the supermarkets' voluntary code of practice; and if she will make a statement; [153482]
  1482W
  Jacqui Smith
  All projects undertaken by England's Regional Development Agencies go through an evaluation process once the project impact can be assessed, usually at least six months after the projects are completed. To ensure compliance with guidance issued by the Department each agency has a project performance and evaluation team which is tasked with determining the success of the project, to identify lessons to be incorporated into other projects and to improve processes. The agencies are also collectively developing a mechanism to share the outcomes of evaluations carried out.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by each of the Research Councils in each of the last six years. [152048]

  Ms Hewitt
  Please see the following table for a breakdown of spend by Research Council since 1997–98.

  (2) when she anticipates the Office of Fair Trading will report on its inquiry into the operation of the supermarkets' voluntary code of practice. [153483]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions so far with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on this issue, because they are carrying out an independent review of the statutory Code of Practice governing supermarkets' relations with their suppliers. The OFT is expected to conclude its review shortly. My right hon. Friend will then decide if any action is necessary.

  Textiles (Pakistan)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the Pakistan Government on the export of Pakistan-produced textiles into the European Union. [147542]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials in the Department have had frequent contacts with representatives of the Government of Pakistan over a Commission proposal to impose anti-dumping duties on cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan. At my request. the Director, Market Access met a delegation of high ranking Pakistan Government officials on 7 January 2004 and conveyed to them that the UK would oppose the Commission's proposal.
  1483W

  UK Coal (Aid)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the National Union of Mineworkers on the suspension of investment aid to UK Coal and Kellingley Colliery; and what her response was. [154471]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers wrote to me on 20 December 2003 to express concern that UK Coal had announced reviews of three collieries shortly after being offered £36.5 million of Coal Investment Aid. The letter also expressed concern about UK Coal's plans for flexible working arrangements at Kellingley Colliery and sought to link the award of aid to UK Coal with a commitment that there would be no redundancies or colliery closures. In my reply of 26 January 2004, I noted the union's views. I also noted that the company had accepted the offer of up to 30 per cent. support for planned investment at five of its eight mines, including for Kellingley, and said that it would be in the best interests of everyone connected with these mines that UK Coal should be able to develop these investment plans without further delay. (I can confirm that it has since accepted the offers of aid for two of the three mines in review.) My letter also said that flexible working arrangements are a matter for UK Coal.

  United Kingdom Trade
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the volume of United Kingdom trade with each of the members of the G90 was in each of the last 10 years; [146598]

  (2) what the volume of United Kingdom trade with each of the members of the G33 was in each of the last 10 years; [146599]

  (3) what has been the volume of United Kingdom trade with (a) Benin, (b) Burkina Faso, (c) Chad and (d) Mali in each of the last 10 years. [146604]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1288W.

  Wind Farms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how her Department's energy policy takes account of the effect on grid security and stability of large-scale remote wind generation. [152449]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 6 February,Official Report, column 1098W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Student Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of families have residual incomes which would mean that their children(a) would be entitled to claim a full grant and (b) would be entitled to claim a partial grant under the terms of the Higher Education Bill, broken down by constituency. [152620]
  1484W
  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not available by constituency. Based on the proposals for the single combined up-front grant of £2,700 in 2006/07, as detailed in the Departmental paper "Moving toward a single combined grant for higher education", we would expect:around 30 per cent. of students to be entitled to a full grant (of which we expect around two thirds to be dependent students);
  a further50–55 per cent. to be entitled to a full or partial grant.

  Future numbers and proportions of students receiving grants also depend on hanges in demand for higher education and the future rate of growth of real incomes.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what arrangements he intends to put in place to recover fees and loans paid for study at British universities to students from other EU countries; and what plans he has to refuse admission to other EU students unless such recovery arrangements are accepted by the countries from which they come; [154241]

  (2) what discussions he intends to have with other EU Governments on putting in place the machinery for recovery from their country of fees and loans made to students at British universities through (a) the tax system of their country of origin and (b) the tax system of other countries in which they work. [154242]

  Alan Johnson
  The Student Loans Company (SLC) are responsible for ensuring repayments are made when they fall due, and have well established procedures for recovering loans from graduates living and working outside the UK. All students taking out a loan are required to sign a declaration agreeing to repay, even if they move abroad. The SLC have a range of sanctions that can be imposed on defaulters. Officials and SLC are exploring ways to ensure the most robust and effective loan recovery mechanisms are in place. There are no plans which would allow HEIs to refuse admission to EU students.

  Building Schools for the Future
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will announce his decisions on the Building Schools for the Future programme; and if he will make a statement. [154030]

  Mr. Miliband
  We aim to announce successful projects in the first wave of Building Schools for the Future shortly. A written statement will be made to Parliament. Later this year, we expect to make announcements about subsequent waves of funding.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures need to be followed to open a new faith school within the state sector. [153253]

  Mr. Miliband
  The procedures for opening a new faith school within the state sector are the same as for any other new school, except that faith schools must also be designated by the Secretary of State as having a religious character. Procedures will always involve consultation in the local area and an opportunity for interested parties to make representations on the proposals, but in
  1485W
  the case of additional secondary schools, the LEA must invite others to bring forward proposals before it may publish its own proposals. Proposals brought forward by promoters may be for a maintained school or an Academy. Most proposals will be decided by the local School Organisation Committee (SOC) or the independent Adjudicator where the SOC cannot reach unanimous agreement. Those for additional secondary schools and Academies will be decided by the Secretary of State, in the light of comments by the SOC. Maintained schools proposed to have a religious character will then be designated as such by the Secretary of State.

  The SOC or Adjudicator may not approve proposals unless satisfied that any capital funding necessary for

  First destination of home and EU postgraduates entering full-time paid employment in the UK

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  Standard industrial classification

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Agriculture and forestry

  42

  32

  74

  32

  23

  55

  24

  20

  44

  Fishing

  8

  2

  10

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Mining and quarrying

  152

  49

  201

  91

  40

  131

  17

  70

  87

  Manufacturing

  1,058

  591

  1,649

  855

  574

  1,429

  530

  740

  1,270

  Electricity, gas and water supply

  130

  73

  203

  85

  69

  154

  4884

  132

  78

  Construction

  92

  22

  114

  84

  25

  109

  19

  71

  90

  Wholesale and retail trade

  189

  164

  353

  133

  133

  266

  119

  113

  232

  Hotels and restaurants

  16

  24

  40

  27

  22

  49

  25

  14

  39

  Transport, storage and communication

  290

  130

  420

  262

  113

  375

  148

  258

  406

  Financial activities

  555

  281

  836

  494

  237

  731

  250

  448

  698

  Property development, renting, business and research

  2,089

  1,232

  3,321

  1,998

  1,238

  3,236

  1,307

  1,903

  3,210

  Public administration and defence

  845

  769

  1,614

  821

  800

  1,621

  735

  111

  1,512

  Education

  4,718

  8,980

  13,698

  4,157

  9,018

  13,175

  9,005

  4,189

  13,194

  Health and social work

  555

  991

  1,546

  381

  828

  1,209

  851

  361

  1,212

  Other community, social and personal service activities

  227

  336

  563

  270

  318

  588

  361

  234

  595

  Private households with employed persons

  1

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  2

  International organisations and bodies

  2

  10

  12

  10

  10

  20

  14

  4

  18

  Not known

  87

  69

  156

  102

  79

  181

  49

  61

  110

  Total

  11,056

  13,759

  24,815

  9,805

  13,530

  23,335

  13,504

  9,349

  22,853

  2000/01

  2001/02

  Standard industrial classification

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Agriculture and forestry

  18

  13

  31

  16

  20

  36

  Fishing

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  3

  Mining and quarrying

  91

  39

  130

  27

  70

  97

  Manufacturing

  684

  447

  1,131

  447

  599

  1,046

  Electricity, gas and water supply

  78

  40

  118

  53

  72

  125

  Construction

  61

  28

  89

  39

  82

  121

  Wholesale and retail trade

  112

  143

  255

  167

  154

  321

  Hotels and restaurants

  26

  24

  50

  38

  26

  64

  Transport, storage and communication

  219

  119

  338

  108

  167

  275

  Financial activities

  514

  251

  765

  245

  425

  670

  Property development, renting, business and research

  1,832

  1,351

  3,183

  1,154

  1,620

  2,774

  Public administration and defence

  830

  957

  1,787

  958

  873

  1,831

  Education

  4,106

  9,897

  14,003

  11,348

  4,687

  16,035

  Health and social work

  318

  884

  1,202

  865

  375

  1,240

  Other community, social and personal service activities

  243

  322

  565

  369

  206

  575

  Private households with employed persons

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  International organisations and bodies

  3

  8

  11

  13

  15

  28

  Not known

  36

  37

  73

  17

  20

  37

  Total

  9,172

  14,562

  23,734

  158,686

  9,412

  25,280

  Higher Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the consolidation of the 1486W
  their implementation has been secured. Capital funding for most schools is provided by the LEA, but in the case of voluntary aided schools and Academies, up to 90 per cent. of the funding is provided directly by the DfES, with the promoter being responsible for the rest.

  Foundation Degrees
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) women and (b) men obtained higher degrees and entered paid, full-time, permanent employment in the UK in each year since 1997, broken down by standard industrial classification of employer. [143149]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information, is taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency's First Destination Record, is shown in the table.

  £170 million funding to support higher education institutions' human resources policies into the main teaching fund will be in addition to the annual teaching fund grant increases for 2004–05 and 2005–06. [152664]
  1487W
  Alan Johnson
  The £170 million Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative funding for 2003–04 will be consolidated into the block teaching grant from 2004–05 onwards. This funding is in addition to the annual teaching fund increases for 2004–05. The figures for 2005–06 have not yet been announced.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate was made in the regulatory impact assessment of the total cost to a higher education institution (HEI) of pursuing the new proposals, ring-fenced funds and initiatives which will require payments to be made by HEIs. [152777]

  Alan Johnson
  The regulatory impact assessment published on 8 January alongside the HE Bill includes details of the costs of the proposals in the Bill and the associated package of improvements in student support.

  In November, we announced the mainstreaming of four ring fenced funds into larger funding allocations (Golden Hellos', the Promising Researcher Fellowship Scheme, Additional Capital for leading research institutions and Knowledge Exchanges). We continue to monitor the number of special funding allocations to ensure that they are appropriately targeted and that demands on institutions are proportionate to the sums involved.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list proposals in the Higher Education White Paper which have subsequently been dropped by the Government. [153066]

  Alan Johnson
  In light of responses to the consultations on the higher education White Paper, published in January 2003, a number of adjustments have been made to the White Paper proposals, which are now being carried forward through the Higher Education Bill and in other ways. We have decided not to incentivise the demand for Foundation Degrees; and not to ask the Office for Fair Access to have a role in ensuring that admissions procedures are fair, professional and transparent.

  2003 key stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ value added measures

  (1) Specialist schools included

  (2) Specialist schools excluded

  Local education authority

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure

  Number of schools

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure

  Number of schools

  (a) Durham

  97.2

  (47)

  97.3

  (27)

  (b) Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  97.3

  (16)

  96.7

  (8)

  (c) South Tyneside

  97.6

  (17)

  97.0

  (15)

  (d) Salford

  97.4

  (17)

  97.1

  (14)

  (e) Blackpool

  97.2

  (12)

  96.0

  (8)

  (f) Knowsley

  96.6

  (16)

  96.8

  (13)

  (g) Liverpool

  97.4

  (45)

  96.2

  (29)

  (h) St Helens

  96.9

  (16)

  96.4

  (11)

  (i) Sefton

  97.7

  (28)

  97.5

  (21)

  (j) North East Lincolnshire

  97.3

  (14)

  97.9

  (9)

  (k) Kingston-upon-Hull

  97.1

  (19)

  96.5

  (15)

  (l) Doncaster

  96.9

  (25)

  97.1

  (16)

  (m) Leeds

  97 4

  (52)

  96.9

  (31)

  (n) Leicestershire

  97.0

  (24)

  96.7

  (12)

  (o) Reading

  97.8

  (9)

  97.3

  (7)

  1488W

  Schwartz Review
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the report of the Schwartz Review on University Admissions. [152737]

  Alan Johnson
  I expect to receive Professor Schwartz's report by summer 2004, and that the recommendations will be published shortly afterwards.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Gloucestershire(a) are statemented, (b) receive special educational needs support in mainstream schools and (c) attend special schools; and if he will make a statement. [153404]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 6 February 2004]In January 2003, the most recent data available, there were 2,730 pupils in Gloucestershire who had a statement of special educational needs. The number of pupils attending special schools was 1,060. For those children who were identified as having special educational needs but did not have a statement, 7,180 were educated in mainstream primary and 4,900 were educated in mainstream secondary education.

  Value Added Measures
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value added between Key Stage 3 and GCSE/GNVQ would have been if the results of specialist schools had been excluded for(a) Durham, (b) Newcastle upon Tyne, (c) South Tyneside, (d) Salford, (e) Blackpool, (f) Knowsley, (g) Liverpool, (h)St Helens, (i) Sefton, (j) North East Lincolnshire, (k) Kingston-upon-Hull, (l) Doncaster, (m) Leeds, (n) Leicestershire and (o) Reading local education authorities. [152308]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table following shows the 2003 Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ Value Added measures for each of the local education authorities when (1) Specialist schools are included and (2) Specialist schools are excluded. Figures are based on maintained schools only:
  1489W
  These figures represent the results of one particular cohort of pupils, showing their value-added over the two years leading up to GCSE. School and LEA figures are also available in the school performance tables covering pupil value-added over the three years leading up to KS3. Similar information for each of these key stages was also published for the 2002 cohorts. Any assessment of whether particular schools or types of school are more effective than others should take into account this wider picture, as well as recognising that small differences in VA scores may not indicate significant differences in effectiveness.

TREASURY

  EDS
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what amount EDS has been liable in penalties to the Inland Revenue in each year since 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [153766]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Financial Remedy Credits payable by EDS to the Inland Revenue in the period referred to were as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  282,313

  1999–2000

  313,771

  2000–01

  53,839

  2001–02

  25,912

  2002–03

  14,622

  2003–04

  105,420

  The years given run from 1 April to 31 March.

  Higher Education Spending
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for higher education spending in the forthcoming Public Spending Review. [153696]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government will continue to be supportive of higher education institutions in future Spending Review Settlements—world-class universities are an essential element of a competitive economy.

  Invest to Save
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the next round of bidding for the Invest to Save budget will take place; [154322]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Invest to Save budget. [154354]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am considering the future direction of the Invest to Save budget. An announcement on whether a further round of bidding will take place in due course.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of pensioners paying income tax at(a) the higher rate and (b) the basic rate for each
  1490W
  year since 1996–97; and what percentage of (i) all pensioner taxpayers and (ii) all pensioners this figure represents in each case. [154509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 288W. Final estimates for the years 2000–01 are in the following table.

  2000–01

  Number of pensioner1 taxpayers (thousands)

  (a) higher rate

  220

  (b) basic rate

  2,970

  (i) Percentage of all pensioner taxpayers

  (a) higher rate

  5

  (b) basic rate

  64

  (ii) Percentage of all pensioners2

  (a) higher rate

  2

  (b) basic rate

  28

  1 Men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over.

  2 Mid-year population estimates supplied by the Office for National Statistics.

  Note:

  The estimate are based on the Survey of Personal Income 2000–01

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the amount of tax relief on pension contributions provided in each financial year since 1996–97(a) in total and (b) broken down by (i)higher rate taxpayers, (ii) basic rate taxpayers and (iii) non-taxpayers; [153904]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of taxpayers receiving pension tax relief at (a) the higher rate and (b) the basic rate in each year since 1996–97; and what percentage of all taxpayers below state pension age these figures represent in each case. [154508]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]Estimates of total tax relief on pension contributions from 1998–99 to 2002–03 are contained in table T7.9 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue website: http://www.inlandrevenue. gov.uk/stats/pensions/03IR079.pdf

  Estimates prior to 1998–99 are contained in table 7.7 of 'Inland Revenue Statistics 2000', a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Estimates of relief attributable and numbers of taxpayers receiving tax relief by marginal rate band for all the years specified in the question are not readily available. However, broad estimates of the proportion of relief and number of taxpayers receiving relief split between higher rate and others are given in the following table. The number of taxpayers below state pension age in 2002–03 is estimated at around 24½ million.
  1491W

  Percentage of tax on individual and employee pension contribution with the number of taxpayers receiving relief,2002£03

  Marginal income lax rate

  Percentage of tax relief

  Number of taxpayers receiving relief

  Non-higher rate

  45

  13 million

  Higher rate

  55

  2½million

  Note:

  Estimates are provisional and based on the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes projected to 2002–03.

  Pirate Videos/DVDs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) value of pirate (i) videos and (ii) DVDs seized by Customs and Excise since I January 2003; what the titles of the videos and DVDs were; and if he will make a statement. [154117]

  John Healey
  In 2003 HM Customs and Excise seized a total of 342,612 DVDs to the value of £5,223,629 and a total of 1,151 videos to the value of £10,003. Information about the titles of these videos and DVDs is not held centrally. Statistics for seizures under Intellectual Property Rights legislation are published by the European Commission.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of the sale of pirate(a) videos and (b) DVDs at (i) car-boot sales, (ii) record fairs, (iii) markets, (iv) online auctions and (v) other premises since 1 January 2003. [154130]

  John Healey
  No such estimates have been made.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many departures from child support maintenance have been requested by non-resident parents in each year since 1997; and how many of these were granted. [147821]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Barrett, dated 11 February 2004:
  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You asked how many departures from child support maintenance have been requested by non-resident parents in each year since 1997; and how many of these were granted.
  The Agency does not distinguish between requests for departures from child support maintenance from non-resident parents and parents with care and we do not hold any figures relating to departures prior to April 1998. The figures that we do hold are shown in the table below:
  1492W

  Year ending

  Total applications received

  Total applications granted

  1999

  16,868

  3,162

  2000

  14,147

  4,393

  2001

  22,912

  7,049

  2002

  21,128

  8,196

  2003

  20,700

  7,508

  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Employment Advisers
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the turnover rate for disability employment advisers was in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; and if he will make a statement. [153461]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested, as figures are not collected centrally. However, we estimate there are currently around 650 Disability Employment Advisers employed by Jobcentre Plus.

  SchlumbergerSema
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many SchlumbergerSema examining medical practitioners have been(a) struck off and (b) reprimanded for their work for his Department. [152793]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 2000, a total of 80 doctors working for Medical Services have had approval to carry out assessments on behalf of the Department revoked, on the grounds that they have failed to meet the required professional standards despite remedial action.

  Medical Services' approach is to train and support their doctors to ensure the expected standards are being met. Inappropriate behaviour or quality standards are addressed with feedback and remedial training. Where remedial action fails to effect change, approval to carry out assessments will be formally revoked.

  Where a doctor's professional misconduct falls outside the General Medical Council's (GMC's) professional guidelines, this is brought to the GMC's attention by Medical Services.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide additional assistance to those families on low incomes who receive a Social Fund(a) grant and (b) loan where the amount awarded is insufficient to cover basic household goods. [154205]

  Mr. Pond
  Community Care Grants, Crisis Loans and Budgeting Loans are part of the discretionary Social Fund. They are designed to provide extra help for the most vulnerable people in society, helping them meet unexpected and more routine needs. The Discretionary Social Fund net budget will be increased by 19 per cent. in April 2004 and by a further 23 per cent. in April 2005.

  As the Discretionary Social Fund is cash limited decision makers may not always be able to award the full amount that a person has asked for; however they will always consider individual circumstances when making an award.
  1493W
  If a person believes that the grant or loan is not sufficient to meet their needs they have the right to ask for the decision to be reviewed, first by their local office and, if they disagree with the outcome, the Independent Review Service. There are no current plans to change this procedure.

  Widowers (Access to Benefits)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the claims of widowers bereaved before 9 April 2001 for equal access to benefits; and if he will make a statement. [154240]

  Mr. Pond
  Bereavement Benefits were introduced in April 2001, for the first time extending support to both widows and widowers.

  Prior to April 2001, there was no statutory basis on which to pay widows' benefits to men. This is being contested in both domestic and European courts. Until the litigation is completed and all the judgments are known regarding the different aspects of the claims, it is not possible to determine what action may be taken in response.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Crown Court Trials (National Security Issues)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether it is possible in a Crown court trial involving national security for(a) a jury to be vetted prior to being empanelled and (b) part or all of the trial to be held in camera. [153026]

  Mr. Leslie
  I can confirm that it is possible for a jury to be vetted and for all or part of the trial to be held in camera in cases involving national security.

  Laganside Courts Complex
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether problems at the Laganside courts complex in Belfast with(a) water ingress and (b) sight lines for juries have been resolved; and what (i) abatements and (ii) financial settlements have been applied. [152909]

  Mr. Leslie
  The problems with(a) water ingress and (b) sight lines for juries have been resolved. Abatements totalling £4,226.84 have been applied in respect of the later ingress. A financial settlement in respect of alterations carried out to improve sight lines for juries has yet to be agreed.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the public sector comparator for the Laganside courts Private Finance Initiative scheme in Belfast has been revised following the disposal of the Crumlin Road courthouse. [152910]

  Mr. Leslie
  No.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many major water leaks have occurred at the Laganside courts complex in Belfast. [152912]
  1494W
  Mr. Leslie
  Eleven water leaks have occurred, only one of which are considered to be major.

  Lord Chief Justice
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proposals he has for changes in the role and responsibilities of the Lord Chief Justice; and if he will make a statement. [153781]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I gave on 26 January on the judiciary-related functions of the Lord Chancellor. The Government will introduce legislation shortly to abolish the Office of Lord Chancellor.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which government departments and law enforcement agencies are represented on the cross-departmental working group looking into Part 12 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; how often the working group meets; what the remit of the working group is; and who is responsible for the group. [151383]

  Paul Goggins
  The Metropolitan Police chairs an ad-hoc steering group which meets as required to monitor implementation of part 1 2 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It keeps under review a Memorandum of Understanding in the light of experience. The following Government Departments and Law Enforcement Agencies are represented in addition to the Metropolitan Police: City of London Police (also representing the Association of Chief Officer Police Officers (ACPO)), the Crown Prosecution Service, Serious Fraud Office, National Criminal Intelligence Service, National Crime Squad, MoD Police, Department of Trade and Industry, UK trade and investment, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Export Credits Guarantee Department, the Department for International Development and the Home Office.

  DNA Database
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA profile matches exist within the UK national DNA database. [153380]

  Ms Blears
  The figures relating to the DNA profile matches reported by the National DNA Database since its inception in April 1995 to January 2004 inclusive are described as follows:a total of 459,903 matches have been reported between DNA profiles obtained from individuals and DNA profiles collected from unsolved crime scenes; and
  a total of 28,116 scene-to-scene matches have been reported between DNA profiles collected from unsolved crime scenes.

  Drugs Offences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests have been made, (b) convictions have been obtained and

  1495W
  (c) cautions have been issued in each police force area in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available for offences relating to (i) possession of and (ii) dealing in (A) Class A, (B) Class B and (C) Class C drugs. [153987]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]Data on the number of persons arrested for possession and dealing of drugs by police force area are currently

  Table 1: Number of persons cautioned and convicted for possession of controlled drugs in England and Wale: in by Police Force area, 2002

  Class A

  Class B

  Class C

  Force

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  England

  Avon and Somerset

  171

  192

  1,005

  306

  3

  4

  Bedfordshire

  7

  62

  104

  80

  1

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  71

  100

  339

  108

  0

  3

  Cheshire

  43

  161

  331

  518

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  48

  267

  267

  434

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  60

  101

  354

  205

  0

  2

  Derbyshire

  16

  166

  114

  252

  1

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  103

  361

  814

  596

  4

  2

  Dorset

  31

  195

  283

  319

  2

  2

  Durham

  54

  123

  439

  316

  5

  6

  Essex

  64

  167

  616

  598

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  127

  128

  461

  239

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  164

  381

  1,608

  1,245

  4

  7

  Hampshire

  154

  285

  960

  315

  1

  371

  Hertfordshire

  85

  84

  530

  287

  0

  0

  Humberside

  33

  98

  277

  320

  6

  13

  Kent

  85

  289

  888

  905

  2

  6

  Lancashire

  127

  391

  900

  874

  2

  4

  Leicestershire

  6

  221

  100

  380

  0

  6

  Lincolnshire

  22

  154

  218

  261

  0

  2

  London, City of

  31

  23

  448

  55

  1

  0

  Merseyside

  111

  288

  1,072

  1,377

  12

  1

  Metropolitan Police

  595

  2,361

  10,612

  5,795

  31

  9

  Norfolk

  43

  150

  358

  278

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  66

  60

  440

  73

  1

  3

  Northumbria

  603

  461

  1,898

  1,315

  25

  20

  North Yorkshire

  5

  77

  50

  155

  0

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  39

  275

  429

  351

  0

  2

  South Yorkshire

  78

  376

  422

  672

  2

  5

  Staffordshire

  209

  194

  1,071

  258

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  58

  98

  417

  230

  5

  1

  Surrey

  44

  103

  757

  330

  0

  0

  Sussex

  180

  177

  1,129

  441

  4

  3

  Thames Valley

  142

  334

  867

  712

  2

  3

  Warwickshire

  41

  55

  290

  80

  0

  2

  West Mercia

  153

  141

  906

  211

  6

  1

  West Midlands

  228

  861

  2,218

  1,794

  5

  8

  West Yorkshire

  156

  583

  1,015

  956

  1

  2

  Wiltshire

  18

  104

  192

  181

  0

  0

  Wales

  Dyfed Powys

  109

  168

  1,300

  514

  3

  11

  Gwent

  34

  147

  636

  272

  5

  3

  North Wales

  95

  119

  707

  308

  5

  1

  South Wales

  54

  336

  640

  1,223

  5

  17

  England and Wales total

  4,563

  11,417

  38,482

  26,139

  149

  533

  Table 2: Number of persons cautioned and convicted for possession of controlled drugs in England and Wales by month, 2002

  Class A

  Class B

  Class C

  Month

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  January

  361

  1,093

  2,836

  2,238

  12

  64

  February

  323

  1,043

  2,722

  1,984

  12

  45

  March

  422

  909

  3,058

  2,081

  12

  48

  April

  348

  978

  3,129

  2,101

  12

  31

  May

  346

  995

  3,428

  2,478

  14

  41

  June

  393

  824

  3,059

  1,827

  6

  48

  July

  424

  995

  3,677

  2,387

  15

  49

  1496W
  not available. However, we do have the figures for the number of persons cautioned and found guilty for possession and dealing of drugs by police force area for 2002. These are set out in the following tables.

  The information is taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings and Cautions Database and relates to persons cautioned and found guilty for possession and dealing in drugs.
  1497W

  Table 2: Number of persons cautioned and convicted for possession of controlled drugs in England and Wales by month, 2002

  Class A

  Class B

  Class C

  Month

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  August

  374

  906

  3,157

  2,180

  22

  28

  September

  352

  880

  3,372

  2,054

  8

  44

  October

  405

  1,025

  3,425

  2,565

  9

  53

  November

  410

  986

  3,303

  2,362

  15

  45

  December

  405

  783

  3,316

  1,882

  12

  37

  Annual

  4,563

  11,417

  38,482

  26,139

  149

  553

  Table 3: Number of persons cautioned and convicted for the dealing1 of controlled drugs in England and Wales by month, 2002

  Class A

  Class B

  Class C

  Month

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  January

  14

  583

  81

  331

  2

  5

  February

  18

  590

  72

  327

  3

  5

  March

  19

  580

  86

  287

  1

  2

  April

  14

  542

  75

  298

  0

  10

  May

  11

  620

  97

  310

  4

  7

  June

  22

  417

  74

  258

  7

  9

  July

  25

  583

  120

  358

  5

  5

  August

  19

  448

  113

  338

  0

  9

  September

  12

  464

  117

  378

  5

  10

  October

  13

  483

  104

  360

  3

  13

  November

  22

  591

  108

  332

  1

  8

  December

  17

  420

  86

  268

  0

  5

  Annual

  206

  6,321

  1,133

  3,845

  31

  88

  1 Dealing includes; unlawful production, unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply and unlawful import or export.

  Table 4: Number of persons cautioned and convicted for the dealing1 of controlled drugs in England and Wales by Police Force Area, 2002

  Class A

  Class B

  Class C

  Force

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  England

  Avon and Somerset

  5

  122

  52

  75

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  55

  10

  23

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  63

  6

  41

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  102

  2

  43

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  9

  126

  17

  50

  0

  5

  Cumbria

  1

  56

  7

  37

  0

  2

  Derbyshire

  2

  136

  10

  57

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  4

  137

  65

  126

  0

  0

  Dorset

  2

  55

  9

  37

  0

  0

  Durham

  1

  66

  4

  56

  0

  4

  Essex

  2

  96

  14

  91

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire

  21

  36

  41

  17

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  1

  316

  44

  254

  16

  5

  Hampshire

  12

  117

  46

  108

  2

  2

  Hertfordshire

  3

  61

  15

  42

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  115

  21

  60

  0

  5

  Kent

  12

  123

  23

  106

  0

  1

  Lancashire

  0

  254

  27

  115

  0

  2

  Leicestershire

  0

  71

  1

  68

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  40

  17

  36

  1

  0

  London, City of

  1

  10

  3

  5

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  241

  7

  64

  0

  0

  Metropolitan Police

  33

  1,423

  179

  720

  0

  6

  Norfolk

  3

  60

  16

  54

  0

  1

  Northamptonshire

  7

  37

  1

  27

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  10

  193

  44

  136

  4

  12

  North Yorkshire

  1

  52

  13

  52

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  130

  25

  84

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  145

  10

  94

  0

  2

  Staffordshire

  3

  123

  11

  74

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  35

  40

  42

  1

  0

  Surrey

  3

  55

  37

  32

  0

  1

  Sussex

  2

  379

  38

  154

  2

  0

  Thames Valley

  1

  129

  19

  104

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  1

  27

  11

  20

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  3

  100

  41

  56

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  13

  301

  47

  237

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  31

  333

  63

  113

  1

  23

  Wiltshire

  0

  55

  13

  30

  0

  1

  1498W 1499W

  Table 4: Number of persons cautioned and convicted for the dealing1 of controlled drugs in England and Wales by Police Force Area, 2002

  Class A

  Class B

  Class C

  Force

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Cautioned

  Guilty

  Wales

  Dyfed Powys

  6

  63

  44

  71

  0

  1

  Gwent

  3

  61

  17

  42

  1

  2

  North Wales

  1

  45

  12

  46

  0

  0

  South Wales

  2

  177

  11

  146

  1

  7

  England and Wales total

  206

  6,321

  1,133

  3,845

  31

  88

  1 Dealing includes; unlawful production, unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply and unlawful import or export.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what correspondence Home Office Ministers have(a) received from and (b) sent to members of the Firearms Consultative Committee during (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [154088]

  Caroline Flint
  Members of the Committee are appointed on a personal basis and there has been no correspondence with them in that capacity. The Chairman wrote on behalf of the Committee on 28 April 2003 to express views about certain aspects of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. A reply was sent on 5 June.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to his Department was of convening meetings of the Firearms Consultative Committee since its inception. [154089]

  Caroline Flint
  A total of £14,534 has been spent on running the Firearms Consultative Committee since March 2000. Information on the cost of meetings before that date is not available from current records.

  Name

  Company/organisation

  David Penn (Chairman)

  Imperial War Museum

  Brian Carter

  British Shooting Sports Council

  Brian Dalton

  The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals

  Sandy Ewing

  National Shooting Centre Ltd.

  Mark Fuchter

  HM Customs and Excise

  Alan Green

  Assistant Chief Constable, Greater Manchester Police

  William Harriman

  British Association for Shooting and Conservation

  David Henderson

  Scottish Executive Justice Department

  John Hoare

  National Small-Bore Rifle Association

  Patrick Johnson

  British Shooting Sports Council

  Mike Lobb

  Firearms licensing Officer Thames Valley Police

  Gill Marshall-Andrews

  Chair of the Gun Control Network

  David Mellor

  Deputy Chief Constable Fife Constabulary

  Kevin O'Callaghan

  Forensic Science Services Firearms Section

  Bob Pitcher

  London Proof House

  Mark Scoggins

  Fisher Scoggins LLP Solicitors

  Professor Jonathan Shepherd

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  Madeleine Swainbank

  The Defence Manufacturers Association.

  Simon Taylor

  Assistant Chief Constable, Norfolk Constabulary

  Graham Widdecombe

  Home Office, Public Order and Crime Issues Unit

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the appointment of successor committees to the Firearms Consultative Committee. [154131]

  Caroline Flint
  We are aiming to do so by the end of March.
  1500W
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) recommendations made by the Firearms Consultative Committee and (b) actions taken by his Department in response to its recommendations. [154091]

  Caroline Flint
  The Firearms Consultative Committee has produced a large number of recommendations since its inception and these are summarised in each of their annual reports, copies of which are in the Library. Many of their recommendations were dependent on changes in legislation and will be considered in the context of the forthcoming review.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the most recent members of the Firearms Consultative Committee, indicating the companies or organisations they work for. [154093]

  Caroline Flint
  Membership of the Firearms Consultative Committee as at 31 January was as follows:

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes have been solved by the use of forensic science in each of the forensic science service laboratories in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [153503]
  1501W
  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to provide figures for the number of crimes that have been solved by the use of forensic science as convictions are achieved through integrated criminal investigation and not by forensic science alone. The contribution that forensic science makes to criminal investigation has been assessed separately for:

  (a) DNA analysis

  (b) non-DNA analysis (for example toxicology and analysis of trace evidence such as fibres, glass etc.).

  The Home Office collects data on the number of crimes that have been detected, where DNA match report was available. However, it is important to note that the availability of DNA intelligence in the crime may not have been causal in solving the crime.

  The total number of crimes in which a DNA match report was available that were detected for police forces in England and Wales were as follows:

  Number of crimes in which a DNA match was available

  2000–01

  14,785

  2001–02

  15,894

  2002–03

  21,098

  No data are available on "DNA detections" for each FSS laboratory.

  (a) Non-DNA analysis

  The contribution of forensic science in the provision of both intelligence and evidence to criminal investigations has been evaluated internally by the Forensic Science Service (FSS). Such assessment is based on the number of cases where the FSS has judged its contribution to be effective. This information has only been recorded from April 2003-January 2004 inclusive, and is set out for each FSS laboratory in the table following.

  FSS laboratory

  Number of evidential cases where the FSS has judged its contribution to be effective

  Number of intelligence cases where the FSS has judged its contribution to be effective

  Birmingham

  3,030

  19,536

  Chepstow

  1,741

  238

  Chorley

  3,680

  768

  Huntingdon

  1,448

  9,960

  London

  3,557

  1,837

  Wet herby

  2,645

  686

  Overall1

  16,103 (77 per cent.)

  33,025 (80 per cent.)

  1 Percentage figures relate to the total number of cases submitted in the stated period for 'evidential' or 'intelligence' casework.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long DNA samples are held by the Forensic Science Service. [153767]

  Ms Blears
  Retention periods depend on the purpose for which the sample was taken, and are as follows:Crime scene samples on unsolved cases may be kept indefinitely, especially for the more serious cases. For crime scene samples on solved cases the usual retention period is seven years, but it may be up to 30 years for the serious cases in the event of a possible miscarriage of justice and to capitalise on new scientific developments.
  1502W
  Following amendment of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 samples of suspects can now be held indefinitely.
  Where individuals have volunteered to provide samples for intelligence purposes these may also be retained indefinitely provided the individual has given their written consent for its retention.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the storage of DNA samples by the Forensic Science Service. [153768]

  Ms Blears
  The laboratories that analyse DNA samples, including those within the Forensic Science Service, are also responsible for their retention, integrity, security and, where appropriate, their destruction. The conditions under which these laboratories store such samples must fulfil the requirements of the International Quality Standard ISO 17025 and the Data Protection Act 1998.

  In addition, it is a specific requirement of the Custodian of the National DNA Database that DNA samples taken for entry on to the Database are kept in a managed storage system at a temperature below -150C in access-controlled, physically secure accommodation. Laboratories are required to undertake periodic monitoring of the samples and their compliance with the International Quality Standard ISO 17025 is independently audited at least annually by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of offences involving graffiti in each of the past 10 years. [153612]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to distinguish offences of graffiti from other types of criminal damage in the Home Office figures for court proceedings as the circumstances of individual offences are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to tackle graffiti in urban areas. [153613]

  Ms Blears
  A key element to the Government's drive to tackle antisocial behaviour in public places is to enforce local standards and tackle the abuse of our environment that makes public places a magnet for anti-social behaviour and crime.

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 introduces a package of measures to prevent graffiti and to ensure that it is removed swiftly when it does occur. It also gives local authorities the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for graffiti and fly posting. This means offenders will have to pay a £50 penalty or be prosecuted through the courts.

  The TOGETHER campaign places the focus on action within the heart of our communities and provides them with the opportunity to work together to tackle graffiti including a national database which will record graffiti tags, a poster campaign across transport networks which will target the most prolific graffiti 'taggers' and a pilot of 12 areas which will use new powers that enable local authorities to issue clean up notices to owners of street furniture.
  1503W

  Identity Card
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if, as part of the consultation for draft legislation on National Identity Cards, he will seek views on the advisability of incorporating Braille identifiers; [153296]

  (2) what research has been carried out by his Department on the possibility of incorporating Braille in a proposed National Identity Card; what estimate he has made of the likely costs; and if he will make a statement. [153297]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government will welcome views on how Braille identifiers could be incorporated into the National Identity Cards scheme which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 11 November 2003. We have no plans to carry out any specific research at this stage.

  The Government propose to proceed incrementally by setting up a National Identity Register and making current widely held identity documents such as passports more secure. In determining how Braille identifiers might be incorporated into such documents, the Government will need to adhere to agreed international standards governing their format.

  Lancashire Police Force
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the crime clear-up rates in Lancashire police force area broken down by(a) constituency and (b) local authority area in each year since 2000. [153509]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the tables. Figures for crimes detected by the police are not broken down by constituency or local authority areas. However, they are available at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level. BCUs broadly equate to former police divisions or districts. In Lancashire, BCUs do not correspond with local authorities. There are six BCUs, compared to 14 local authority areas.

  Detection figures for recorded crime offences are available at BCU level for five key offences only; violence against the person, robbery, burglary in a dwelling, theft of a motor vehicle, and theft from a vehicle.

  Detection rates for all crime, recorded by Lancashire Police

  Offences detected (percentage)

  1999–20001

  29

  2000–012

  27

  2001–022

  26

  2002–032

  27

  1 Revised Home Office instructions, which clarified the recording of detections, were introduced on 1 April 1999. These instructions provided more precise and rigorous criteria for securing a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. As a result of the revised detections guidance (in which some previous methods of detection were no longer counted), the numbers of crimes detected, and figures derived from them, will have been affected.

  2 Detection figures may also have been affected by the adoption of the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), as this may have affected the number of crimes recorded.

  1504W
  The NCRS was officially implemented across England and Wales in April 2002. Lancashire Police adopted the Standard prior to this, in August 2000.

  Basic Command Unit—Detection rates recorded for five key offences, by Lancashire Police from 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Violence against the person detection rate:

  Basic Command Unit/ Police force

  1999–2000 (percentage)

  2000–01 (percentage)

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lancashire

  Lancashire Central

  80

  75

  56

  56

  Lancashire Eastern

  80

  67

  61

  56

  Lancashire Northern

  75

  67

  61

  62

  Lancashire Southern

  80

  75

  67

  72

  Lancashire Western

  74

  67

  60

  55

  Pennine

  83

  78

  67

  70

  Robbery detection rate:

  Basic Command Unit/ Police force

  1999–2000 (percentage)

  2000–01 (percentage)

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lancashire

  Lancashire Central

  35

  25

  30

  29

  Lancashire Eastern

  23

  28

  30

  35

  Lancashire Northern

  46

  35

  19

  36

  Lancashire Southern

  29

  45

  17

  33

  Lancashire Western

  21

  14

  22

  27

  Pennine

  33

  25

  22

  28

  Burglary dwelling detection rate

  Basic Command Unit/Police force

  1999–2000 (percentage)

  2000–01 (percentage)

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lancashire

  Lancashire Central

  17

  18

  19

  17

  Lancashire Eastern

  21

  15

  22

  21

  Lancashire Northern

  15

  18

  16

  19

  Lancashire Southern

  17

  16

  15

  20

  Lancashire Western

  13

  19

  20

  16

  Pennine

  14

  13

  17

  19

  Theft of a motor vehicle detection rate:

  Basic Command Unit/ Police force

  1999–2000 (percentage)

  2000–01 (percentage)

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lancashire

  Lancashire Central

  17

  19

  19

  22

  Lancashire Eastern

  18

  17

  18

  17

  Lancashire Northern

  15

  20

  19

  23

  Lancashire Southern

  13

  15

  15

  20

  Lancashire Western

  16

  13

  16

  22

  Pennine

  17

  13

  14

  20

  Theft from a motor vehicle detection rate:

  Basic Command Unit/ Police force

  1999–2000 (percentage)

  2000–01 (percentage)

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lancashire

  Lancashire Central

  8

  7

  7

  9

  Lancashire Eastern

  11

  5

  8

  8

  Lancashire Northern

  7

  6

  8

  6

  Lancashire Southern

  9

  8

  9

  7

  Lancashire Western

  8

  8

  4

  7

  Pennine

  8

  5

  8

  11

  Note:

  See notes for previous table
  1505W

  Ministerial Police Protection
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Ministers receive protection from the police; and what the cost to public funds is in this financial year; [153073]

  (2) how many former Ministers receive protection from the police; and what the cost to public funds was in the last year for which figures are available. [153074]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  We seek to ensure the most effective and efficient protective security arrangements for public figures in the light of the changing threat from terrorism and other continuing risks. It is not our policy to comment on the details of protection arrangements for individuals, as to do so could compromise their security.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) average and (b) longest time between (i) arrest and charge and (ii) charge and start of trial has been in cases brought since 1997 under the Official Secrets Act. [152321]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Data on the average and longest time between (i) arrest and charge and (ii) charge and start of trial for offences under the Official Secrets Act are not available centrally.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and what estimate he has made of the cost in each year. [148507]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Press office numbers and costs are as outlined as follows:

  £ million

  Number of press officers

  Cost

  2002–03 (1 April 2002)

  39

  11.7

  2003–04 (1 April 2003)

  39

  21.9

  1 Actual.

  2 Estimate to end of March 2004.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total prison capacity in each of the next 10 years. [147359]

  Sentenced prisoners by length of sentence, nationality and gender—30 November 2003

  Females

  Males

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Africa

  Algeria

  0

  0

  16

  37

  Angola

  2

  1

  5

  22

  Botswana

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Burundi

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Cameroon, United Republic

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Central African Republic

  0

  0

  1

  4

  Chad

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Congo

  1

  0

  8

  23

  Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)

  0

  0

  1

  5

  1506W
  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is provided in the following table.

  Average useable operational capacity

  2004

  75,000

  2005

  77,100

  2006

  78,700

  2007

  78,700

  2008

  78,700

  2009

  78,700

  2010

  78,700

  2011

  78,700

  2012

  78,700

  2013

  78,700

  The figures given in this table are the average useable operational capacity projected to 2006 and beyond. Useable operational capacity is the measure used for long-term estate planning purposes. It is the total number of prisoners that establishments can hold taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime. It is determined by operational managers on the basis of their operational judgment and experience.

  The maximum number of prisoners that the state could normally hold, as the average operational capacity, is up to 2,000 less than the total certified operational capacity. This is because of constraints imposed by the need to provide separate accommodation for different classes of prisoner i.e. by sex, age, security category and conviction status, single cell risk assessment and also due to geographical distribution.

  Two new prisons will open at Ashford, in June 2004, and Peterborough, in March 2005, and funding has also been provided for around 3,000 additional public sector prison places to be built at existing prisons by 2006. This will increase the total useable capacity of the prison estate to around 78,700. There are no plans or funding at present to increase useable capacity beyond this figure.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are serving custodial sentences of(a) less than 12 months and (b)over 12 months, broken down by nationality and gender. [154179]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 10 February 2004]The number of prisoners serving custodial sentences in prisons in England and Wales on 30 November 2003, by nationality, gender and length of sentence, is shown in the table.
  1507W

  Sentenced prisoners by length of sentence, nationality and gender—30 November 2003

  Females

  Males

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  0

  0

  4

  18

  Egypt

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Ethiopia

  0

  0

  5

  6

  French Guiana

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Gambia

  0

  0

  1

  14

  Ghana

  4

  8

  8

  72

  Guinea

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Guinea/Bissau

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Kenya

  0

  2

  3

  31

  Liberia

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Libya

  0

  0

  3

  8

  Malawi

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Mali

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Mauritania

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Mauritius

  0

  0

  1

  6

  Morocco

  0

  0

  2

  19

  Mozambique

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Namibia

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Nigeria

  6

  47

  21

  164

  Rwanda

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Senegal

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Seychelles

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Sierra Leone

  1

  1

  1

  23

  Somalia

  1

  1

  20

  102

  South Africa

  1

  15

  6

  77

  Sudan

  0

  1

  3

  8

  Tanzania

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Togo

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Tunisia

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Uganda

  0

  0

  6

  29

  Zambia

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Zimbabwe

  0

  1

  17

  24

  Asia

  Bangladesh

  2

  1

  15

  88

  Bhutan

  0

  o

  0

  1

  China

  0

  3

  3

  52

  Hong Kong

  0

  0

  4

  3

  India

  1

  7

  17

  118

  Indonesia

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Japan

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Korea Republic of (South)

  0

  2

  0

  5

  Lao People's Dem Republic

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Malaysia

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Mongolia

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Nepal

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Pakistan

  0

  5

  24

  233

  Philippines

  1

  1

  2

  10

  Singapore

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Sri Lanka

  0

  1

  11

  34

  Surinam

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Thailand

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Vietnam

  1

  4

  3

  21

  Central/South America

  Argentina

  1

  0

  0

  5

  Bolivia

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Brazil

  0

  8

  0

  14

  Chile

  0

  1

  1

  14

  Colombia

  0

  4

  1

  76

  Costa Rica

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Ecuador

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Guatemala

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Mexico

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Nicaragua

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Panama

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Peru

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Venezuela

  0

  5

  0

  28

  1508W 1509W

  Sentenced prisoners by length of sentence, nationality and gender—30 November 2003

  Females

  Males

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Europe

  Albania

  0

  0

  12

  24

  Armenia

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Austria

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Belgium

  0

  2

  5

  19

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Bulgaria

  0

  1

  2

  1

  Croatia

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cyprus

  0

  0

  1

  49

  Czech Republic

  1

  0

  2

  9

  Denmark

  0

  2

  0

  7

  Estonia

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Finland

  0

  0

  0

  1

  France

  0

  11

  7

  54

  Germany

  0

  15

  3

  61

  Gibraltar

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Greece

  0

  3

  1

  17

  Hungary

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Irish Republic

  3

  20

  63

  430

  Italy

  0

  5

  10

  71

  Latvia

  0

  t

  2

  5

  Lithuania

  0

  1

  4

  16

  Malta

  0

  1

  2

  10

  Moldova

  1

  0

  7

  6

  Netherlands

  2

  26

  3

  155

  Norway

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Poland

  1

  4

  3

  24

  Portugal

  0

  8

  18

  55

  Romania

  0

  7

  12

  22

  Russian Federation

  1

  0

  8

  20

  Serbia and Montenegro

  1

  1

  10

  45

  Slovakia

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Slovenia

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Spain

  0

  15

  4

  56

  Sweden

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Switzerland

  1

  3

  0

  4

  Turkey

  2

  0

  12

  143

  Turkmenistan

  0

  0

  1

  0

  United Kingdom

  585

  2,142

  6,940

  43,761

  Uzbekistan

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Middle East

  Afghanistan

  0

  0

  8

  19

  Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Iran

  2

  0

  10

  37

  Iraq

  0

  0

  15

  57

  Israel

  0

  1

  1

  7

  Jordan

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Kuwait

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lebanon

  0

  1

  1

  10

  Saudi Arabia

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Syrian Arab Republic

  0

  0

  2

  2

  United Arab Emirates

  0

  1

  0

  5

  Yemen

  0

  0

  0

  4

  North America

  Canada

  0

  3

  4

  17

  United States of America

  2

  18

  3

  49

  Oceania

  Australia

  1

  2

  4

  18

  French Southern Territories

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Kiribati

  0

  0

  0

  1

  New Zealand

  0

  2

  0

  6

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1510W 1511W

  Sentenced prisoners by length of sentence, nationality and gender—30 November 2003

  Females

  Males

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  Less than 12 months

  12 months or more

  West Indies

  Anguilla

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Aruba

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bahamas

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Barbados

  0

  2

  0

  21

  Bermuda

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cuba

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Dominica

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Dominican Republic

  0

  1

  1

  7

  Grenada

  0

  1

  2

  9

  Guyana

  0

  3

  2

  11

  Haiti

  0

  o

  0

  1

  Jamaica

  3

  298

  38

  1,723

  Montserrat

  0

  2

  0

  8

  Netherlands Antilles

  0

  3

  0

  7

  St. Christopher and Nevis

  0

  1

  0

  0

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  0

  2

  0

  3

  St. Lucia

  0

  0

  1

  14

  St. Vincent and The Grenadines

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0

  25

  2

  56

  Virgin Islands

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Not recorded

  0

  12

  50

  209

  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of suspicious transactions reported to the National Criminal Intelligence Service since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into effect have provided information related to the offence of bribery of a foreign public official. [151380]

  Caroline Flint
  Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 reports on potential money laundering, known as `Suspicious Activity Reports', are made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS). NCIS do not keep information on the types of offence underlying the reports, which will often only become clear following further investigation by the relevant law enforcement agencies. The information requested about the number of Suspicious Activity Reports made relating to the bribery of foreign officials is therefore not available.

  Suspicious Activity Reports would only be one source of information on such matters. A member of staff of NCIS' International Division acts as the point of contact for the monitoring of all allegations of bribery of foreign officials.

  Public Servants (Wrongdoing)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what processes are available to public servants to raise concerns about serious wrongdoings by other public servants if they have reason to believe that their disclosure is in the public interest. [153740]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Government established an arrangement under which Departments, including the Home Office and its agencies, nominate an official or officials outside line management to whom civil servants are able to report concerns in confidence, under the Civil Service Code.
  1512W
  The Civil Service Code in its current form was introduced with effect from 1 January 1996, and revised and re-issued in May 1999. It offers an independent line of appeal to the Civil Service Commissioners, where an individual feels that his/her concern has not received a reasonable response.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Miss Kirkbride
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on recruitment advertisements in the press, broken down by publication, by(a) his Department, (b) quangos under the Department and (c) non-departmental Government bodies under the Department (i) in the last year and (ii) since 1997. [145803]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Information about the total spend on recruitment advertisements for the Home Office, including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, for the years 2000 701, 2001–02 and 2002–03 is shown in the table. Figures for the current year are not yet available.

  The Home Office uses Job Centres and a wide variety of publications to advertise posts—including local, minority ethnic and the national press. A breakdown of the publications used could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Home Office does not routinely collect information about the recruitment advertising costs for quangos or non-departmental government bodies under the Department.

  Costs of recruitment advertising for the Home Office 2000–2003

  Spend on advertising (£)

  Home Office (non-IND)

  2000–01

  1,166,154

  2001–02

  826,056

  2002–03

  513,269

  1513W

  Costs of recruitment advertising for the Home Office 2000–2003

  Spend on advertising (£)

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  2000–01

  141,926

  2001–02

  519,610

  2002–03

  413,829

  Total

  2000–01

  1,308,080

  2001–02

  1,345,666

  2002–03

  927,098

  Special Constables
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in each London borough on 1 January of each of the last six years. [153076]

  Ms Blears
  There are no statistics published centrally on the number of Special Constables at local authority level or by Basic Command Unit. Statistics relating to the total number of Special Constables in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District are given in the table.

  Special Constable strength

  Strength as at 31 March

  London, City of

  Metropolitan police

  Total

  1998

  76

  1,282

  1,358

  1999

  64

  1,138

  1,202

  2000

  56

  758

  814

  2001

  43

  774

  817

  2002

  36

  680

  716

  2003

  42

  692

  734

  All forces have been given funding for dedicated staff and initiatives to help implement good practice and recruit more Special Constables over the next 2–3 years. We are also running a national recruitment campaign, including television advertisements, starting on the 9 February, to coincide with the 2 National Specials Weekend on the 28–29 February.

  Speed Cameras
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were banned from driving for a period as a result of being caught by(a) speed and (b) red light cameras in (i) 1997, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2002. [153668]

  Caroline Flint
  Information for England and Wales for the years 1997 and 2000 is given in the table. 2002 data will be available in the spring.

  Driving licence disqualifications1 imposed at all courts for offences detected by camera, England and Wales, 1997 and 2000

  1997

  2000

  Speed offences2

  675

  1,417

  Traffic light offences3

  33

  39

  1 Excludes persons disqualified under section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty points system).

  2 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3 Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1984.

  1514W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what differences there are in the calibration of speed cameras between police authority areas; and whether all authorities apply a 10 per cent. and 2 mph allowance over the speed limit before a fixed penalty or prosecution is initiated. [154474]

  Caroline Flint
  All cameras are required to detect and record the speed of passing vehicles within specified degrees of accuracy. Until July 2003 the standard was a positive error of no more than 3mph up to 100mph, and 3 per cent. above 100mph. The negative error was not greater than 5mph or 10 per cent. above 50mph. From July 2003, in line with European standards, new speed cameras will be required to be accurate to ± 2mph up to 66mph and ± 3 per cent. above 66mph. This has not yet been implemented for existing cameras, but we consider that all cameras are in fact already accurate to this level.

  The enforcement of speed limits on the basis of information provided by the cameras is an operational matter for chief officers of police. The Association of Chief Police Officers has published guidelines on speed enforcement thresholds to support a transparent and consistent approach, while recognising that not all speeding offences are the same. The police retain discretion to take account of the particular circumstances of any particular speeding incident.

  All police forces follow the guidelines, which are publicly available on the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) website (www.acpo.police.uk)

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary-style Assaults
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to eradicate paramilitary-style assaults on the civil population of Northern Ireland. [153161]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government utterly condemn all paramilitary violence and acts of intimidation and remains resolute in its determination to see these brought to an end. We continue to call on those with influence over paramilitary groups to call a complete end to these barbaric attacks. This is also an area that the recently appointed Independent Monitoring Commission will regularly report on as part of their overall remit.

  Parades Commission
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Parades Commission. [153162]

  Jane Kennedy
  The year 2003 witnessed the most peaceful marching season for some considerable time. I pay tribute to the Parades Commission who have played an important role in tackling the difficult task in considering and issuing determinations with regard to contentious parades.
  1515W

  Organised Crime Taskforce
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Organised Crime Taskforce. [153163]

  Jane Kennedy
  The partner agencies of the Organised Crime Task Force continue to make a real impact in frustrating, disrupting and dismantling the organised crime gangs in Northern Ireland. Since 1 January 2004, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has seized cannabis valued at £2.75 million and Customs officers have seized 7 million contraband cigarettes.

  11-Plus (Reform)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reform of the 11-plus in Northern Ireland. [153164]

  Jane Kennedy
  New post-primary arrangements in Northern Ireland will address the weaknesses of the current transfer and post-primary arrangements. They will put pupils at the centre, provide them with more relevant knowledge and skills needed for life and work in the 21st Century and raise standards for all.

  Devolved Government
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in securing agreement to restore Devolved Government in Northern Ireland. [153165]

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his negotiations with Northern Ireland political parties for the commencement of political institutions. [153166]

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of power sharing in the Province. [153167]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for East Londonderry,Official Report, column 1396.

  Arms Decommissioning
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on arms decommissioning. [153168]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date there have been four acts of decommissioning carried out by paramilitary organisations, one by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and three by the Provisional IRA. The latest decommissioning act was carried out by the IRA on 21 October 2003. The arms comprised light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions. They included automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive material. The quantity of arms involved was larger than the quantity put beyond use in the previous event.

  Belfast City Airport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received an application from Belfast City airport to review the present operational planning agreement. [154126]
  1516W
  Angela Smith
  Following the publication of the recommendations for Northern Ireland in the Government's White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, the Department of the Environment's Planning Service received a request from Belfast City airport on 19 January 2004 to review the form of the current planning agreement. This is now under consideration.

  Domestic Violence
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Home Department in relation to the extension of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill to Northern Ireland. [153140]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The decision to extend certain provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill to NI was taken following the Northern Ireland Office's consultation exercise on tackling domestic violence, "Tackling Violence at Home" which closed on 12 December. This consultation exercise revealed widespread public support for the domestic violence provisions which are being extended to Northern Ireland. In addition the Bill includes provisions relating to trial by jury of sample counts only, which had initially been intended for inclusion in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

  Both, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), Minister of State with responsibility for Crinminal Justice matters and I have corresponded at length with the Home Secretary regarding the application of provisions to Northern Ireland. Throughout this process, both my officials have been in close contact with colleagues in the Home Office regarding policy development in respect of this Bill, in order to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded the same degree of protection as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the terms were of the contract entered into between the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and RoMaha for the PFI to upgrade MOT centres in Northern Ireland under project MOT2; and if he will make a statement on the implementation of the project. [154475]

  Angela Smith
  The contract entered into by the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency required the concessionaire, Romaha, to"design, build, finance, install, maintain, repair and where necessary substitute and/or replace vehicle testing equipment and to provide all necessary training in respect of the operation of such equipment"
  to meet current needs, and specified future needs in vehicle testing.

  The contract, which was signed on 26 March 2001, called for promulgation of the project to all 15 Agency sites on a rolling basis over a two-year period. A plan was developed between the Agency and Romaha to ensure this was carried out effectively and to minimise disruption to the public. This plan included individual and overall timetables for completion. The contractor adhered rigidly to the timescale, and the rollout programme was completed on 19 September 2003.
  1517W
  Romaha provides a service against the contract for which DVTA pays an agreed unitary payment for this. Particularly poor performance can attract penalty points leading ultimately to contract termination, but the contractor's performance to date has attracted no penalty points. The parties are currently working to improve throughput, which is not yet at the anticipated level. The Agency is also working with the contractor to introduce a number of additional testing requirements catered for in the output specification.

  Estate Wardens
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many estate wardens have been appointed by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland to date; and for which areas. [152595]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 52 staff in post, including one agency worker and there are four vacant posts distributed as follows:

  Area

  Number

  Antrim

  1

  Armagh

  12

  Ballymena

  3

  Banbridge

  1

  Bangor

  2

  Belfast Office 2

  1

  Belfast Office 7

  11

  Belfast Offices (1,3, 4, 5, and 6)

  210

  Carrickfergus

  1

  Castlereagh

  1

  Coleraine

  1

  Cookstown

  1

  Downpatrick

  1

  Dungannon

  2

  Enniskillen (Fermanagh District Office)

  1

  L'Derry (Collon Tce., Waterloo Pl., Waterside)

  5

  Larne

  1

  Limavady

  1

  Lisburn (Antrim St. and Diary Farm)

  13

  Lurgan/Brownlow

  11

  Magherafelt

  1

  Newry

  1

  Newtownabbey Office 1 and 2

  4

  Newtownards

  1

  Omagh

  1

  Portadown

  2

  Strabane

  2

  1 Plus one vacancy

  2 Two each

  Homelessness
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases from ethnic minority backgrounds were identified by the Housing Executive as homeless on the grounds of intimidation in 2003; and in which geographical areas they were re-housed. [153600]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the 12 month period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 a total of 30 cases from ethnic minority backgrounds presented to the Housing Executive as homeless on grounds of intimidation. Of the 30 cases, 17 were accepted as homeless as a result of intimidation and eligible for housing assistance. Nine of these are either in temporary 1518W
  accommodation or have made their own arrangements for accommodation and eight were permanently re-housed in the following areas:
  Belfast—4
  Newry—2
  Lisburn and North Down—1 each

  The remaining 13 who presented as homeless either abandoned their application or were ineligible for assistance under immigration or homeless legislation.

  Horseracing
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid in levy by bookmakers in Northern Ireland to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; how much of that levy in each year was transferred to Horseracing Ireland; and how much Horseracing Ireland spent in each year in Northern Ireland. [153625]

  Mr. Pearson
  Charges paid by bookmakers in Northern Ireland to the Horse Racing Fund (which is controlled and managed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) in each of the last three years were as follows:

  Amount (£)

  2003

  351,531

  2002

  354,083

  2001

  341,928

  The Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 specifies to whom, and for what, payments may be made out of the Fund. Payments are not made to Horseracing Ireland. Horseracing Ireland is a body constituted in the Republic of Ireland. My Department is not aware of how much it spent in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to reduce the number of patients who wait on a trolley longer than two hours for a hospital bed once they have been admitted to hospital. [154155]

  Angela Smith
  I am very aware of the current pressures on our hospital services, with some patients having to wait on trolleys before they can be admitted. During the time that patients wait on trolleys they receive all of the appropriate medical and nursing care that they need.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is taking forward a regional initiative to improve hospital admissions and patient flows through our hospitals. I am also working to increase capacity at key hospitals and by July 2004 the number of hospital beds will have increased by over 100 compared to the same time last year.

  NHS Trusts (Working Time Directive)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken against NHS
  1519W
  trusts which fail to ensure their posts are compliant with the European Working Time Directive by August 2004. [154565]

  Angela Smith
  The European Working Time Directive is being introduced on a phased basis from August 2004 for doctors in training, and places a legal obligation on both employers and employees to comply with these regulations. All HPSS Boards and Trusts here are making significant efforts to put measures in place to achieve compliance with this Directive, as it currently stands, and my Department is continuing to increase the numbers of medical staffing in both consultant and training grades so that there is increased activity and improved patient care.

  In recognition of the limiting effects of these regulations, the European Commission recently launched a public consultation across all member states on the implications of the Working Time Directive and subsequent rulings. This may lead to change in some of the requirements and, until the final requirements are clear, any action on failure to comply can not be determined at this stage.

  Public Administration Review
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the timetable is for the Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland. [153835]

  Mr. Pearson
  The current consultation exercise on the Review of Public Administration is due to end on 27 February 2004. I am discussing with the local political parties how best to progress the review after the end of the consultation period.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that children with special educational needs have those needs met in the education sector in Northern Ireland. [152587]

  Jane Kennedy
  Some 10,600 pupils in Northern Ireland have statements of Special Educational Need (or attend Special Schools and are in the process of being statemented). The vast majority of these pupils have their Special Educational Needs (SEN) met within Northern Ireland. Currently there are only 34 pupils whose SEN are met outside Northern Ireland.

  Most of these 34 pupils have sensory impairments or behavioural difficulties/autism and attend very specialist provision elsewhere to meet their needs, where the placements are in accordance with the wishes of the parents.

  A Sub group of the Education and Library Boards' Regional Strategy Group for Special Education is currently considering the range of local provision required to meet the needs of hearing impaired pupils. The Department is represented on this Sub group.

  The proposed Centre of Excellence for Autism in Middletown will aim to enhance local training for schools and teachers and educational intervention for pupils with autism.
  1520W

  Tennants Textiles Colours Plant
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the risks to the health and safety of the local community on the lower Ravenhill Road, Belfast arising from the continued operation of the Tennants Textiles Colours plant; what restrictions have been placed on future developments in the area; and if he will make a statement. [153834]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) has conducted rigorous health and safety inspections of the Tennants Textiles Colours factory site to ensure compliance with the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 (COMAH). These Regulations implement the European Community Directive 96/82/ EC and require stringent controls on companies such as Tennants Textile Colours who store, use or handle specified dangerous substances above defined quantity thresholds.

  The company has been fully co-operative in complying with the necessary safety requirements and as such, any risk to the health and safety of the local community on lower Ravenhill Road is considered to be minimal.

  All future development proposals in the immediate vicinity of the site are subject to land-use assessment in accordance with UK wide land-use planning guidelines for COMAH sites. HSENI has determined planning consultation zones for the land surrounding the site and advises the Planning Service on proposed developments within these zones. HSENI advice is based on a consideration of the type of development, the status and number of occupants and its proposed location relative to the Tennants Textiles Colour site. In general, HSENI will advise the Planning Service against proposals for new developments that would introduce large or vulnerable populations to the immediate vicinity of the site. This approach, and the methodologies used are consistent across the United Kingdom.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the initial public response to the consumer line recently launched by Trading Standards. [153836]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am very pleased with the success to date of Consumerline, which went live on 3 November 2003. In the period from its commencement to 31 January 2004 it has dealt with more than 7,000 inquiries from the general public. This compares with 2,950 inquiries for the same period in 2002–03 under the previous advice service to consumers.

  Warm Homes Scheme
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources have been made available in Northern Ireland to assist the implementation of the Warm Homes Scheme in the past three years. [153847]
  1521W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Warm Homes Scheme is funded by the Department for Social Development (DSD) but also benefits from a contribution from the Northern Ireland Electricity's (NIE) customer levy. The combined resources allocated during the last three years are as follows:

  Financial year

  DSD (£)

  NIE (£)

  Total (£)

  2001–02

  4,300,000

  679,000

  4,979,000

  2002–03

  7,952,000

  1,670,000

  9,622,000

  2003–04

  10,650,000

  1,600,000

  12,250,000

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Airwave Emergency Communications Network
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that local planning authorities follow planning guidance in determining applications for consent to build radio transmitters for the Airwave emergency communications network. [154348]

  Keith Hill
  Current planning guidance for all electronic communication developments is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised) (PPG8). It is for the local planning authority to decide whether to allow specific development to proceed. This will be done in the light of relevant planning policy guidance, the local development plan and any representations made to the authority. If anyone has a complaint about how the council has handled a planning matter or if anyone is dissatisfied by the council's response and thinks they have suffered an injustice, it is open to them to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate whether there has been maladministration.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also published the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development on 11 November 2002. Arrangements to monitor the operation of the Code are being set up.

  Decent Homes
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that local authority housing departments rated at two stars and above have sufficient resources to meet the decency standard in a timely manner, where tenants vote to remain with their council landlord. [154026]

  Keith Hill
  All local authorities, regardless of performance, have four options that can be used singly or in combination to deliver the decent homes target. These are: retain the stock and use their existing resources to bring the stock up to the standard, or where a local authority requires additional resources it can choose from stock transfer, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or setting up an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO). For three of these (retention, ALMO, PFI) the council remains the landlord.

  To secure additional resources through an ALMO they must be awarded two stars. There are no plans to provide additional resources to housing authorities with two stars or above outside of these options.
  1522W
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February 2004,Official Report, column 748, when he expects that council houses remaining in the ownership and management of local authorities will meet the decency standard; and if he will make available the resources necessary to achieve his estimate. [154310]

  Keith Hill
  Local housing authorities that have not already taken advantage of stock transfer, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or setting up an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) for all of their housing stock must complete an appraisal of the options available to deliver decent homes, including stock retention, by July 2005. Until this process is complete it will not be possible to state how many authorities will decide that stock retention in terms of ownership and management is the best option for delivering decent homes. Local authorities will only be able to choose this option if they have sufficient resources from mainstream housing funding to deliver by 2010. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to make additional resources available outside of the three additional investment options—stock transfer, PFI and ALMO.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what strategies his Department has developed to encourage the removal of graffiti from(a) public and (b) private buildings; [153762]

  (2) what new programmes for urban renewal include programmes to remove graffiti; [153761]

  (3) what steps his Department takes to encourage local authorities to remove graffiti. [153760]

  Keith Hill
  Through "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing £201 million to improve local liveability and create decent places. A key element of this supports action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB) including the removal of graffiti from public spaces and buildings. The cross Government liveability programme is also supported by the Home Office's `together' national action plan on tackling ASB, which includes measures for tackling graffiti such as Shop 'em and Stop 'em projects.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also extending local authority powers to deal with environmental problems such as graffiti, fly-tipping and fly-posting. For example, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 includes powers to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for graffiti, enabling local authorities to issue such notices to people who commit 'minor' acts of graffiti and to allow all local authorities to retain income from Fixed Penalty Notices issued for graffiti for use in local environmental improvements. These measures will be introduced shortly.

  Its up to private building owners to remove graffiti from their property, however local authorities can assist if necessary. The Home Office, through its 'together' action plan, will be piloting the use of new powers in 12 pilot areas, which will enable local authorities to charge back the cost of cleaning up street furniture to the owner.
  1523W
  In addition, by banning the sales of spray paints to under 16s we are trying to reduce the incidences of graffiti.

  HMOs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations his Department has received from(a)Universities UK and (b) individual vice chancellors about whether higher education halls of residence should fall within the scope of a mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme. [153139]

  Keith Hill
  In the 1999 Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO) consultation representations were received from the following academic institutions supporting the proposal to exclude higher education halls of residence from the mandatory HMO licensing scheme: Universities UK, the Universities of Newcastle, Lancaster, Wales and the domestic bursars of Oxford Christ Church. Those who did not support the exemption included Sheffield, Manchester, North Staffordshire and Swansea.

  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the(a) number and(b)proportion of houses in multiple occupation which fall within the scope of the proposed mandatory licensing scheme within the Housing Bill. [153298]

  Keith Hill
  The Government estimate that about 120,000 Houses in Multiple Occupation will be subject to licensing under the mandatory scheme proposed in the Housing Bill. It is estimated that between 360,000 to 450,000 dwellings will be covered by the scheme.

  Housing
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what standards have been established for the Government's plans for the redevelopment of the Thames Gateway in respect of(a) the residential density of new housing developments, (b) the proportion of development land that is expected to be previously-developed land, (c) design quality, (d) construction quality standards, (e) the accessibility of new housing to local amenities, (f) public transport accessibility and (g) the use of sustainable construction methods. [154043]

  Keith Hill
  For the Thames Gateway and elsewhere:

  (a) (b) Planning Policy Guidance note 3 (PPG3) has introduced a series of tough new measures designed to meet the country's future housing needs in the most sustainable way possible. This includes a sequential approach which gives priority to re-using brownfield sites in urban areas in preference to developing Greenfield sites. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a national target that, by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings. One of the key features of the Thames Gateway as a suitable location for sustainable development is the presence of a substantial reservoir of brownfield land. In the period 1997–2000 an estimated 80 per cent. of new dwellings in the Gateway were built on previously developed land. The targeted investment now being mobilised through funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Department for Transport, Regional Development Agencies aims to maintain this
  1524W
  trend by increasing the viability and potential development density on key sites in the Gateway. PPG3 also encourages housing development that makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) and seeks greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility.

  (c) Planning Policy Guidance note 1 (PPG1) requires that
  "good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere".

  This policy is supported by our good practice guidance "By Design". (d) (g) all new homes have to comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations so that they are healthy, safe, energy efficient, and accessible by disabled people. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's increased funding for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) will allow it to provide greater support to delivering high quality, sustainable housing. CABE is establishing a Housing Quality Forum to disseminate best practice within the growth areas (including the Thames Gateway) and together with the House Builders Federation and Civic Trust has developed a Building for Life Standard to incentivise house builders to improve their product.

  (e) (f) Government planning policy (in particular Planning Policy Guidance note 13) is to promote accessibility to local amenities by public transport, walking and cycling. In his statement on 30 July 2003, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister identified public transport infrastructure projects that are critical to supporting growth in the Thames Gateway. These included projects to improve strategic links within the Gateway through the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and to improve public transport capacity and connections in major development locations through extensions to the Docklands Light Railway network and bus transit systems for East and South-East London and Kent Thameside. Since this statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has approved a consultation exercise by the Strategic Rail Authority on a proposed Integrated Kent Franchise that incorporates CTRL domestic services to Stratford and Ebbsfleet. An informal offer of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits to enable the Mayor to take forward the multi-modal Thames Gateway Bridge proposal has also been made.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average residential density of housing developments given planning permission since March 2000 is in(a) Bexley, (b) Barking and Dagenham, (c) Greenwich, (d) Hackney, (e) Lewisham, (f) Newham, (g) Havering, (h) Tower Hamlets, (i) Waltham Forest, (j) Thurrock, (k) Basildon, (l) Castle Point, (m) Southend-on-Sea, (n) Rochford, (o) Medway, (p) Dartford, (q) Gravesham and (r) Swale local authority areas; and what the average residential density of such developments across all these boroughs is. [154191]

  Keith Hill
  Information relating to the average residential density of housing developments given planning permission in these local authorities since March 2000 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All Local Planning Authorities within the Thames Gateway and elsewhere,
  1525W
  are obliged to keep information relating to the determination of planning applications within their area of operation.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what standards new housing to be built in communities envisaged in the Thames Gateway will be required to meet in respect of(a) schools, (b) health care facilities, (c) leisure facilities and (d) open spaces. [154192]

  Keith Hill
  For the Thames Gateway and elsewhere, Government planning policy (in particular Planning Policy Guidance 13) is to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling.

  In addition, the Social Exclusion Unit's "Making the Connections" report, published in February 2003, sets out a strategy to help people on low incomes access work, food shops and key public services, notably education and healthcare. This includes the approach of accessibility planning in those areas that produce a Local Transport Plan, where local transport planners and others work together to examine accessibility needs and how to overcome barriers. Accessibility planning is currently being piloted and various accessibility indicators are under consideration.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the purpose is of merging housing associations within the Greater London area. [152978]

  Keith Hill
  This is a matter for the Housing Corporation but in general terms there are four sets of circumstances in which housing associations merge.

  Methods used by local authorities for measuring tenant support for Arms Length Management Organisations

  Operational ALMOs (i.e. Those who have receiveds.27 consent)

  Ballot held

  Round 1

  Derby, Hounslow, Kirklees, Rochdale, Stockton-on-Tees

  Round 2

  Barnsley, Carrick, Colchester, Leeds East, Leeds North East, Leeds North West, Leeds South East, Leeds South, Leeds West, Waltham Forest

  Round 3

  High Peak, South Lakeland

  Other test of opinion used

  Round 1

  Ashfield, Westminster, Wigan

  Round 2

  Blyth Valley, Bolton, Brent, Cheltenham, Hillingdon, Kensington and Chelsea, Oldham, Salford (since withdrawn)

  Round 3

  Gateshead, Solihull, Warrington

  Approved ALMOs but not yet operational (i.e. those awaiting s.27 consent)

  Ballot held

  Round 3

  Camden (since withdrawn), Islington, Sheffield (partial)

  Other test of opinion used

  Round 3

  Barnet, Easington, Harrow, Newcastle, Poole

  Current ALMO bids

  Ballot held

  Round 4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Ballot proposed

  Round 4

  Nottingham, Sheffield (partial), Slough

  Other test of opinion proposed

  Round 4

  Bassetlaw, Brent (partial), Bury, Baling, Eastbourne, Manchester (partial), Newark and Sherwood, Rotherham, Sandwell, Wolverhampton

  1526W
  The first, and by far the most common, is where two or more associations conclude, of their own volition, that they can provide better or more services by coming together.

  The second is where an association which is in breach of the Corporation's Regulatory Code concludes that the best or only way of resolving its problems is by joining another association with the necessary skills and resources.

  The third is where, after a Statutory Inquiry has found mismanagement or misconduct in the affairs of the association, the Corporation's Board has the power to direct, with the consent of the Secretary of State, the association to transfer its land and property to another association of the Corporation's choosing.

  In the event of an insolvency, the Corporation has the power to make proposals as to the future ownership and management of the land held by an RSL, which is designed to secure its continued proper management by another RSL. Any such proposals would have to be agreed by all the secured creditors.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February 2004,Official Report, column 748, if he will list (a) local authorities which have held ballots of tenants in the process of transferring stock to other ownership or management bodies and (b) those which have not. [154309]

  Keith Hill
  A ballot has been held for all Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of local housing stock to Registered Social Landlords. Details of the results in each case are on the housing transfer page of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. The table following shows the methods used by local authorities for measuring tenant support for Arms Length Management Organisations.
  1527W

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what methodology he used in his calculation that South Bucks District Council is receiving an increase of 3.4 per cent. in its grant for 2004–05. [154473]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister first calculated the amount of grant authorities would have received in 2003–04 on a like-for-like basis with 2004–05 i.e. the amount that an authority would have received had the transfers in funding and function relating to 2004–05 had occurred a year earlier. More detailed information on the calculation of the adjusted 2003–04 grant amounts can be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at http:// www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0405/adipaps.pdf

  The results of these calculations for South Bucks were as follows:

  Adjusted 2003–04 redistributed business rates—£2,160,712

  Adjusted 2003–04 Revenue Support Grant—£304,107

  Adjusted 2003–04 Formula Grant—£2,464,819

  The amount of grant authorities will receive in 2004–05 was then calculated in accordance with the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05. The results of these calculations for South Bucks were as follows:

  2004–05 redistributed business rates—£1,682,020

  2004–05 Revenue Support Grant—£868,280

  2004–05 Formula Grant—£2,550,300

  The change in grant between 2004–05 and 2003–04 on a like-for-like basis was then calculated as follows:
  2004–05 Formula Grant—Adjusted £2003–04 Formula Grant = £2,550,300–£2,464,819
  £85,481 or 3.468 per cent.

  Pathfinder Projects
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress of each of the housing renewal pathfinder projects. [154027]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has now announced funding for three pathfinders. These are £125 million for Manchester Salford in October 2003 and more recently £69 million (plus £4 million early wins money) for Newcastle Gateshead and £86 million (plus £4 million early wins money) for Merseyside. These three schemes are now tasked to deliver their proposals up to March 2006.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has now received strategic schemes from the South Yorkshire, East Lancashire and Oldham Rochdale pathfinders. These schemes are now being assessed by officials while being independently scrutinised by the Audit Commission. Negotiations on their proposals have commenced but it is not yet known when they will conclude. Strategic schemes from the remaining pathfinders are due in over the next few months with announcements following in due course.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to make an announcement on the Elevate Housing Renewal Pathfinder Project Programme Bid. [154029]
  1528W
  Keith Hill
  Elevate East Lancashire's market renewal scheme was submitted on 31 December 2003. Negotiations with Elevate East Lancashire on its proposals have commenced but it is not yet known when they will conclude.

  Phone Masts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many phone masts there are in(a) the UK, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley; and how many are shared between operators in each of those areas. [153718]

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

  However, during September and October every year the mobile network operators write to every local authority with details of their network rollout for the year ahead. When they write to the local authority they also provide details of their existing sites within the local authority area. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the network operators for copies of their plans.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on devolved government in the regions. [154386]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the 2001 Manifesto the Government made a commitment that provision should be made for directly elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established.

  The Government's proposals for establishing elected assemblies in those English regions that want them, and for improving existing arrangements in all regions, were set out in "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions (CMS511)" which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published in May 2002.

  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 provides for referendums and associated local government reviews. My right Hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in June 2003, following a soundings exercise, that the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber regions would be the first regions to progress towards a referendum for an elected assembly. Local Government reviews are under way in those regions. When the Boundary Committee have presented their recommendations orders in Parliament for referendums will be laid.

  If there is a "yes" vote, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will need to introduce further legislation to provide for assemblies to be established. The first assemblies could be up and running early in the next Parliament.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the establishment of referendums for regional government. [154387]
  1529W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 provides for referendums on whether to establish an elected assembly and for associated local government reviews on options for local government restructuring.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in June 2003, following a soundings exercise, that the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside would be the first regions to progress towards holding a referendum for a regional assembly. Local government reviews are underway in these regions. When the Boundary Committee have presented their recommendations, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will lay orders in Parliament enabling referendums to take place.

  Mr Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by the Department on(a) research and (b) preparation for regional referendums on devolved government. [154388]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not spent any money on research on regional referendums. Some staff time has been spent on developing policy and preparing Statutory Instruments related to the referendums.

  The cost of designing, printing and disseminating the results of the soundings exercise, that established which regions had an interest in holding a referendum, was £2,500 plus some staff costs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will spend £500,000 in this financial year, on an information campaign about elected regional assemblies in the three northern regions.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of running a regional referendum. [154390]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are currently consulting on The Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Counting Officers' Charges) (England) Order 2004, that will establish the costs of conducting the referendums. The cost will vary from region to region, depending on the size of the region, electorate, and level of turnout.

  Based on the figures in the draft order the cost of holding a referendum will be £1.47 per elector, if everyone eligible votes.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department has a special unit to organise and operate referendums. [154391]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Electoral Commission is responsible for the organisation and operation of the regional referendums.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not therefore have a special unit to carry out these functions. However, some staff time has been spent on developing policy and preparing Statutory Instruments related to the referendums.

  Mr Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he plans that regional assemblies would be able to levy taxes. [154393]
  1530W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister stated in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511) that an elected assembly will be able to raise money from a precept on the council tax. It will not be able to levy other taxes, including varying non-domestic rates or business taxes.

  Sellers Packs
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress is being made on the introduction of a seller's pack for house buyers. [153604]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Bill, which provides for the introduction of home information packs, is currently before Standing Committee E in the House. Earlier this month the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the findings of consumer and technical pilots of the Home Condition Report, summaries of the responses received to the consultation papers on the contents of the pack and how the pack should operate in low demand areas and research showing a potential labour force of between 10 to 18,000 people who could become home inspectors. Several Universities and colleges are already preparing courses for Home Inspectors. Following discussions with the industry the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has concluded that 1 January 2007 is an appropriate date to aim to introduce home information packs. This will send a clear message to our industry partners as to what needs to be done.

  Sustainable Procurement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines his Department gives to local authorities on sustainable procurement. [153806]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The National Procurement Strategy for Local Government, jointly published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association (LGA) in October 2003, encourages councils to achieve better value for money through effective and innovative procurement over the next three years. Among other things, it encourages councils to build sustainability into procurement strategies, processes and contracts. The Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) has published guidance on sustainability and local government procurement, aimed specifically at councils' needs in this area.

  Thames Gateway (Housing)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the scale of the development which it foresees in the Thames Gateway can be accommodated on previously developed brownfield sites. [153584]

  Keith Hill
  One of the key features of the Gateway as a suitable location for sustainable development is the presence of a substantial reservoir of previously developed and brownfield land. The Gateway is estimated to contain some 2 per cent. of the land area of
  1531W
  the south east but contains 17 per cent. of its current supply of previously developed land. The national target for development on previously developed land is 60 per cent.: in the period 1997–2000 an estimated 80 per cent. of new dwellings in the Gateway were built on previously developed land. The targeted investment now being mobilised through funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Transport and Regional Development Agencies aim to maintain this trend by increasing the viability and potential development density on key sites in the Gateway.

  The scale of development we have projected for the Gateway is based upon work with local partners on the presence and pattern of suitable development land. Details will be determined through the reviews of Regional Plans which is being undertaken by the three Regional Planning Bodies which cover the Gateway.

  Thurrock Urban Development Corporation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new settlements are proposed within the Thurrock Urban Development Corporation area pursuant to paragraph 24 of Sustainable Communities: an Urban Development Corporation for Thurrock. [153858]
  1532W
  Keith Hill
  Issues relating to new settlements and related housing growth in Thurrock are currently determined by Regional Planning Guidance 9 and are set out within Thurrock Council's Local Plan, as adopted in September 1997.

  The East of England Regional Assembly is currently in the process of preparing new Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14). This will contain housing growth targets for all local authority areas within the region, including Thurrock.

  As the plan making body for Thurrock, it will be for the Council to interpret the requirements of RPG14 and to determine the location(s) and the manner in which housing growth will be accommodated in the borough.

CABINET OFFICE

  SI No. 440
  John Mann
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the impact of Statutory Instrument No.440. [152248]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No formal assessment has been made. However, no accidents or delays were reported on the mainline carriageway of side roads during the works carried out under SI No. 440.
  1533W

HEALTH

  Adverse Drug Reactions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the percentage of NHS prescriptions involved in adverse drug reactions in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [152813]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data are not available to allow estimation of the percentage of national health service prescriptions which involved adverse drug reactions in the last year. Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are collected by the Committee on Safety of Medicines/Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the Yellow Card Scheme. The main purpose of the scheme is to identify new drug safety hazards and not to quantify their incidence.

  Ambulance Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for regulation of private ambulance services to reflect practice in the NHS. [153748]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have encouraged self-regulation of private ambulance services and have made it clear to national health service organisations that, if they are using private ambulance companies, they must satisfy themselves that the organisation has suitably trained staff for the task and conforms to legal and other relevant standards.

  The use of private ambulance services in the NHS is covered by a code of practice issued in 1993 (EL(93)109).

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the training requirements are for(a) paramedics and (b) ambulance technicians in (i) the NHS and (ii) private ambulance services. [153749]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Although training courses are delivered locally, paramedics and technicians employed by national health service ambulance services are trained in accordance with a national syllabus administered on behalf of the Department by the Ambulance Service Association and based on clinical advice from the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee.

  To qualify, they are also required to sit nationally set examinations with awards administered by Edexel on behalf of the Ambulance Service Association.

  To practise, paramedics have additionally to register and meet standards approved by the Health Professions Council.

  Training in private ambulance services is a matter for each individual employer. Each has a general duty to ensure that its staff are suitably qualified and trained in order to provide the level of care which they are required to deliver. If private ambulance services are employed by the NHS, guidance to trusts requires that they satisfy themselves that the contractor's staff are suitably trained and experienced.
  1534W

  Audiology
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in reducing the number of analogue hearing aids used by NHS patients in(a) North West Leicestershire and (b) the East Midlands since January 2002; [153721]

  (2) what progress is being made in the provision of NHS digital hearing aids in (a) North West Leicestershire and (b) the East Midlands. [153722]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Details of those audiology services that have been modernised are available in the Library. There are no plans to monitor the reduction in the number of people using analogue aids.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the response given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 26 January 2004, Official Report, column 176W.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when digital hearing aids will be freely available on the NHS for residents of(a) Taunton Deane and (b) West Somerset. [154186]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 10 February 2004]Digital hearing aids are already available on the national health service for residents of Taunton Deane and West Somerset. A small number of digital hearing aids were made available in January 2004. However, the audiology department at the Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust will begin rolling out digital hearing aids comprehensively in March 2004 when 1,000 existing analogue users will start converting to digital technology.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are waiting for a hearing aid assessment in the(a) Taunton Deane and (b) Somerset Coast Primary Care Trust area. [154187]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 10 February 2004]This information is not centrally held.

  Children's Respite Care
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust gave to projects dealing with children's respite care in 2003. [153490]

  Dr. Ladyman
  During 2002–03, the Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust (PCT) provided recurrent funding of £11,000 to Derian House Hospice. In addition, the PCT has also agreed to provide funding to the Chorley and South Ribble Crossroads Care scheme. £6,760 will be provided annually for three years and will help to employ three care attendants to work specifically with young adults with mental health needs, learning difficulties or physical difficulties which prevent them taking part in usual social activities with their peers. This scheme currently supports nine families.

  Audited accounts are not yet available for 2003–04.

  Cisapride
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct an investigation into the safety of the drug cisapride. [153258]
  1535W
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department made of the impact of the drug cisapride before its withdrawal in the United Kingdom. [153754]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2000, the former Medicines Control Agency (now the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) conducted a thorough review of the balance of risks and benefits of cisapride (Prepulsid, licensed for the treatment of motility-related gastrointestinal disorders). As cisapride was also authorised in other European Union (EU) Member States, a safety review by the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) was also taken forward at this time.

  Following careful review of efficacy studies and consideration of reports of suspected cardiac adverse reactions, the CSM concluded that the balance of risks and benefits for cisapride was no longer favourable and the Licensing Authority suspended the UK marketing authorisations (MAs) pending the outcome of the EU review. Following an opinion of the CPMP, the European Commission issued a Decision in May 2002 allowing restricted MAs for cisapride for use in certain indications in clinical trials or via a safety registry.

  However, the UK MAs remained suspended until 17 October 2003 when the company, Janssen Cilag, cancelled them.

  Consultants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the New Consultant Entry Scheme; and whether doctors on the Scheme count as consultants for the sake of the NHS Plan consultant recruitment targets. [152819]

  National Health Service: Number of dentists in England by region and Strategic Health Authority at September each year

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  19,980

  20,483

  21,041

  21,556

  21,902

  22,438

  22,810

  NHS Region

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,401

  2,477

  2,540

  2,558

  2,589

  2,668

  —

  Trent

  1,749

  1,799

  1,820

  1,900

  1,915

  1,918

  —

  West Midlands

  1,895

  1,938

  1,982

  1,998

  2,058

  2,134

  —

  NorthWest

  2,740

  2,777

  2,846

  2,900

  2,887

  2,929

  —

  Eastern

  1,961

  2,050

  2,110

  2,206

  2,259

  2,329

  —

  London

  3,633

  3,680

  3,807

  3,821

  3,875

  3,967

  —

  South East

  3,538

  3,627

  3,683

  3,840

  3,915

  4,033

  —

  South and West

  2,063

  2,135

  2,253

  2,333

  2,404

  2,460

  —

  Strategic Health Authority

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  943

  983

  1,043

  1,084

  1,096

  1,115

  1,114

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  634

  648

  684

  729

  748

  801

  803

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  891

  909

  918

  910

  924

  965

  964

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,010

  1,045

  1,070

  1,089

  1,093

  1,107

  1,161

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  383

  413

  425

  422

  422

  436

  455

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  549

  564

  584

  597

  622

  636

  664

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  738

  742

  776

  773

  760

  797

  787

  Dorset and Somerset

  466

  475

  494

  500

  520

  519

  540

  Essex

  557

  577

  579

  599

  621

  627

  625

  Greater Manchester

  1,122

  1,115

  1,127

  1,162

  1,155

  1,149

  1,161

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  681

  685

  704

  735

  762

  793

  800

  Kent and Medway

  641

  664

  654

  679

  668

  663

  686

  Leicestershire, Northants and Rutland

  491

  504

  517

  523

  519

  524

  541

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  770

  825

  847

  878

  890

  901

  941

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire

  573

  584

  592

  611

  632

  664

  671

  North Central London

  696

  730

  750

  767

  755

  768

  765

  1536W
  Mr. Hutton
  The New Consultant Entry Scheme (NCES) has been developed for specialist registrars who have recently acquired the certificate of completion of specialist training and would like more practical support to help make the transition to consultant grade in their first consultant post. Placements are for six months in vacant consultant posts, after which the doctors can apply for substantive appointment in open competition.

  Appointments of NCES doctors to consultant vacancies are counted for the purposes of consultant recruitment targets.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent figures are for dentists for each year since 1996 for (i) England, (ii) each NHS region and (iii) each strategic health authority. [150810]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information on the number of national health service dentists on a headcount basis in each region of England and by strategic health authority (SHA) at September each year from 1996 to 2002 is shown in the table.

  Information is not available on a whole-time equivalent (wte) basis because general dental service dentists are self employed dentists who do not work standard hours and who are able to vary their hours and their NHS commitment.

  NHS dentists cover dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS), community dental service (CDS), personal dental service (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  Information for 2003 on all NHS dentists is not yet available.
  1537W

  National Health Service: Number of dentists in England by region and Strategic Health Authority at September each year

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North East London

  575

  568

  579

  605

  632

  673

  626

  North West London

  935

  947

  1,012

  992

  1,000

  998

  978

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  584

  594

  616

  635

  655

  645

  688

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  455

  465

  480

  491

  512

  533

  551

  South East London

  810

  788

  798

  768

  809

  811

  800

  South West London

  617

  647

  668

  689

  679

  716

  707

  South West Peninsula

  654

  677

  716

  749

  788

  826

  834

  South Yorkshire

  519

  537

  522

  547

  558

  553

  578

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,191

  1,208

  1,222

  1,250

  1,297

  1,350

  1,387

  Thames Valley

  832

  875

  902

  971

  989

  1,029

  1,069

  Trent

  839

  854

  886

  933

  942

  941

  990

  West Yorkshire

  824

  860

  876

  868

  854

  898

  924

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent NHS dentists there were per head of population(a) in total and (b) offering NHS treatment in (i) England and (ii) each strategic health authority in each year since 1997. [151464]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information is for the number of national health service dentists (headcount) per 10,000 population and is shown in the table for September in each of the years 1997 to 2002.

  NHS dentists cover dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS),

  National health service: number of dentists per 10,000 population in England by strategic health authority for September each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  4.22

  4.32

  4.41

  4.47

  4.54

  4.60

  Strategic health authority

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  4.64

  4.90

  5.05

  5.08

  5.15

  5.13

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  4.16

  4.36

  4.60

  4.70

  4.99

  5.00

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  3.98

  4.03

  4.01

  4.09

  4.26

  4.24

  Cheshire and Merseyside;

  4.42

  4.53

  4.63

  4.65

  4.71

  4.95

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  3.61

  3.72

  3.71

  3.72

  3.85

  4.02

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcester>

  3.75

  3.87

  3.94

  4.10

  4.17

  4.31

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  3.90

  4.08

  4.07

  4.00

  4.18

  4.12

  Dorset and Somerset

  4.07

  4.22

  4.25

  4.39

  4.35

  4.50

  Essex

  3.65

  3.65

  3.75

  3.86

  3.88

  3.85

  Greater Manchester

  4.40

  4.45

  4.61

  4.58

  4.57

  4.62

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  3.92

  4.01

  4.16

  4.30

  4.45

  4.47

  Kent and Medway

  4.29

  4.21

  4.34

  4.24

  4.19

  4.32

  Leicester, Northants And Rutland

  3.31

  3.38

  3.40

  3.36

  3.36

  3.44

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  3.87

  3.94

  4.07

  4.09

  4.13

  4.29

  North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire

  3.64

  3.69

  3.80

  3.92

  4.10

  4.13

  North Central London

  6.43

  6.58

  6.65

  6.48

  6.39

  6.29

  North East London

  3.94

  3.98

  4.11

  4.26

  4.42

  4.07

  North West London

  5.73

  6.08

  5.89

  5.86

  5.64

  5.48

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  4.21

  4.39

  4.55

  4.72

  4.66

  4.98

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  3.15

  3.24

  3.31

  3.45

  3.58

  3.69

  South East London

  5.44

  5.48

  5.23

  5.47

  5.36

  5.28

  South West London

  5.19

  5.33

  5.46

  5.35

  5.51

  5.42

  South West Peninsula.

  4.41

  4.64

  4.82

  5.02

  5.23

  5.25

  South Yorkshire

  4.20

  4.10

  4.31

  4.40

  4.37

  4.56

  Surrey and Sussex

  4.83

  4.86

  4.92

  5.09

  5.28

  5.42

  ThamesValley

  4.26

  4.37

  4.67

  4.74

  4.90

  5.09

  Trent

  3.34

  3.45

  3.63

  3.65

  3.59

  3.75

  West Yorkshire

  4.16

  4.23

  4.20

  4.13

  4.31

  4.42

  Note:

  Population data are based on 2001 census mid-year estimates.
  1538W
  community dental service (CDS), personal dental service (PDS) and salaried service of the GDS.

  Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS, who are counted in the GDS only. Information for 2003 is not yet available.

  Information on a whole time equivalent basis is not available, as dentists working in the GDS are able to vary the amount of hours they work and to vary their NHS commitment. The majority of dentists working in the GDS do some NHS work.
  1539W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the gender breakdown of NHS dentists was in each year since 1997; and what the gender breakdown is of dentists in training. [151465]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information in Table 1 shows the number of female and male national health service dentists on a head count basis for England at September each year from 1997 to 2003.

  NHS dentists cover dentists working in the general dental service (GDS), hospital dental service (HDS),

  Table 1: National health service—Number of dentists by gender at 30 September each year, England

  General dental service

  Personal dental service

  Community dental service

  Hospital dental service

  Total

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  1997

  4,640

  12,088

  —

  —

  881

  498

  683

  1,505

  6,204

  14,091

  1998

  4,940

  12,307

  —

  —

  888

  497

  704

  1,521

  6,532

  14,325

  1999

  5,224

  12,497

  44

  39

  876

  492

  709

  1,539

  6,853

  14,567

  2000

  5,444

  12,605

  103

  89

  866

  477

  711

  1,476

  7,124

  14,647

  2001

  5,670

  12,684

  273

  194

  877

  471

  730

  1,454

  7,550

  14,803

  2002

  5,758

  12,642

  376

  280

  922

  509

  759

  1,464

  7,815

  14,895

  2003

  5,930

  12,607

  467

  335

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  PDS numbers exclude dentists who also work in the GDS. Female and male numbers for 1999 are estimated. PDS started in October 1998.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board and Department of Health medical and workforce census.

  Table 2: General dental service—Number of vocational dental practitioners by gender at 30 September each year, England

  Gender

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  All dentists

  532

  563

  584

  612

  658

  589

  576

  Female

  268

  282

  279

  320

  342

  303

  281

  Male

  264

  281

  305

  292

  316

  286

  295

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what grades of staff he proposes to remove from each Directorate of the establishment of the Department; and how many posts will remain in each. [152823]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is restructuring 14 directorates into three business groups. By October 2004, the numbers of posts per business group will be:Health and Social Care Standards and Quality: 804
  Health and Social Care Delivery: 626
  Strategy and Business Development: 815

  The Department's headcount in November 2003 was 3,631. The reduction to 2,245 posts will be achieved through a combination of transfers to partner organisations, natural wastage and managed exits. The numbers and grade of staff falling into each of those categories and from which of the three business groups is not yet known.

  Desmopressin
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescription items of desmopressin there were in each(a) NHS region and (b) strategic health
  1540W
  community dental service (CDS) and personal dental service (PDS). Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only. Excluded are the small number of salaried dentists in the GDS.

  Information on CDS and HDS for September 2003 is not currently available.

  Information on the gender breakdown of vocational trainees in the GDS is shown in Table 2.

  authority in each of the last five years, broken down by age. [152826]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of prescription items of desmopressin dispensed by strategic health authority has been placed in the Library. Comparable data at this level are only available from 2001.

  Doctors
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of doctors in England who have passed their Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board examination but are unable to find a job in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [152834]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department. However, recent analysis in January 2004 by the General Medical Council shows that, of the doctors who passed the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board exams in 2002, 90 per cent. have gone on to take up a period of limited registration.

  Domiciliary Care
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of care packages for maintaining elderly people in their own homes. [153820]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the estimated number of adults aged 65 and over receiving community based services in England for the years 2000–01 to 2002–03. Community based services includes day care, meals, respite care, direct payments, professional support, transport and equipment as well as home care.
  1541W

  Estimated number of adults aged 65 and over receiving community based services1 in England 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Rounded number

  2000–01

  925,000

  2001–02

  972,000

  2002–032

  988,000

  1 Community based services includes day care, meals, respite care, direct payments, professional support, transport and equipment as well as home care.

  2 The 2002–03 data excludes about 1,000 clients formerly in the receipt of preserved rights i.e. clients who were formally in receipt of higher rates of income under the DWP preserved rights scheme.

  Source:

  RAP form PI.

  East Surrey Hospital
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Royal College of Psychiatrists inspected the accident and emergency department at the East Surrey hospital; what its recommendations were; and when he expects the recommendations to be implemented; [152469]

  (2) what his assessment is of the safety of the accident and emergency department at the East Surrey hospital for members of the public (a) in the period following the inspection of the department by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and (b) following the instruction of 30 December 2003 of the clinical tutor to junior psychiatric doctors to cease attending patients at the department. [152470]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 5 February 2004]The recommendations made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists are as follows:

  Consideration should be given to the re-siting of the on-call accommodation from West Park to the Epsom Hospital site.

  The reduction in the number of outpatient clinics in post number RPU/13/052/5/001 should be considered.

  Community visits should form an integral part of all general adult training posts.

  The tutor at Epsom Hospital should sit on the hospital library committee.

  Increased consultant support to the in-house educational activities is recommended.

  The protocol for access to the Meadows Unit after 5 p.m. should be reviewed.

  Consideration should be given to the development of a senior house officer post in child and adolescent psychiatry at East Surrey.

  The training scheme at East Surrey Hospital was approved for four years following this assessment.

  I understand from the Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority that Surrey Oaklands National Health Service Trust has acted in accordance with the mandatory requirements and responded to the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  All NHS trusts have a statutory responsibility to ensure that their premises are safe for staff, and patients. I understand that a new accident and emergency psychiatric assessment room is planned for completion by end of February but in the interim an alternative room has been provided. This area has been assessed and endorsed by the chief executive of the trust as meeting safety requirements.
  1542W

  Elder Abuse
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to tackle abuse of the elderly. [153818]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The abuse of vulnerable adults is of huge concern to the Government. The Government launched guidance titled "No Secrets" in March 2000, which required local councils and other authorities to develop their own locally based procedures to prevent vulnerable adult abuse. Directors of social services had to ensure that local multi-agency codes of practice were developed and implemented by 31 October 2001. In June this year the Government intend to introduce the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list, which in practice amounts to a workforce ban on those who have abused or mistreated vulnerable adults in their care.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to applicant NHS foundation trusts on who should be installed on the electoral register for the board of governors; and when it was issued. [153001]

  Mr. Hutton
  Schedule 1, paragraph 3 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 sets out the eligibility requirements for membership of national health service foundation trusts. Anyone who is registered as a member of a particular constituency or class will be eligible to vote in elections for governors in that constituency or class. NHS foundation trusts must make provision in their constitution for the conduct of elections to the board of governors. Department of Health guidance to first wave applicants recommends the point at which the electoral register is closed for electoral purposes. This guidance was issued in January.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether political parties will be permitted to contest elections to the board of governors of NHS foundation trusts. [153002]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 provides that anyone who is registered as a member of a particular constituency or class will be eligible to be nominated to stand for election in that constituency or class. The legislation sets out a limited number of exclusions and trust constitutions may include other limited exclusions consistent with the legislation. national health service foundation trusts must make provision in their constitution for the conduct of elections to the board of governors. This may include provisions on the requirements for nominations, and the declaration of interests of nominated candidates. Departmental guidance to first wave applicants recommends that individuals nominated to stand for election as governors should be required to declare if they are members of a political party.

  Gallstones and Kidney Stones
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have required surgery for the treatment of(a) gallstones and (b) kidney stones in each of the past five years. [152923]
  1543W
  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows data relating to the number of operations carried out for the treatment of gallstones and kidney stones from 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Operations for treatment of gallstones and kidney stones in NHS trusts in England

  Procedure

  Gallstones

  Kidney stones

  1998–99

  35,754

  21,323

  1999–2000

  36,457

  21,290

  2000–01

  39,090

  21,445

  2001–02

  40,127

  20,725

  2002–03

  43,679

  21,293

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Child/Adolescent Mental Health Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) provision in England. [154632]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department conducts annual surveys of the range of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) available in England. The first of these took place in autumn 2002 and represents the latest data available. I have arranged for a copy of the document that summarises the results of this survey to be placed in the Library.

  The survey did reveal some geographical disparities in CAMHS provision which reinforce the need to press ahead with the Department's objectives of attaining year-on-year increases in CAMHS provision of a minimum of 10 per cent. leading to a comprehensive CAMHS in all areas by 2006. Investment of £250 million over three years is being made to help achieve this.

  Group B Streptococcus
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures his Department has collated on the number of cases of Group B Streptococcus in each of the last five years. [153422]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures on the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) of Group B Streptococcus in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  FCEs

  1998–99

  3,208

  1999–2000

  4,057

  2000–01

  5,513

  2001–02

  5,822

  2002–03

  7,137

  Notes:

  1. An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  2. All Diagnosis count of Episodes—these figures represent a count of all FCEs where the diagnosis was mentioned in any of the 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in an HES record. A record is only included once in each count, even if a diagnosis is mentioned in more than one diagnosis field of the record.
  1544W
  3. Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data. Except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  4. Data Quality—Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are compiled from data sent by over 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. The Department of Health liaise closely with these organisations to ensure that data quality is enhanced wherever possible. Inevitably, some shortcomings remain, but our goal is to minimise inaccuracies and bring about improvement over time.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the scope of the NHS National IT programme is in relation to(a) social services departments and (b) pharmacists; and if he will make a statement. [152812]

  Mr. Hutton
  The key objective of the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) in the national health service in England is to support, over time, the delivery of integrated health and social care by enabling appropriate access to records and improved storage, sharing and management of core data.

  NPfIT is responsible for introducing the NHS Care Record Service (NHS CRS), which will firstly lead to the NHS having an integrated electronic record management service. The NHS CRS will provide each patient with a single comprehensive set of electronic medical and care notes.

  Local practices and hospitals will continue to hold detailed local records, but additionally a summary health record will be created containing essential data such as allergies, current treatments or medication.

  From the outset some elements of social care information will be included and, provided that the necessary security and networking requirements are met, some social care professionals will have access to the NHS CRS. Full implementation of a unified health record that includes all appropriate social care information is planned for completion during phase 3 of the NPfIT in 2008–10.

  We have redefined the scope of the electronic transmission of prescriptions (ETP) programme in order to support the wider pharmacy agenda. This potentially offers greater benefit. For example, in terms of patient safety, there will be better information at the points of prescribing and dispensing. It will enable us to make better use of pharmacists' skills and use them to provide patient centred healthcare services that are integral to the NHS.

  The ETP programme will enable the commitments made in "Delivering 21st Century IT" be taken forward and will provide support for the broader pharmacy agenda outlined in "Pharmacy in the Future" and "A Vision for Pharmacy in the New NHS".

  The programme will also help to build capacity at the Prescription Pricing Authority, thereby enabling the projected increase in prescription volumes to be addressed. It will also potentially reduce the unit cost of administering prescriptions.
  1545W
  Key elements of the electronic transmission of prescriptions system have been procured as part of the recently concluded NHS CRS procurements. Work is now focusing on how community pharmacies can be connected to the system, and how their pharmacy computer systems can be upgraded to comply with the requisite technical specification. It is intended that deployment of the live system will commence from January 2005.

  Joint Replacements
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip and (b) knee replacements paid for out of NHS funds were performed in (i) the public sector and (ii) the private sector in each year since 1999, broken down by hospital trust; and if he will make a statement. [152764]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health records activity in national health service hospitals only and does not collect data for NHS activity in private hospitals.

  Information on the number of hip and knee replacement operations carried out broken down by individual NHS hospitals in each year since 1999–2000, has been placed in the Library.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost per operation was for(a) hip and (b) knee replacements in each hospital trust in financial year 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [152765]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in Library. The table contains the average unit costs (per operation) for each national health service trust in England for primary hip replacements and primary knee replacements where the operation is undertaken as an elective (planned) admission.

  The data source is the Reference Costs 2000 Publication, relating to the financial year 1999–2000.

  Calculation of the costs provided are based on all activity and costs associated with each procedure, regardless of the specialty in which the activity is recorded.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the data will be made available for the financial year 2002–03 for the cost per operation of(a) hip and (b) knee replacements in each hospital trust; and if he will make a statement. [152766]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in Library. The table contains the average unit costs (per operation) for each national health service trust in England for primary hip replacements and primary knee replacements where the operation is undertaken as an elective (planned) admission.

  The data source is the Reference Costs 2003 Collection, relating to the financial year 2002–03, published on 5 February.

  Calculation of the costs provided is based on all activity and costs associated with each procedure, regardless of the specialty in which the activity is recorded. The costs relate solely to services provided to NHS patient by NHS providers.
  1546W

  Junior Doctors
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances junior doctors, changing hospitals as part of their normal rotation, can receive substantial pay cuts; and if he will list the London hospitals where this takes place. [R] [153427]

  Mr. Hutton
  Junior doctors do not receive pay cuts as part of their normal rotation (and therefore, as this does not take place in any London hospital, no data are available).

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will visit Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital to discuss(a) the management and (b) salary payments of junior doctors on rotation there;[R] [153426]

  (2) if he will investigate junior doctors' hours monitoring at Great Ormond Street Hospital in the department of neurosurgery. [R] [153416]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Great Ormond Street in the near future.

  National health service trusts are responsible for ensuring that appropriate rotation and salary arrangements are in place for junior doctors in line with national guidance.

  Under those arrangements, there is regular monitoring to ensure that rotas are satisfactory, that junior doctors' hours are within agreed limits and that safe services are provided.

  Great Ormond Street has these arrangements in place, and policies and procedures under which any concerns can be raised and addressed.

  NHS Estates
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason the deal to sell NHS Estates surplus properties and inventures to the HBOS/Miller Consortium has not yet been completed; and when he expects completion; [147753]

  (2) which sites initially identified in the proposed sale of NHS Estates surplus properties with inventures to the HBOS/Miller consortium are now not to be included. [147755]

  Mr. Hutton
  Commercially confidential discussions with Miller/HBOS are still taking place and an announcement should be made shortly.

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons NHS Professionals does not use agency staff supplied to it through arrangements with private agencies who have previously registered with NHS Professionals; and what estimate NHS Professionals has made of the number of staff who have been declined in this way. [152991]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Professionals Special Health Authority works in partnership with national health service trusts to provide temporary staffing solutions. In the first instance, NHS Professionals will always
  1547W
  endeavour to provide staff from its own bank. If this is not possible, then vacancies will be passed to agency staff approved by the partner trust.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate NHS Professionals has made of the unit cost of an agency placement. [152993]

  Mr. Hutton
  Because of variations in the method of calculation, the NHS Professionals Special Health Authority is unable to estimate a reliable average unit cost for an agency placement.

  Public Bodies
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the costs were of setting up the Commission for Social Care Inspection; and what estimate has been made of the costs of operation in its first year. [154466]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The set up of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is still ongoing and the final cost is not yet available but the estimated total cost is in the order of £7 million.

  A budget for the cost of operating the new body in its first year (2004–05) has not yet been set but its running cost it is likely to be in the region of £150 million. As the new body will be part-financed from fees generated from its regulatory and inspection function, the net running cost which is met by a grant in aid from the Department is likely to be around £104 million.

  Rural Elderly
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the support structures in place to promote the well-being of the rural elderly. [153999]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In March 2003, the Department of Health provided information to the Countryside Agency on 'rural proofing' health and social care services, including those for older people. This information was included in the agency's report Rural Proofing in 2002–03. The report can be viewed at www.countryside.gov.uk/publications.

  Skin Disease
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reasons the management of chronic skin disease was not included within the directed enhanced services of the new general medical services contract; [153259]
  1548W
  (2) for what reason skin diseases were omitted from the new general practitioner contract; and if he will make a statement; [R] [153260]

  (3) what input his Department had in deciding the disease areas outlined under clinical domains in the quality framework for the general practitioner contract; [R] [153261]

  (4)what factors were taken into account in deciding which disease areas should be included in the general practitioner contract's quality framework and essential services; [R] [153262]

  (5) what assessment he has made of how the new general practitioner contract will benefit patients with chronic skin conditions. [R] [153263]

  Mr. Hutton
  No disease is omitted from the new general medical services contract. The legal definition of essential services ensures that skin conditions will continue to be managed and treated in primary care to the extent such conditions can be handled appropriately and effectively in that setting. The contract also provides unprecedented investment in primary care and new mechanisms and opportunities through enhanced services to expand the range of services, improve convenience and choice for patients. This will allow the shift of specialised dermatology services from hospitals to primary care.

  The quality and outcomes framework was developed by an independent group of academic general practitioners whose recommendations on which disease areas to include were based on the disease priorities across the United Kingdom, evidence-based practice and accepted national clinical guidelines, and an understanding that responsibility for ongoing management and care of patients rests principally with general practitioners and the primary care team.

  The contract was negotiated and agreed by the National Health Service Confederation, acting on behalf of all UK Health Departments, and the British Medical Association.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the impact on the NHS of the Working Time Directive changes coming into force this year. [152820]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department regularly discusses the impact of the Working Time Directive both formally and informally with key professional groups and national health service managers in the context of NHS compliance for doctors in training from 1 August 2004.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Gender Recognition
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard the marriage of two persons each possessing the chromosomes and sexual organs of the same sex as being a same-sex marriage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Government believe that marriage should be possible only between people of opposite gender in law. The Gender Recognition Bill will enable transsexual people who have gained legal recognition in their acquired gender to marry someone of the opposite legal gender. Marriages contracted by transsexual people, once their change of gender has been legally recognised, will be valid marriages between a male and a female, not same-sex marriages.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord did not quite answer the Question on the Order Paper. Is he aware that he was a little more frank in his Written Answer yesterday to the question of whether the Government would regard the marriage of two persons, each of whom is capable of giving birth to children, as being a same-sex relationship? His answer to that was "No". Is it not the case that, to be consistent, his Answer to this Question must also be "No"?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I awoke this morning I had a slight sense of what it must be like to be Tantalus—to realise that one awakes each morning to answer Questions by the eminent noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about sex and gender. We have addressed the issues many times before through the 21 hours that we have given to the Bill. It has been a privilege to be part of that process, in which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has been as redoubtable as any.
However, at heart, the Government's position is that it is right and proper for the state, after a proper process of testing, to give legal recognition to people who meet the tests as set out in the Bill. Unfortunately, those tests about which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, argues do not hinge on issues of chromosomes or genitalia. The reason that they should not was made eminently clear by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Turnberg, at the Report stage. I could bore the House on that, but I shall not; however, I recommend that noble Lords read the report of proceedings. It sets out explicitly why the medical science on the issues is incredibly more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would have us believe.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that one of the main cruxes of the issue is the difference between what marriage is and what views individuals or collective legislatures may or may not have about same-sex relationships?
Lord Filkin: I do, my Lords. It has been one of the toughest issues of the Bill as regards policy and humanity. We have taken the position, which has not been universally popular on all Benches, that marriage must be a union recognised by the state between people of opposite gender. That is why, as part of the Bill's process, we have said that anyone currently married who wishes to get legal recognition as being of the opposite gender must get divorced. That has been a tough element, but our position has been utterly consistent throughout the passage of the Bill.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the length of time that the House had spent on the Bill. Will he comment on the attempt made last night to defeat the Bill in its entirety—not to amend details, which is surely the function of this Chamber, but to reject it entirely—in circumstances in which the House of Commons could not have used the Parliament Act to bring it back? Will my noble friend comment on the principle at stake in that event?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was very surprised, as I think the House was, because we know that this is a revising Chamber, not a vetoing one. Had such a Motion been carried, the House of Commons would not have been able to consider the Bill. Therefore, this House would effectively have vetoed the Bill and denied the democratically elected Chamber the opportunity to consider it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Bill will make life easier for a small group of people who suffer severe distress and discrimination at present, and will cause no harm to anyone else?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, puts his finger on the essential issue. Throughout the important and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, noble Lords in many parts of the House have probably recognised that at heart it is proper that the state give legal recognition to the very small number of people who suffer seriously because of the condition that they have experienced. To the extent that there have been significant differences, the arguments have been about peripheral rather than fundamental issues. As attested by the five Divisions that took place, most noble Lords have affirmed exactly the position that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sets out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the expression "same-sex marriage" a contradiction in terms, in accordance with the traditions of our language? If two people of the same sex live together, should they not be described as being in cohabitation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The concept of same-sex marriage is a

1095
contradiction in terms, which is why our position is utterly clear: we are against it, and do not intend to promote it or allow it to take place.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister own up to the fact that his definition of sex is the legal sex of a person, as opposed to what most people would think is the definition; that is the sex of the body that they inhabit?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I seek to be full and straightforward with the House, and not to give simplistic answers. The Bill essentially focuses on by what process the state should give legal recognition to a very small number of people. Because our debates strayed into medical science and the question of whether it was simple and clear to define gender around gonads and chromosomes, we had the benefit of perhaps the most expert advice that this Parliament could have had—from my noble friend Lord Winston. I commend the House to read what he said. I quote:
"Genetics is rapidly changing our understanding of where sex is determined. But to define it simply as genital, hormonal, or as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, seeks to do, as gonadal, is a travesty of what really happens".—[Official Report, 3/2/04; col. 620].

Vocational Courses
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to reverse the decline in the proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds choosing vocational courses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, official participation statistics for 16 to 17 year-olds show a rise of 1.1 percentage points in the proportion studying vocational courses in 2002–03 to 27.9 per cent. Our 14-to-19 strategy will give young people more freedom to follow programmes that meet their individual needs. Key to this will be the impartial advice and information offered. To widen choice, we are strengthening vocational and work-related opportunities, including new GCSE and A-Level subjects, together with improved modern apprenticeships.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, although I welcome the very small increase in this past year that the Minister has just named, that nevertheless is a drop from 42 per cent following the vocational route before the introduction of Curriculum 2000. Do the Government realise that they cannot get this wrong? They simply cannot go on playing around with the curriculum when we are suffering from what the British Chambers of Commerce describes as a,
"crippling UK skills shortage, which places a brick wall in front of a business wanting to raise productivity and expand."
1096
We simply cannot afford to allow this to continue. I hope that the Minister will consider telling us today that the Government are considering abandoning the failing vocational A-level, the advanced vocational certificate, which lacks properly qualified teachers to teach it, and which is proving unattractive to students. Can we not restore the GNVQ, which was popular? Is there not also a lesson to be learned from the continuing proportion taking well established qualifications such as the BTEC, and the City and Guilds, which both students and employers understand and respect?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Baroness on what she considers to be the failing A-level courses. We have, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge, a 14-to-19 strategy. It is, as the noble Baroness would say, based on a recognition that we must do as much as we possibly can to ensure that we have the correct and appropriate skills to support our industry and our economy and that as many of our young people who would benefit from staying on at school have the opportunity to do so, whether that involves pursuing an academic or vocational route, or a mixture of the two. The work that Mike Tomlinson is doing will support that, and I hope that the noble Baroness will also do so.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the outstanding success of vocational training in Germany, going back to the days of Otto von Bismarck, and now, through various types of institution, providing vocational training of the highest quality to about two thirds of German teenagers, are the Government studying models such as the Fachoberschulen and taking note of the part-time Berufsschulen, which underpin the experience of those already in the workplace whether it be hospital, bank, office or factory?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: two thirds of young people pursue what I believe is known as a dual-system apprenticeship, a combination of on-the-job training with one or two days per week at college. Indeed, all of these interesting models are being looked at by Mike Tomlinson in his review of the 14-to-19 strategy. The system in Germany has had a good record of productivity, but issues are being investigated such as the rapidly changing needs in terms of skills, as well as the declining number of apprenticeships available in Germany. None the less, we are looking at these models.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that some young people who occasionally have kicked the dust of school off their heels, but who have very good practical skills, are far better off in a college of further education than either staying at school or going to university? In fact, that is much more likely to lead to a well paid job that uses those skills.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is much in what the noble Baroness says, but it is not an

1097
"either/or"; it is a "both/and". The opportunities for our young people to study in different settings or institutions in order to get the best that they can are important. That is at the heart of the 14-to-19 strategy.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a danger that the enormous pressure to succeed at A-level in the academic stream encourages schools to be selective as to their sixth-form entry and is therefore not very conducive to encouraging children to stay on for a less academic future, which nevertheless involves further education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the partnerships that are now under way between schools and further education colleges are a good way of demonstrating that link between wanting young people to be able to focus on an academic and/or a vocational setting with the appropriateness of the skills that they want to acquire and are capable of acquiring in some circumstances. The kind of vocational A-levels that schools are now offering include business, health and social care and manufacturing science. Many schools are now beginning to look at the potential to offer these either in partnership with each other, or in partnership with FE colleges.
We have to be careful about assuming that there is one category of young people who fit into one setting and another category who fit into another setting. It is about a plurality of settings and the ability of young people to move freely and easily in order to obtain the best that they can from education.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the simple truth that some of us have a fundamental disagreement with government policy on this issue? Far too many young people are being lured into higher education with the promise of work that very often does not exist. Has my noble friend not heard the complaints of employers who are running modern apprenticeship programmes? They say that they can no longer get the high-quality trainees that they got in the old days when, as far as I am concerned, the system was far better?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I can possibly agree with my noble friend that young people are being lured into higher education. That is not something that I recognise. It is absolutely clear—I think the House is united on this—that we want to ensure that all our young people have the opportunity to benefit from an education system appropriate to their skills and needs, which prepares them for employment and life in the future.
What we argue about is the means to that end. It is my firm belief that the way to do this is to have flexibility in a system that recognises children do not come in boxes marked "vocational", "academic" or anything else. They have different skills and needs. We are trying to ensure that, through whatever means, all
1098
young people capable of getting the best from education at a further or higher level get that chance. That is a noble aspiration.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, in her reply the Minister referred to modern apprenticeships. I am one of those people who warmly welcome the progress now being made to increase the number of people taking modern apprenticeships. I also welcome what I hear about the Government's thinking on introducing a pre-apprenticeship stage—key stage 4. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm what I think she said in her initial Answer. Do the Government intend to learn the lessons of the past? Will they ensure that the longer-term reforms for 14 to 19 year-olds recognise that when devising the new diplomas there will be real recognition of the distinctive learning needs of the modern apprenticeship?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I pay tribute to the work that he does. We are of course reflecting on all the lessons that can be learned. We expect the working group on 14-to-19 reform to relate to what has happened with modern apprenticeships and to reflect on how best we can take them forward.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government set up the Learning and Skills Council in order to make progress in that area. Can the Minister give us any information about its success?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain that I heard the noble Baroness correctly. Was she referring to the Learning and Skills Council?
Baroness Hooper: Indeed, my Lords.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are 47 learning and skills councils operating across the country. Their role is to look at education and training in conjunction with their education authorities for the older age group. I would be very happy to put a note in the Library of the House, and to write to the noble Baroness with more details about that. I am conscious of time.

Small Businesses: Single European Market
2.53 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further help they will provide to small businesses in the developing single European market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, UK Trade and Investment offers a range of advice and services to assist small businesses in the developing single European market. We achieve

1099
that through our network of international trade advisers, which is currently being expanded by 15 per cent. In addition, the UK also supports the work of the European Commission's European Information Centre network in its role to promote the benefits of the single market. The centres offer a range of services to the UK SMEs.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But does he share with me the concern arising from the lead story in Small Business News which details the difficulties and expense of small firms exporting into the euro-zone; for example, in setting up euro bank accounts and establishing credit card collection facilities? Does he agree that all this red tape would be swept away were we to join the single currency?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that report was based on a booklet produced by the DTI, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Treasury on trading in the euro-zone. I do not think that it points to the problems that exist in opening euro accounts. It simply identifies the issues which members of the institute should consider discussing with their clients. I agree with the noble Lord that one thing is clear in this debate: if we joined the euro, it would simplify currency exchange.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, could the Minister explain to his noble friend Lord Harrison that what is needed is a bonfire of the EU regulations and red tape that are stifling enterprise, particularly for small businesses? Does he believe that what is needed is less Europe, not more Europe, if small businesses are to thrive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, what is required is better regulation, not more or less of it. In some cases, better regulation would be less regulation. That point is increasingly understood across Europe.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I do not wish to provoke further the Eurosceptics on the Tory Benches, but does the Minister accept that, in order to protect small businesses in the negotiations on the EU budget which will come into effect when the 10 new countries join— in addition to trying to protect the so-called UK rebate—Her Majesty's Government also ought to endeavour to protect regional assistance? Thus, we would not suffer in the negotiations about regional assistance, bearing in mind the significant advantage that small businesses get from regional assistance in the less prosperous parts of our nation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly, when we have those discussions on protecting the UK position, regional assistance is an important objective.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the Minister notice the article in the Times on 17 January in which Monsieur Delors is reported as praising
1100
Britain for staying out of the failing euro? If he believes that we are sensible to stay out, surely we would not want to go in under those circumstances.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I had hoped that the House would resist the temptation to use this rather small Question about the accounting systems of small businesses to raise the whole question of the pros and cons of the euro. One thing that is absolutely clear is that a five-minute debate on the pros and cons of the euro will do nothing for large or small businesses.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, under new Labour business regulation has grown by 53 per cent since 1997 costing, together with increased taxation, some £15 billion every year. How are these horrendous barriers to be overcome by small businesses trying to compete in the single European market? Could the Minister tell the House what the Government are going to do about those two specific problems and when they are going to do it? I know he said that this is a small Question, but it is a very important one, particularly to small businesses.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, to answer a question based on such a contentious assumption, which is totally in dispute, about the scale or amount of regulation would be quite improper. We can have a debate about the amount of regulation, how it is defined and its costs in taxation, but I cannot accept that that is a correct assumption on which to have this debate.

BBC Charter
2.58 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have concerning the renewal of the BBC's charter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched charter review on 11 December, with the publication of a consultation document, The Review of the BBC's Royal Charter. The review will be wide-ranging, with full public consultation, and we hope that it will be characterised by vigorous and open debate. The only certain outcome of the review is that it will result in a strong BBC, independent of government.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer. Does my noble friend accept that during the debate on the Hutton report, whatever differing views there were, there was a strong view across all sectors of your Lordships' House that the BBC should be a strong and independent organisation in the future? Is there not a great danger that the review could become a party political football if, for example, it is mixed up with a possible general election next year? In the circumstances, would my noble friend be prepared to

1101
consider, or at least ask the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to consider, bringing forward the completion of the review to early next year so that it remains outside any discussion on a possible general election, thus retaining a strong and independent BBC, a broadcasting corporation which has earned the admiration of the world?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know no more than my noble friend Lord Barnett about the date of the next general election, but I do know that for a number of decades it has been considered proper to review the charter of the BBC every 10 years. That has not always been the case, but more recently it has been so. The BBC is given a degree of security and knowledge that its position will be re-examined, which is worth doing. To change that timetable for a putative date for the general election seems a poor bargain.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage of the Communications Bill, much comment was made about the undue influence of Mr Ed Richards, a special adviser at No. 10, on the outcome of that legislation? Now we are told that there is another blue-sky thinker ensconced in No. 10 who is seeking to influence the outcome of the BBC charter review. If the Minister does not know, I am talking about the noble Lord, Lord Birt. Can he assure the House that the DCMS will play its proper role in the charter review to protect it from influences from other Whitehall departments, including Downing Street?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had to look around because I was slightly taken aback by the assertion that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has a role in the charter review. I turned around because, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has a special role to play in that review, and we are very grateful to him and to the colleagues who will be appointed to join him in bringing forward an independent view, confirming the independence of the charter review procedure.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may try again with my noble friend. I hope he does not mind if I say that I found his previous response wholly inadequate. He said that we should not change the approximate 10-year review system that has lasted for so long, but I was not asking him to do so. Does he agree that if this House and Parliament were formally to complete the review by early next year, it need not be implemented until 2006, which is the date in question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that there are no circumstances in which we should not change the 10-year review interval; I said that we should not do it for a bad reason. Changing the interval for a reason such as proposed by my noble friend, which would be in unjustified knowledge and anticipation of the date of the next general election, would be a bad one.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answer to my noble friend
1102
about the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, left confusion more confounded since he made no clear statement about whether the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is informally or formally—as a private citizen or as an occupant of No. 10 Downing Street—playing an acknowledged, deliberate part in the process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said nothing about the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I expressed my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for agreeing to participate in the charter review process, bringing to it independence, intellectual probity and strength. I said nothing about the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who is perfectly entitled to participate, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, as a private citizen.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, would the noble Lord define what he means by the "independence of the BBC"? Is that purely independence from government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the words I used in my first Answer were, "a strong BBC, independent of government".

Illegal Workers: Morecambe Bay Tragedy
3.4 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of events in Morecambe Bay, they will consider allowing asylum seekers whose applications are pending to take up lawful employment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government share the widespread concern about last week's tragic events in Morecambe Bay and sympathise with those bereaved. We believe it is vital that the asylum process is used for its intended purpose; namely, helping those people fleeing persecution, in line with the 1951 convention. It should not be used as a route for those seeking work. However, the Government support legal migration for work purposes. We have significantly increased the number of work permits issued to UK businesses and opened up routes for lower skilled workers.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness on becoming Peer of the Year.
Our hearts go out to the families of those who lost their lives in Morecambe Bay, in particular those who lost their only source of income. I know that the Minister shares our concern about human trafficking, which now seems to be more profitable than trafficking drugs. Does the Minister agree that the ugly side of this equation is that countless people have lost their lives when being trafficked across frontiers? Those who survive then become victims of exploitation in sweatshops, in cheap labour and in prostitution. Can she explain what is being done to

1103
deal with those who mastermind such operations? How many prosecutions have been brought and is there a Europe-wide strategy to deal with this issue?
Would it not be appropriate to allow asylum seekers to work so that there is some dignity while their applications are being considered?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. I do not believe that it was deserved, but I am very grateful to all noble Lords.
I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about human trafficking because what happened in Morecambe Bay was, of course, a human tragedy first and foremost. The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the numbers engaged in illegal working and the Immigration Service regularly disrupts illegal working activity. Between April and June 2003 the Immigration Service reported carrying out 79 illegal working operations of which 27 were aimed at detecting five or more illegal workers. Between October and November last year the number of reported operations increased by over 75 percent on the second quarter to 141, while the operations aimed at detecting five or more illegal workers rose by over 175 per cent to 75.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord about allowing people to work. Noble Lords will know that we have significantly reduced the time it takes to determine applications, which is of the greatest assistance. We want people to come here by legal means and we are seeking to take out the illegality in the system because it brings tragedies of this kind. We shall eradicate it if it is humanly possible so to do.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, everyone agrees that these people have been quite disgracefully exploited. Can my noble friend tell the House what arrangements are being made to inspect employment sites of this kind to ensure that people are paid at least the minimum wage?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are taking steps, some of which I have just outlined, to enforce the system rigorously. Many gangmasters behave appropriately and obey the regulations, but others do not. A holistic approach needs to be taken to this issue which is what we, together with the many other agencies involved, are doing.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the number of people working in the illegal economy is very large? Given that, what are the Government doing to police, weed out and punish those benefiting from it not only by making high profits but also by penalising local citizens who would expect to be paid a minimum normal working wage?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lord, we are taking a number of steps, not the least of which is the introduction of a new offence of trafficking and exploitation to be included in the asylum Bill. Work is
1104
under way with the Reflex taskforce against organised crime and we have announced the creation of a serious organised crime agency. Those actions underline our determination to tackle organised crime in co-operation with our international partners. This is something which we have to pursue with increasing vigour. I can assure the House that this Government are wholly committed to bringing this dreadful practice to an end.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, the tragedy in Morecambe Bay is surely to be added to the tragedy in Worcestershire when a train collided with a minibus full of workers in slightly different but relatively similar circumstances. Does the Minister agree that there seems to be a discernible shift in the public response to these matters because events of this kind display to people the enormous human cost involved in people trafficking and the offering of opportunities for illegal work? Before the last election the Prime Minister offered to Church leaders that he would invest more in the business of educating the public about the nature and sources of asylum seekers and their increased numbers. Does the Minister agree that that would be a way of capitalising on the shift in public mood and facilitate the Government in making proper humane and compassionate provision for asylum seekers in this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that this shows the other side of the equation. The one light on the horizon is that the natural humanity of this country towards those in need is shining out more clearly now than it has hitherto. Education is important and we shall continue to do all we can in that regard. Noble Lords will know that we are revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to ensure that we are all focused on eradicating the illegality at present in the system.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, do the Government accept the recommendation made recently by the All-Party Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—which can be used to seize the assets of people traffickers—should also be used to seize the assets of those who employ illegal workers and subject them to the kind of conditions suffered by those involved in the tragedy at Morecambe Bay?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we shall shortly be revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. As your Lordships know, that legislation deals with employers and the prevention of illegal working. It will strengthen the kinds of documentation that employers are required to check to comply with Section 8. This will make it easier for the Immigration Service to identify and prosecute non-compliant

1105
employers. In the longer term, the introduction of ID cards will be a major boost in the fight against illegal working.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in her response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, she overlooked to report how many prosecutions have been initiated? I should be grateful if she would reply to that point.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have to hand the precise number of prosecutions and I shall write to the noble Lord. I outlined how many operations have been undertaken and the fact that the numbers of prosecutions that have flowed from them have increased. I do not have the information required by the noble Lord, but I shall certainly write to him setting out the figures once I am aware of them.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is well known that Morecambe Bay has a ferocious incoming tide. Was there an error in the tidal predictions in the tide tables for that particular night?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know whether there was an error in the tidal predictions. However, I do know that there were people in Morecambe Bay at that time who were not legally permitted to be there. I cannot comment on the ongoing detailed investigations. Noble Lords will know that five people have been arrested. I am obviously not privy to the evidence that will make up any future prosecution.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned—
Lord Jopling: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that asylum decisions are now being made somewhat more quickly and that is, of course, welcome. But is it not the case that there is still a very large backlog and that appeals take a long time? In those circumstances, does she not agree that it would enhance individual human dignity, as well as saving welfare support, if bona fide applicants were allowed to take up legal work?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind the noble Lord's question but what he suggests would pre-determine whether a claim is well founded. The noble Lord referred to "bona fide" applicants. The whole process that we have put in place seeks to determine that very fact. We have tried to go more quickly for precisely the reason indicated by the noble Lord; namely, that those who have bona fide claims must be allowed to get on
1106
with their lives as quickly as possible. This will enable them to take advantage of work and to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. We have reduced the timescale significantly and the majority of claims are dealt with within six months. That timescale is going down and many claims are now dealt with within two months. I hope noble Lords will agree that that is a very short period which allows people to get on with their lives very quickly indeed.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, speaking as one who for many years represented parts of Morecambe Bay, I associate myself with the Minister's expression of sympathy. But, speaking also as a former fisheries Minister, will the noble Baroness ask her ministerial colleagues to look again at the current exploitation of the fishery resource within Morecambe Bay? It is an extremely valuable resource which, at the moment, is in danger of being over-exploited and fished out. Will the Government consider the possibility of imposing much tighter controls and licensing so that that valuable fishery resource is not totally played out?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. Notwithstanding that his comments go slightly wide of the Question, I absolutely understand why he makes them. I shall ensure that my colleagues are made aware of his comments. The noble Lord will be aware that, even now, there are issues regarding the licensing of fishery matters in this kind of situation.

University of Manchester Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
University of Wales, Cardiff Bill |HL
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Parliament and the EU
3.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on greater parliamentary involvement in European Union work made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's plans for enhancing the role of Parliament in EU matters and in respect of other developments in the European Union.

1107
"This is set to be an important year for the European Union. Ten new members join on 1 May. The elections for a new European Parliament take place in June. We also have the initial proposals on the financing of the European Union after 2006; the continuing efforts to reform the European economy so that it better delivers jobs and prosperity; and the outstanding matter of the intergovernmental conference.
"By the end of this year we hope to conclude accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria and take a decision on whether to launch such negotiations with Turkey. Meanwhile discussions began yesterday in New York on the scope for a re-united Cyprus joining the EU in May.
"These and other EU developments are of profound importance to Britain and to British interests. It is therefore vital that this House and Parliament as a whole have an integral role in debating, influencing and agreeing the policies of the British Government.
"Together with my right honourable friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues, I was concerned to ensure that there was regular and rigorous parliamentary discussion of the intergovernmental conference following the publication of the draft constitutional treaty last summer. We therefore laid a White Paper on the draft treaty before the House last September. Ministers and officials attended a total of 13 sessions with committees in this House and the Lords on the convention and the IGC and responded to 16 Select Committee reports. From last May onwards, when the successive parts of the convention text of the treaty were published, we had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floor of both Houses and three sessions of the new IGC Standing Committee.
"This parliamentary engagement in the IGC process helped develop a better understanding of the issues at stake and strengthened our negotiating position at the EU table. On energy, for example, the strength of opinion in Parliament here helped us to secure an acceptable amendment from the Italian EU presidency.
"This level of scrutiny and debate on the IGC should, in my view, become the norm for providing Parliament with the opportunity to oversee the work of the European Union and the British Government's role within it. Indeed, given the range of issues which the EU now covers, from trade to the environment, from cross-border crime to consumer protection, it is vital that we enhance national democratic scrutiny in this way.
"I greatly applaud the diligent and valuable work of the scrutiny committees in both Houses. But I am sure that they would agree that we also need a broader and earlier focus across Parliament as a whole on the forthcoming plans of the Commission and the Council, and sufficiently in advance so that
1108
all Members of the House and the other place have an opportunity to raise concerns and influence policy before it is set in stone.
"So first, starting in April of this year, and then each January thereafter, the Government will lay before Parliament a White Paper looking at the year ahead for the EU's legislative and other activities. The paper will set out the Government's priorities in the light of the European Commission's legislative and work programme for the year ahead, as well as the operational programme for the forthcoming EU presidencies agreed each December by the European Council.
"At the same time, and subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, I would make an oral statement to the House summarising the White Paper's main themes. In addition, we will publish, as a Command Paper, an interim report each July to take stock of progress and look ahead to the second six-month presidency of the year. These papers will subsume our existing, retrospective reviews of developments in the EU.
"Secondly, to build on the Standing Committee which was set up to look at the convention and then the IGC, the Government favour creating a successor committee, whose remit would be extended to cover the whole of the EU's work. To this end, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House hopes shortly to present proposals to the modernisation committee for its consideration. Our aim is that the new committee would be open to Members of both Houses and that Ministers involved in EU work, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other departments would give statements, respond to questions and participate in debates. I hope also that the House might consider whether ways might be found to allow European commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament also to attend.
"I look forward to the modernisation committee findings and hope the committee might include in its inquiry the operation of the existing European Standing Committees A, B and C, which, to express a purely personal view, seem never to have worked fully as intended.
"Decisions on any new committee are, of course, a matter for the House, along with the other place. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House and I have discussed this idea informally with the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and, indeed, it reflects much of the thinking contained in the committee's report on European Scrutiny in the Commons of 22 May 2002. I have also raised the idea with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and discussed it informally with the chairman of the European Union Committee in the House of Lords.
"Let me turn to a number of other proposals. The first is a more strategic approach to EU business in the form of the three-year strategic programme adopted by the European Council last December,

1109
which we have made available to the chairmen of the scrutiny committees of both Houses. This is designed to overcome the inherent difficulties posed by the existing system of six-month EU presidencies by setting out agreed objectives and priorities for the EU and time frames for their implementation.
"Planning for the British EU presidency in the second half of 2005 is already well under way. This will give us a valuable chance to keep the EU agenda focused on delivering economic reform, jobs and growth. As he announced to the House on 10 December last year, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is already working with his Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg colleagues, as the next presidencies, to achieve better regulation in the EU. For Europe to remain competitive, we must make faster progress on deregulation and on more flexible labour, capital and product markets. An improved EU regulatory framework, according to the International Monetary Fund, could deliver as much as a 7 per cent increase in the EU's GDP and a 3 per cent increase in productivity in the longer term.
"Another issue which needs attention is the transposition of EU legislation into national law. The risk of "gold-plating" the original texts and thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those faced by their competitors in other member states is real.
"It was with this in mind that about 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer Robin Bellis to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation, which I published on 24 November last year. I held a seminar in December to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across government, this House, the EU institutions and the CBI. I have asked the relevant departments to report back to me in six months on the steps they have taken to implement them; and I would welcome the views of the House.
"Britain's national interests are best served by an active engagement with our partners in the European Union. But just as issues such as trade, the environment or organised crime require effective cross-border action through the EU, so it is imperative that national democratic bodies are fully engaged on these issues as well. I hope that the proposals I have set out today will go some way to ensuring that we in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, can be more effective in doing just that".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. To me, it sounds constructive, in parts, especially the White Paper telling us in advance what is coming from the European Union instead of merely reporting what has happened in the past. That will be a great improvement. I favour the continuation, or
1110
development, of the Standing Committee which includes Members of the other place and your Lordships. I think the present committee has worked quite well and this would work better still, especially if it is able to persuade commissioners from Brussels to attend and answer questions. I know from experience that efforts to do so have been made in the past by parliamentary committees, frankly with not much success.
However, while we support all attempts to increase accountability and parliamentary surveillance of European Union law-making, it will be all in vain if new powers accumulate at the level of the EU institutions faster than we can call them to account or even keep track of them. It becomes a "finger in the dyke" exercise against increasingly unfavourable trends. Yet that is exactly what the Government were ready to sign up to in the new draft constitution, prevented only by Poland and Spain, who were blamed for their intransigence. In that constitution, no fewer than 40 new policy domains are brought into majority voting and the central powers of the EU institutions are hugely extended by shared competences and other devices.
I have some questions for the Minister against that background and in the context of those potential dangers. Do the proposed procedures actually return powers to national Parliaments? Everyone is in favour of broader and earlier focus on plans from the European Commission and the Council, but will there be powers to change or halt proposals, either by working alone or in combination with other Parliaments in other member states?
I recall that the draft constitution proposes a Commission review if parliamentary committees challenge the competence of the European Union in the new areas and with new proposals—if enough Parliaments in enough member states make that challenge. That is what is called the yellow card procedure. Many of us took the view—including representatives on the former convention and some Ministers—that the yellow card was not really enough and that a red card was needed to enable the committees of the Parliaments to halt or prevent extension of new competencies and new powers being exercised by European Union institutions. Do the new procedures do anything on that front?
Secondly, although there is talk about scrutiny in the Statement, there is no mention of the process of scrutiny reserve to which Members of this House attach much importance and on which your Lordships reported in detail back in December 2002 in an excellent report from the European Union Select Committee. The report suggested that there should be much tougher hurdles before scrutiny reserve is simply overturned by the Government for this or that reason. In fact, last year, 1,327 EU instruments were placed before the scrutiny committees of both Houses. I do not know how many reserves were placed on those but I do not think that there were very many. However, I know that no fewer than 71 of those reserves were simply overruled by Ministers. That is why your Lordships rightly argued in the Select Committee that

1111
the process needed toughening up. That suggestion is not included in the Statement, which is a great pity, especially as the numbers of instruments will obviously be greater still in an enlarged Community.
My next question concerns the comotology process, the process by which the Commission and committees of the European Parliament—as your Lordships know—in effect decide the shape of new legislation and new instruments. When some of them reach us it is of course a fait accompli—we have only the chance to say yes or no and usually have to say yes. In some cases, legislation does not reach us at all and simply passes unseen and unscrutinised into our law. That is totally unsatisfactory. It is essential that ways are found of involving national parliaments in the law-making process before it is all sewn up elsewhere. I would like the Government to employ their minds to that important area.
I was extremely glad that gold plating was referred to in the Statement. Again, the Lords Select Committee to which I referred had some very strong views and was kind enough to quote my own on this matter. I query why we need a report, by however distinguished a lawyer, about the proposition that our implementation tends to be gold plating in some areas and need not be. Members of the European Parliament—whom it is suggested should be involved in the Standing Committee—could tell us pretty quickly and clearly whether we were overegging this pudding. They are very well informed about the way in which laws are implemented and observed or not observed in different countries. We should not adopt another vast review, but the Select Committees recommendation. When the Government want to bring in another EU-inspired law, they should explain in the initial explanatory memorandum to Parliament exactly how they intend to implement it. We should be able to debate that. That is all we need. We do not need a vast inquiry.
Many other issues are raised by this significant set of proposals. Does the Minister agree that there are three key points that should be kept in mind in meeting the ever growing democratic deficit—the gap between the people of Europe and the activities and proposals of the EU institutions? First, the European Parliament, however hard it works, is not able to achieve that on its own. Secondly, national parliaments must have the real power to change or halt bad and intrusive EU laws and must be involved as early as possible in the process that leads to those laws. Thirdly, the draft constitution now threatening to return to us again will make the whole problem very much worse.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, may I join in emphasising the constructive nature of these proposals announced by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and repeated here? They bear testimony to the truth that it is possible to move quite far down the road of accepting the practicalities of many of the proposals made by the convention and reflected in the draft constitution at the hand of the Government and
1112
Parliament. I also welcome the Government's recognition that time is needed to set up proceedings to make the proposals effective. Many of them reflect and are entirely conformable with the draft protocol on the national Parliaments in the European Union which was appended to the draft treaty.
The particular emphasis of the Statement on advance notice of pending legislation is extremely welcome. The measures for the scrutiny of proposals in advance are broadly welcome, although I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is the Government's preference to seek to establish a joint committee of the two Houses, because that is not entirely clear in the Foreign Secretary's Statement. What precise proposals have the Government in mind for responding to the invitation of the draft protocol that the national Parliaments should send a reasoned opinion on whether legislation conforms with the principles of subsidiarity? There is no specific reference to that in the Statement. A timescale is proposed that is quite short. It will therefore need to be reflected in the procedures of the two Houses if it is to be effectively advanced.
Gold-plating is a subject of some importance. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I welcome what the Statement says. This House has a continuing interest in the matter, but has not to my knowledge been formally involved, save through the informal discussions of the chairman of the scrutiny committee on how this House might be effective. In particular, in addition to the views of the distinguished lawyer, Mr Bellis, what are the views of the parliamentary draftsmen who have such an important role to play in this regard?
Finally, what steps do the Government propose to enhance the transparency of proceedings in the Council in accordance with the provisions in Title IV, Article 49 of the proposed draft treaty requiring Ministers to meet in public when examining and adopting legislative proposals? Without that provision full effective scrutiny of the actions of European legislatures will not be possible.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for their constructive interventions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked about the White Paper being issued in advance of any particular year's proceedings of the two presidencies. He said that this was the opportunity to comment. I am sure that he will have noted from my right honourable friend's Statement that there will be not only a White Paper, but we shall also seek an opportunity to deliver an oral Statement that will give immediacy to comment from both Houses on the proposal. He is right that this is a continuation of the style that was developed as regards the convention and the IGC, much in the way with which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, agreed. However, it is important that both Houses have the opportunity to comment on

1113
what are essentially government suggestions. The noble Lords said that there was a little ambiguity in some of the phraseology of the Statement. In so far as there has been any ambiguity, it is because it is essential for these proposals to go before the Modernisation Committee in another place and before your Lordships own Procedure Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that all of this would be in vain if new powers accrued to the European Union and we were essentially using a parliamentary device, trying to claw back those powers. I very much disagreed with his subsequent comments on the draft treaty. The issue, which the noble Lord and I have debated on a number of occasions, is that the text reinforces the role of national Parliaments. I am surprised that he is not keen on the draft treaty in that respect. I think that it more clearly defines the fact that powers derive from the member states. For the first time, it states that any powers not conferred on the Union by member states remain with those member states. That is an enormously important area. If we are able at the IGC to bring forward the draft treaty in due course, as we hope may be possible under this Irish presidency, I hope that we shall see that desire become a reality.
The exact nature of the powers of any committee would, as I indicated, be a matter for the modernisation committee of the other place, your Lordships' Procedure Committee and the committee itself. Its relationship with the national Parliament—that is to say the committee's relationship with the Floor of the House—would be a matter for discussion. The real point is that, in the absence of the draft treaty, the Government are doing what we can to involve Parliament as fully as possible. I do not know how many times I have stood at the Dispatch Box while noble Lords from all parts of the House have told me that it is vital to have the opportunity to comment before matters are set in stone. I cannot think how many times that point has been made forcefully, notably from the Benches opposite. This is the opportunity. Here it is. We are a listening Government and we are trying to meet precisely that desire.
The problem of scrutiny in another place is alluded to, somewhat decorously, in the Statement in my right honourable friend's comments on committees in another place. He said that it is time to review that issue. By contrast, I think that our Procedure Committee has an outstanding record. I would venture to suggest that the European Union Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has an outstanding record throughout the European Union in the way in which it has been able to comment on developments in the convention and the IGC as they have progressed. That has been of enormous help and importance to us.
Both noble Lords commented on the issue of gold-plating. I suggest that that is evidence that the Government have listened very particularly to what your Lordships' committee has said on this issue and, by extension, to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. The noble Lord asked whether we need to have a lawyer dealing with this.
1114
These are legal matters within the European issue so that is important. Members of the European Parliament are welcome to give their views on this subject, but there is a legal context for gold-plating. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said that he hoped that parliamentary draftsmen and your Lordships" House would be involved in this process. The Statement makes it clear that departments need to give a view on what is happening. It will not be a vast inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said. The inquiry will report back in six months and it must do its job properly.
The noble Lord went on to raise various issues that he felt were important in relation to our Parliament being involved as soon as possible. 1 have covered that point. I have also covered the point that the draft constitution, that is to say the draft treaty, will be enabling on the very points about which the noble Lord is worried, rather than the reverse.
I hope that I have covered a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. He also raised the issue of whether it would be a Joint Committee of both Houses. Let us be clear that that is the Government's preference. That is what we, as Ministers, have discussed and it is our clear preference. The reason it is not absolutely crystal clear in the Statement is that the final decision on that rests in this House and in another place. It is for your Lordships and for another place to decide how committees should be put together. The Government's belief is that it would be best done as a Joint Committee.
The noble Lord asked about the legislation on the principles of subsidiarity and said that we would have to look at the timetable carefully, because of the brevity of the time gaps involved. I undertake to ask my honourable friend the Minister for Europe to look at that issue. It is important. Indeed, we have been talking about trying to garner views and it would be a shame if sufficient time were not allowed.
I hope that I have answered the main points in the replies of both noble Lords to the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I very much welcome the emphasis that is placed on national democratic scrutiny of the work of the European Union and the British Government's role within it. I welcome with equal enthusiasm the fact that they will produce White Papers twice a year and lay them before the House. I also thank her for her kind remarks about the work of the European Union Select Committee. It is true that we are already working upstream, reviewing the Commission's annual work programme and its Green and White Papers. We are reviewing at a very early stage the budget and also priorities of the incoming presidencies.
Regarding a possible successor to the Joint Standing Committee, I shall, of course, consult my Select Committee. However, will the Minister give us an assurance that it will be a genuine Joint Committee, allowing this House to play a full and equal role with

1115
the other place? Secondly, given the fact that there are existing European scrutiny mechanisms in both Houses, I must ask what value a new committee will add. Would there not be value in having the new committee discuss the White Papers, without precluding proper debate in the existing committees? Finally, will the Minister assure the House that any proposals that go to the Modernisation Committee in another place will simultaneously be presented to this House so that the appropriate forums in this House can consider them in parallel, and not after the other place has come to conclusions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for his comments. Like my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary I pay tribute to the valuable work done by the EU committees in both Houses. We value that work far too much to allow anything that we propose to trespass on it. However, as I have indicated to your Lordships, the nature of the new Standing Committee will, of course, be a matter for the relevant committees in both Houses to look at.
The noble Lord asked whether there would be a genuine Joint Committee. As I hope I have made clear, the Government would welcome a fully Joint Committee. However, that is a matter for Parliament. I understand that that would require some procedural changes. I hope that the Procedure Committee in your Lordships' House and the appropriate committee in another place can find a way to bring this about. It is very much to be desired, and I fully endorse the noble Lord's remarks about your Lordships' House, and Members of your Lordships' House, having an equal role.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the added value that such a new committee would bring, and he asked about the value of having a committee to discuss new White Papers without precluding a proper debate. The precise role of the committee is of course a matter for consultation and discussion, but the Government see great benefit in any new committee serving as a forum for the new White Papers on the Commission's future work programme and presidency prospects. The possibility of involving commissioners and MEPs would broaden the basis of that sort of discussion; there would be real added value from the different voices, in addition to the voices of your Lordships and Members in another place.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the proposals going to the Modernisation Committee being simultaneously presented to this House. I agree with the spirit of the question. Without wishing to offend any of the usual channels in your Lordships House, the proposals for a new committee are matters for the House to discuss. Again, however, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have both made clear, we want both Houses to be fully informed. We believe that the value of having both
1116
Houses working as they did on the convention and the IGC shows the importance of both Houses having a say on how the matter is to be taken forward.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the devil may well be in the detail? In this afternoon's Statement, which I broadly welcome as a very constructive approach, we do not have any knowledge at all of the precise proposals being made to the modernisation committee. I emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said—that in those circumstances, this House, and in particular the noble Lord and his committee, should be involved. I can use the words of the Statement to speak of the degree to which they ought to be involved. In another context, the Statement refers to,
"an opportunity to raise concerns and influence policy before it is set in stone".
Those are appropriate words for how the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee ought to engaged.
There is an ever-growing democratic deficit. The answer to that is in our hands, as it is the job of national parliaments, is it not, to take their own powers to control their own governments? In the sense that in the broader areas of forward-looking policy this Statement gives us the opportunity to do that, then I welcome it. However, would my noble friend agree that that should not be confused with the existing scrutiny role undertaken in such different ways between this House and another place? Does she agree that the role that is foreseen is very proactive, and that it is additional and complementary to, rather than an alternative to, the scrutiny that is currently done?
On the role of Members of the European Parliament, much as I admire them, increasingly from afar, can my noble friend tell me what care is taken to avoid any role confusion? Just as it is our role and the role of the British Parliament to control the ministerial input to the Council of Ministers, is not the role of the European Parliament and its parliamentarians limited to control of the Commission and to the Commissions role? It has more than enough work on its plate at the moment to fulfil that role adequately and in totality.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, that the devil is in the detail. It nearly always is. On the question of the precise proposals to be put to the modernisation committee and to the Procedure Committee in your Lordships House, I agree that these are matters about which your Lordships are free to give advice and to offer the Foreign Secretary some thoughts about how details might be addressed.
The noble Lord referred to what he described as the "democratic deficit", and urged noble Lords to take the opportunities afforded to them for engaging in these issues. I endorse everything that he said. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has an enviable record of attendance at the IGC. He attended on every occasion on which he was meant to attend, although I am not sure that the same could be said for some of his honourable and right honourable friends in another place. My point is that it is important that

1117
those of your Lordships who are really concerned about these matters take up the opportunities when they are available to engage in this sort of debate.
On the question of scrutiny, nothing in the Government's proposals should be seen as an alternative to the opportunities for scrutiny that are currently available. As for MEPs and role confusion, as I understand it the Statement suggests that UK Members of the European Parliament might also attend such a meeting. It does not say that they should necessarily become members. The detail of how the process might be handled, if it were to find favour with both the relevant committees, would have to be thrashed out.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I press the Minister on a question put to her by my noble friend Lord Howell? Will there be any return of powers to national parliaments, as opposed to toothless scrutiny? To be more precise, will there be any change to the treaties, which allow the unelected bureaucracy—the Commission—a monopoly of proposing new laws, for instance? Will there be any change to the system whereby when our executive, the Government, have been outvoted or have agreed a new law in Brussels, the House of Commons must enact that law on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court? Powers ceded to Brussels cannot be returned to national parliaments. Will there be any change in that? Will the acquis communautaire be reversed in any way?
Finally, the Minister was bullish about the draft constitution but, even under that, national parliaments are given only a formal right to express an opinion on whether a proposed measure complies with the principles of subsidiarity. The new privilege does not go any wider than that—and, even then, if one-third of national parliaments do object, the Commission is obliged only to review the measure. After that, it may maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal as it pleases.
To return to my noble friend's question, is any real power being returned to national parliaments, or is this all just more window dressing?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is the power to influence. I do not know how many times the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has challenged me and said that what we were doing was not good enough because we keep on presenting Parliament with a fait accompli. I am telling him that here is an opportunity, for him and for others, to put forward their point of view before issues are "set in stone"—to use the language in my right honourable friend's Statement.
The noble Lord is far too old a hand to ask me whether this means a treaty change; of course it does not. The noble Lord must give your Lordships credit for some common sense. A treaty can be changed only, as the noble Lord knows, by unanimous decision by those who signed up to it. Of course, that does not mean that Parliament loses its sovereign powers to take decisions that a sovereign power is entitled to take, but it does mean that there might be a quite heavy
1118
price to pay in those circumstances. In and of itself, of course that does not mean any "return of powers", to use the noble Lord's language. He says, "Well then so what?" It does mean that he will have the opportunity, which he has said over and over again that he wanted, to get in on the ground floor and try to influence the way in which future treaties are drawn up.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that it is our turn.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is not seeking information to make this thing work, but flying a kite to try to get us out of the European Union, as he does every time.
I refer to a point that my noble friend Lord Maclennan made. Are we any nearer to getting to grips with what goes on in the Council? This is the Achilles heel of the whole situation at the moment. We know that in some countries Ministers are mandated before they go to Council meetings. I doubt whether that works quite as well as they sometimes pretend that it does, but are we any nearer to reaching a position where Parliament knows before Ministers go to Council meetings what is on the agenda and what positions they are going to take up—not necessarily the detailed positions but the general principles—so that Parliament can express itself either through its committees or through the House itself?
One of the problems in another place is that the amount of time that Members get to debate matters that have been referred to them by their excellent Select Committee—which does a rather different job from the one here—is very limited indeed. It refers matters to a Standing Committee or very, very occasionally has its reports debated on the Floor of the House. That seems to me another area where perhaps our colleagues in another place might lean on the authorities there.
I come back to the question of what will be the role of Members of this House in this new committee. We cannot any longer allow the crumbs that drop from the Commons table to be the only thing that we are allowed to taste. The idea that noble Lords are allowed to attend on sufferance seems to me to be unacceptable. I hope that the Government will use their influence with the authorities in another place to make sure that the committee really becomes a Joint Committee. I am sure that noble Lords feel quite strongly about that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I put my cards on the table—I feel quite strongly about the matter. When this was suggested, I as the Foreign Office spokesman in your Lordships' House, and having had the honour to be so over a number of years, was very clear what I thought. I am very clear what

1119
noble Lords would think were they not to be put in that position. However, I say to your Lordships that this is not a matter for me. This is a matter for both Houses to decide. I can say what the Government's position is and how much I am committed to that position, but I am not in a position to deliver on it, as the noble Lord knows. However, that is not the only opportunity for the noble Lord and his colleagues to get to better grips—to use his words—with what goes on at the Council. An opportunity will be afforded by the two White Papers to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, alluded earlier. One will give the outlook for the year and will be delivered in April this year but in January in succeeding years. The other will conduct a kind of stock take in July after the first presidency.
Quite apart from the normal reporting back after EU summits which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister undertakes, there will be the opportunity for your Lordships to engage at an early stage with the menu of what will be on the EU agenda for the following year. As regards the noble Lord's remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was not really seeking information but it is good fun answering his questions anyway.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it was a long Statement and I want to study it in great depth because there was a lot in it. The Minister will know my views on Europe and that I do not believe we can really control this burgeoning European colossus, but nevertheless there are some interesting proposals in the Statement. I want to concentrate on two of them. First, exactly how effective will the Standing Committee be irrespective of the role the Lords have to play? We shall have to deal with our role ourselves; the noble Baroness cannot do that, as she said.
However, it is the power of the Standing Committee itself that will count. I attended all the Standing Committee meetings on the convention and the draft constitution so I know exactly how it works. In fact, it was completely and utterly ineffective. Therefore, what powers will the new body have? Will it merely be able to take note as the previous ones did or will it be able to make recommendations to Ministers and to the Government, if not give instructions to the Government? Those questions need to be answered if the committee is to be seen to be effective. I should also ask whether Ministers of the Crown will always be present at the relevant meetings to take part in and answer the debates. Those questions are relevant and important.
The second proposal involves the question of MEPs. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, put the matter in a nutshell. They have their role and we have our role. If the twain shall meet, both those roles will not be clear—they will be blurred. As we have seen with the committee of Members of Parliament from the various countries who meet with the European Parliament,
1120
COSAC, the European Parliament tends to want to dominate. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that point too.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall do my best to reply at top speed. I am very aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I do not think that there is a burgeoning European colossus. In any case, the Statement is about the Government, not about the European Union. As regards how effective the Standing Committee will be, that is a matter for the Standing Committee, your Lordships' House and another place. As Members of Parliament you have it within your power to make this committee effective, if that is what you wish to see. Ministers will take the matter very seriously. This is not an exercise in presentational skills; it is serious in intent. We took the convention and the IGC seriously. We took part in 13 sessions and responded to 16 Select Committee reports and more than a dozen debates on the Floors of both Houses.
The questions that the noble Lord asks about the powers of the committee are matters for the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee in this House. I say with absolute clarity to the noble Lord that the powers of any committee stop short of treaty change, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Ministers of the Crown will attend the relevant meetings if requested; I refer not only to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers but also to Ministers from other government departments. The question of MEPs will be dealt with by the Procedure Committees.

Afghanistan
4.7 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich rose to call attention to the efforts made by NATO and the United Nations to help the people of Afghanistan to defeat terrorism and improve security to assist national reconstruction; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords,
"In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful".
Those are the famous words of the Koran which open speeches all over the Muslim world, and were used by the respected Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, last week when he urged the people to register for the forthcoming elections. They are a reminder that reconstruction is a solemn task, not only for the new Afghan nation but for the whole international community and our soldiers and aid workers who are risking their lives there.
It is a pleasure to be opening a debate on Afghanistan only two weeks after a Commons debate was initiated by the Government themselves—perhaps because the war in Afghanistan has been so eclipsed by the Hutton report and more tragic events in Iraq. The Commons debate opened by Mr Gareth Thomas

1121
focused mainly on development, which is one reason why I shall concentrate today on security for development.
Just over two years ago our intervention against the Taliban was critical in the war against terrorism. I supported that war because it had the support of the United Nations and, most important, of most of the Arab states in the region. I regret that since then our attention, our assistance and so many of our troops have been drawn off to Iraq. We are plainly not giving the Afghan people the same priority. In this context, however, I welcome the commitment of the new NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who clearly intends to take Afghanistan as seriously as his predecessor. He is trying to expand the numbers and the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and to widen the membership of the US-led coalition forces fighting Al'Qaeda. Apart from the US and the UK, the Germans and Canadians have already sent substantial forces to Kabul and over 10 more of our NATO allies have expressed an interest in expanding ISAF beyond Kabul.
The mandate is widening, and yet very little has happened. I understand that our own FCO has had to go round persuading our NATO allies to make actual contributions of troops and resources, and I hope that the Minister can give more details of progress. Can she also comment on the German defence Minister's statement last week that ISAF will be led from August by the Eurocorps?
Meanwhile, many people believe that the situation is deteriorating. Casualties among both NATO troops and NGOs have been mounting. Most recently, and for the first time, there have been suicide bomb attacks. Two such attacks in Kabul only two weeks ago killed first a Canadian soldier and one Afghan, injuring 11 others, and then the following day a British soldier was killed and at least nine others were injured.
Aid workers are increasingly targeted. When Bettina Goislard of UNHCR was murdered in Ghazni in November, she was the 14th aid worker to have died last year, among 84 European peacekeepers killed since the Taliban was ousted. UN missions are still suspended in many parts of the country. Tearfund is the latest charity to pull out of the south. Hundreds of Afghan civilians have died, including a party of schoolchildren hit by the Taliban in Kandahar last month. Some will say that that is the price of war. We all deplore the loss of life among British soldiers and others who are trying to help in Afghanistan. But we are learning a new lesson in peacekeeping: war and peace go hand in hand, and in spite of appearances we are still at war with the Taliban, just as we are at war with elements of the Ba'athists in Iraq.
It is not a war which we can end, because it is in the nature of a country such as Afghanistan—a nation which welds together different ethnic groups and minorities—that not all Afghans are looking for unity. Among the Hazara people in the north who were persecuted by the Taliban, we would find warm support for the new nation and reconstruction. Hazara
1122
children get up very early to walk three hours to school and three hours back, demonstrating that normal life has resumed in many parts of the country. In the south and east, however, many families fear to go out of their houses. Many of the Pashtun who do not support President Karzai are vulnerable to pressure not only from the Taliban, but from their own commanders and drug dealers who hold small communities to ransom.
We are dealing with a civil war in isolated mountainous areas that history suggests is impossible to win permanently. That fact is also exploited by the so-called Al'Qaeda network, linking former Mujaheddin and their Pakistani backers who live in twilight zones along the border. There, thousands of mainly US coalition forces seem holed up for years in their efforts to defeat invisible terrorists. Many so-called terrorists are no more than elusive Taliban with motorbikes and mobile phones who can inflict pain out of all proportion to their strength.
Perhaps the Minister will agree that, in the public mind, that is no longer the necessary war that we went to fight when the Taliban was driven out, but an open-ended war of containment in a no-man's land in which there are only losers, including the intelligence services. The US-led coalition is not winning this hidden war any more than it is in Iraq, otherwise it would surely publicise its successes. Is it not a fact that we in the UK have a different approach? We are rightly concentrating less on the mountain war and more on security surrounding the elections and countering the drugs trade.
The more urgent war is the one for hearts and minds, especially among the Pashtun, who are being told by some that elections and democracy are mere enemy tactics. Incidentally, I spoke to the moderate Pashtun leader Ahmed Gailani this morning, who happens to be in London. He pointed out that the Pashtun still have not been given their rightful place in government, a situation which may change only with free elections in the Pashtun areas.
One way of giving local people more confidence has been through the provincial reconstruction teams, which provide stability in areas where aid workers are already active. However, so far those are mainly in the north. There is still some confusion between military and humanitarian work, but a good UK-led model has been established in Mazar-i Sharif. More than 50 NGOs are working in that area and co-operation has been good.
It is widely acknowledged that that force has provided a degree of stability in Mazar and has played a mediating role between rival northern commanders. However, many NGOs are concerned that the other US-led PRTs do not follow the same pattern. There are a number of concerns about the attitude of US soldiers, but I will simply quote from a note from an Afghan NGO after its representatives had met a US-led PRT. It said:
"They need to share information with NGOs (via the UN), and not just extract it from us".
A greater concern has been the role of militia who answer only to themselves. That is a familiar problem for those engaged in the peace process in Sudan and

1123
elsewhere—that proxy commanders who are not so engaged in nation-building can be easily manipulated by the Taliban. Lakhdar Brahimi, during his last briefings as the outgoing UN special representative, said last month:
"For too many Afghans, the daily insecurity they face comes not from resurgent extremism associated with the Taliban but from the predatory behaviour of local commanders and officials who nominally claim to represent the government…The threat factional forces pose to the peace process has been increasingly compounded by the terrorist tactics of extremists aimed at causing the peace process to fail altogether".
The Minister will know how much influence radical elements in Pakistan, and specifically politicians in the north-west frontier province have on the border provinces in Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb-e Islami party of Afghanistan, broadcasts freely from Peshawar. Can the Minister say how far the latest India-Pakistan agreement has enabled President Musharraf to put more pressure on the MMA coalition in that province to support anti-terrorism measures there? Will that have any effect? What has happened to the non-intervention pact signed by Afghanistan's six neighbours? What guarantee of security does the coalition provide today for people living along the Pakistan border?
What progress can the Minister report with security sector reform, one of the UK's key objectives? Army and police training is still painfully slow and inadequate, with thousands of defectors. Can we do more to help? Only a handful of our police advisers have gone out from the UK, and we are training a very small number of Afghan police officers in the UK. Once again, comparisons with Iraq are inevitable.
Drug control, despite some success with the Iranian customs, is a major challenge. On the plus side, British intelligence apparently contributed to coalition success in an anti-narcotics raid in Badakhshan last month, but it is certainly not enough and is not meeting any of the targets in the Government's PSA. The UN programme and any attempts at diversification will be held back by the failure of central government to control areas in which militias are involved in the opium trade.
I cannot of course mention every initiative which we are supporting in Afghanistan, most of which are extremely good. The BBC World Service continues to be a flagship of objectivity in promoting democracy at a community level and publicising the all-important registration process. Joan Ruddock made a remarkable speech in the Westminster Hall debate about the need for greater participation of women, recognising the achievements to date but pointing out the discrimination and injustice which continues. Women still form about only 20 per cent of the electorate, but there is still time to improve that figure.
Afghanistan is a vast country and the NGOs are already suffering overstretch because of the responsibilities given to them to make up for weaknesses in government services. I hope that the Minister can say something about how we rectify that problem. Mr Gareth Thomas made the important
1124
point on 29 January that NGOs cannot possibly cover the ground on their own. I know, for example, that Save the Children Fund has taken on an enormous task in managing a health programme around Mazar-i Sharif.
In conclusion, the uncertainties and the confusion at the end of a very long civil war are inevitably still delaying the process of reconstruction. Those people who believe in national unity are looking forward to the promised changes represented by the new constitution and the elections. But those changes require that the Government continue to command respect from all the commanders and that donors fulfil the promises made at Bonn, backed up by the coalition's claimed guarantee of security along the Pakistan border. I am sure that we will hear from the Minister about the planned conference in Germany.
However, I am not sure that the international community is keeping the promises that it has made to Afghanistan. The present political and military scene is still far from the vision of unity in Afghanistan which the international community presented after October 2001. The elections will tell, but the majority of Afghans outside Kabul remain unaware and uncommitted and are still dazed by the ravages of war, whose consequences are visible around them. I beg to move for Papers.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has provided the House with a well timed opportunity to look at the security situation in Afghanistan, particularly just after the NATO ministers' meeting in Munich at the weekend. He is quite right to express reservations about the failure of the international community to honour the promises that were made to Afghanistan at the time that we went in. I draw your Lordships' attention to the UN Secretary-General's warning to the General Assembly at the beginning of December. He said:
"The increase in attacks on United Nations staff and other international and Afghan civilians engaged in providing assistance and furthering the peace process is a matter of the utmost concern".
The situation has continued to worsen since then. The 5,500 troops in the NATO-led ISAF force are woefully inadequate even for the task of maintaining law and order in Kabul and the north, while the Afghan National Army, estimated to number 7,000 men at the moment, has already lost 3,000 men through desertion, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, and is not an operational force. People in Afghanistan are not convinced that terrorism will be defeated when half the country is a "no-go" area and the suicide bombers are killing ISAF personnel and civilians, even in Kabul.
As the noble Earl said, NATO's response has been to create five new provincial reconstruction teams and the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said that Britain would be prepared to lead one of those teams. Will the Minister say where the additional forces are to come from? The PRTs vary between 80

1125
and 300 in size, so we are not talking about large numbers in the field, but they require logistical and back office support and there would have to be provision for rotation so that they did not have to remain there permanently.
The PRTs are not an adequate response to the level of insecurity in most of the country. I do not think that there is one in Badakhshan, as was mentioned by the noble Earl. If there had been, it would have been unable to stop or prevent the fighting between the two warlords who control the drug business in that area. The mandate of the PRTs is not precise and that may deter some of the candidates from signing up. But given the size of the PRTs, they are clearly not designed to cope with factional conflicts or terrorism. The Kandahar PRT has become a major target for terrorist attacks and the same is happening in Ghazni and Jalalabad. How does ISAF propose to cope with the escalation of terrorism by neo-Taliban forces and what will be the relationship between the expanded ISAF and the 11,000-strong US operation "Enduring Freedom", which continues to look for Taliban and other terrorist groups in the region and runs its own PRTs?
The noble Earl gave figures for casualties. In January, 15 people were killed and 60 were injured when two bombs exploded within minutes of each other in Kandahar city. The same day, 12 Hazaras were killed when they were travelling through the Baghran district of Helmand province. In the past six months alone 400 civilians have been killed in southern Afghanistan and in the past nine months 13 aid workers have been killed in the south and east.
Humanitarian agencies are leaving. The noble Earl mentioned Tearfund, a UK-based organisation which had 45 staff working in 28 villages around Kandahar. They are the latest to go. Not one NGO now works in the villages and rural areas around Kandahar and only MSF and InterSOS have a skeleton staff inside the city. The UN also says that it is suspending most of its operations in the south-east provinces of Nangarhar and Kunar after a series of explosions and the vandalising of a girls' primary school. Paktika and Ghanzni provinces are considered to be high risk areas. In the south, the UN has withdrawn completely, except for the immediate surroundings of Kandahar and one district in Helmand province.
Surely that is handing the terrorists a victory. They want Afghanistan to descend into the chaos and poverty in which only they and the drug barons, with whom they have a symbiotic relationship, can prosper. Instead of withdrawing, the response should have been to put more security forces into those provinces. Effectively, a line seems to have been drawn that cuts Afghanistan in half, abandoning all the communities south of that line to their fate. There will be no education for women below that line and anyone who collaborated with the UN or the aid agencies will be at risk of persecution or even assassination. A few days ago a district official in Uruzgan province was blown up, together with his wife, three sons and two brothers. If incidents of that kind continue to be unchecked and those responsible are not rooted out and punished, the extremists will flourish. Sooner or later much larger
1126
forces will be needed to deal with them, both in Afghanistan and abroad. It is suicidally short-sighted for the international community to withdraw in the face of that terrorist aggression.
How can the international community spend the money available for reconstruction if there is no one on the ground? The US has allocated for Afghanistan 1.5 billion dollars in 2004 and 1.2 billion dollars in 2005. No doubt there are comparable sums on offer from the European Union and other donors. The transitional assistance programme for the year ending March 2004 came to 815 million dollars. Will that money have been spent? If not, will it be possible to say how much of the shortfall is attributable to the security problem in the south and south-east? For example, how much will have been spent of the 8 million dollars allocated to narcotics control and drug cultivation?
The UN Secretary-General told the Security Council in July that cultivation, production and trafficking in illegal narcotics threatened not only peace in Afghanistan but had regional and global consequences. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1.7 million people, 7 per cent of the population, are directly involved in poppy cultivation and trading. They produce three quarters of the global output of heroin. In 2003 that cultivation grossed 2.3 billion dollars and people working for it earned around 3,900 dollars per family. That compares with an average national wage of 2 dollars a day. When those figures are looked at, the FAO's request for 25.5 million dollars over five years to finance alternative crops in the poppy growing areas is pitifully small. On the BBC's "PM" programme on Monday it was reported that there are now thousands of addicts in Kabul itself. They have one treatment unit with six places, which is totally inundated by the patients applying to be treated there. The problem is that there is no other crop which is anything like as profitable and the alternatives would require substantial capital input to start them up. Can the Minister say what positive suggestions were made at the international counter narcotics conference on Afghanistan held in Kabul a couple of days ago?
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, our attention has been distracted by Iraq. Perhaps because of that we do not have the resources to ensure that Afghanistan becomes a democratic country not just with elections, but with functioning institutions, a state in which force is concentrated in the hands of the government and everyone joins together to defeat terrorism and to rebuild civil society. The war against Saddam may have removed one dictator, but it also seriously impaired our ability to counter the enemies of peace and harmony everywhere else. Afghanistan still presents a challenge to the ideals of freedom and justice to which the world has not yet risen.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate about Afghanistan and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having introduced it. I am particularly concerned about what has happened to women. I remember that

1127
years ago, when I was still a trade union official, one of my colleagues joined a group of women trade unionists who went to Afghanistan to see for themselves what the situation was. It was before the war which so devastated that country. It was when President Najibullah was in power. The regime was not popular in the West as it was seen as pro-Soviet.
However, my colleague, who was an experienced and respected trade union official, reported that women had access to education, to health and child care and to employment. Many were active in public life. She reported favourably on the progress that was being made.
Then of course there was the rebellion against the regime—a rebellion which was supported by America and ourselves, incidentally. Indeed, the National Security Adviser to the then President, Zbigniew Brzezinski, actually boasted of US support for the Mujahidin, referring to an "Afghan trap" which drew the Russians into invading with the results we now know.
The West continued to support the Mujahadin— many of them Islamic extremists—who at that time included Osama bin Laden. They were described as "freedom fighters". The Russians withdrew eventually after a brutal war, but the victors were certainly not democrats. On the contrary, they were themselves responsible for appalling attacks on civilians, much of the brutality being directed against women. The lawless anarchy was so great that when the Taliban took over, the population almost welcomed the relative security that it brought.
Some of the Mujahidin had been motivated by a general hatred of western culture, and in particular of the relative freedom that had existed for women. They had murdered teachers in schools where girls were being taught and burnt the schools down because they did not want women to be educated. The Taliban, as we know, while they brought more security, nevertheless introduced the most extreme aspects of Sharia law. Women were barred from education, from healthcare, from jobs and from public life and were forced to abide by the strictest dress code, suffering beatings for the slightest infringement.
Women who had been educated under the Najibullah regime attempted, at enormous risk to themselves, to pass on what they had learnt to girls in secret, as they were concerned lest generations of women would grow up without education and quite unable to earn any sort of livelihood. Women widowed in the wars were left with no alternative but to beg for themselves and their children.
I refer to those past events to illustrate that the past 20 years has seen a culture develop which is profoundly discriminatory towards women. Indeed, it is not too much to say that recent regimes, until the present one, have actually been led by individuals with an almost pathological hatred of women. The present regime is of course trying to restore rights to women. Some women have emerged to play a role in public life, but it must require enormous courage. It is difficult and
1128
enormously complicated. I understand that the rule of the regime does not extend much beyond Kabul. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, illustrated that in his interesting address today.
Parts of the country appear to be under the domination of the very warlords who were responsible for previous brutalities. Bin Laden has not been captured and the Taliban appear to be active in certain areas. Moreover, the drug culture which, for all their faults, the Taliban appear to have stamped out, has made a reappearance, much to the concern of neighbouring countries and to ourselves. And there is the culture of violence which so often accompanies regimes where there is drug dependency. The long years of war, food shortages, loss of homes with many people becoming homeless refugees in their own country, have had a devastating effect upon women, often left alone as a result of the casualties of war and often the sole support of young children.
We now have an obligation to try to bring peace to this ravaged country and, fortunately, there now seems to be international co-operation to that end. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell us a great deal more about that today. There is an urgent need to bring support and succour to the women of Afghanistan who have suffered so much in the wars that have ruined the country and for which they bear no responsibility at all. They are the real victims. I know that the Minister is herself concerned about these problems and I wait to hear from her with interest.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is some 12 years since I was last in contact with a large number of Afghan refugees. I, like other speakers, am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate today. It gives us a chance to focus on an area that is almost being forgotten by the media in the light of other issues.
I want to endorse, without repeating, every word spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on the situation of women. There is a sliding backwards for women in Afghanistan because they cannot exert any of the rights which so many of us take for granted. They need our help and they deserve it. I hope that special measures can be taken, particularly through the provincial reconstruction teams, to help women. I shall be grateful for anything the Minister can say on that score.
One of the problems we are facing in Afghanistan is the crucial need to establish security, for security without development means no progress. It is a stultifying situation in any war zone simply to keep the peace and do no more. That is why the Mazar-e-Sharif provincial reconstruction team, led by the British, is being so successful. The clusters of lightly armed soldiers are there to assist in rebuilding, but the difficulty is that most PRTs have a vague mandate. Furthermore, they do not have security backing to enable them to concentrate on the reconstruction for which they were set up. They receive air support from

1129
the coalition, but they are not part of ISAF, although they have the ability to draw on ISAF's experience. Can the Minister say what we can do to give these provincial reconstruction teams better support to get on with the job? Can we not divert or extend some of the work of the NATO contingent running ISAF to help them with that support so that they can reconstruct?
There is good news coming out of Afghanistan. There has been growth in the economy and more than 2 million refugees have returned home. Yet, thank God, there has not been the kind of humanitarian crisis about which we hear too often in other parts of the world. The Loya Jirga is giving some legitimacy to the country at last. But it is easy to say that without a great deal more sustenance from the international community, the efforts of President Hamid Karzai and others may not succeed. We are at a tipping point with the situation in Afghanistan. Groups of people have been polled on the coming election and 90 per cent have said that they will vote. But of course that will not cover the whole country, as several noble Lords have said.
In addition to those first two issues, where else could we do more to help bring about stability in Afghanistan? Clearly, more soldiers and peacekeepers would make a big difference. I have enough experience in this field to know that it is probably better to divert people to help the reconstruction in Afghanistan than it is to have huge numbers protecting other places in the world, and I believe it to be necessary.
I said that the economy has, indeed, grown by some 28 per cent, but it is still less than half the size it was in 1978. Therefore, what can be done to help the economy to grow? Clearly, Afghanistan needs more food to be grown. However, without water that will not happen. I have heard the argument put forward many times that if we give the Afghans more water, they will simply grow more poppies. I consider that to be a thoroughly defeatist attitude. I believe that if we could devote more of the resources going through the PRTs to the provision of water and basic agricultural assistance, we could help the local communities to gain greater stability through their own efforts.
I note that less than 1 billion dollars of the 4.5 billion dollars promised at the Tokyo conference in 2002 has yet materialised. Further, there is a capacity problem in introducing the resources through development into the areas which are secure enough to start that off.
I have always believed that nothing succeeds like success. The message that gets around is that, when a local community begins to thrive because of the efforts that it makes itself, others want to copy it. Therefore, I hope that we can take the best examples from the great people in the NGOs, DfID and the Foreign Office who are working in Afghanistan and ensure that the messages of success, which do exist, although in too small a part, can be spread to the areas which have not yet engaged in development to any great extent. If we could concentrate more of the resource on water and agriculture, I believe that we would see success.
1130
However, the final area on which I want to concentrate for a moment is the drug situation. Without tackling that to a greater extent, we shall not maintain whatever security we manage to establish through the forces which are there. The Counter-Narcotics Department, which has been instituted, has admirable goals: of 70 percent eradication by 2008 and 100 per cent by 2013. Indeed, we, the British Government, are financing that. But that team is poorly equipped. It is by no means able to reach the goals that it has set itself. Very few of the 28 staff officers in the Counter-Narcotics Department have the relevant experience; there is little money for communication or vehicles; and there is very little money for intelligence gathering, which is a particularly dangerous pursuit in the atmosphere which prevails in Afghanistan.
I know that Mirwais Yassini, the director of the CND, has given us some frightening statistics for the basic scheme which could help the country. He has referred to a need for 300 million dollars over three years. However, it seems to me that, unless we are prepared to make that effort, we shall lose out on the gains that we make from the security that we provide.
Afghanistan is an almost forgotten country at present. I believe we owe it to the bravery of people such as Hamid Karzai and those who seek to re-establish order in Afghanistan to do more than we have been able to do thus far. As a country, we have already made some good and thoughtful contributions. We have set the scene very well. However, we wish that others would copy us—not as a form of flattery, but as a form of vital necessity for ordinary Afghans.
In the debate which our colleagues from another place held in Westminster Hall on 29 January, one area was highlighted repeatedly—that is, the need to help the Afghan people to build up their police force and their judiciary. That is a critical element in continuing the security that foreign forces may help to bring. I hope that the Minister is also able to comment on that in her response.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, as I did in Brussels many years ago, and I want to thank and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on his initiative in holding this debate. After a year in which Iraq stole all the headlines and dominated debates in this House, it is important not to be distracted. We need to keep our eye on, and our commitment to, the crucial transition of Afghanistan from one of the most failed of failed states to one where there is stability, democracy, respect for human rights and economic development, which it is the international community's objective to bring about in that country, however unpromising the initial prospects.
During 2003, there were some signs of just that kind of distraction and weakening of political will and of the drying up of resources. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that that is not so. It is

1131
important to remember that, although the primary cause of Afghanistan's failure as a state was the Soviet intervention in 1979, it was the neglect of the country by the international community in the years following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 which contributed substantially to the disaster which befell Afghanistan in 2001.
Any consideration of how things are going in Afghanistan must begin, as did many other noble Lords, with the security situation. Without better security, there will simply not be stability, democracy and development in the country. And currently the auguries seem to me to be somewhere short of brilliant. The provincial warlords are still dominant; the writ of the central government does not run far outside Kabul; and the south of the country is bandit territory. It is good that some efforts have been made by deploying security and development teams in the north to remedy some of those problems. The fact that NATO, rather than a rotating cast of countries, is now in charge of security assistance to the government has real potential. Perhaps the Minister can say how the incoming Secretary-General of NATO is faring in his praiseworthy efforts to strengthen and extend NATO's presence.
But the running sore is the south. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the remnants of the Taliban are receiving substantial assistance from across the border in Pakistan. Of course, the tribal territories astride the Afghan-Pakistan border have been a source of marauding and destabilisation since the time of the British Empire. But it is surely high time for the US and NATO to enlist from President Musharraf more wholehearted support in clamping down on this than has been forthcoming hitherto.
As to the politics of Afghanistan, the recent adoption of a new constitution is clearly an important step forward. But the fate of previous constitutions does not encourage one to put too much confidence in that development alone. Should it prove possible to hold free and fair elections this summer, that will be an even more significant move. I hope that the Afghan Government and their external supporters will not be easily discouraged from that course, even if insurgent activities make it impossible to hold the elections countrywide. In Cambodia in 1992, it was not possible to hold elections in the part of the country controlled by the Khmer Rouge. The UN, rightly in my view, refused to postpone the elections and the Khmer Rouge were ultimately the losers.
However, there remains one serious weakness in the new Afghan political structure—the lack of the wholehearted support of the Pashtun tribes, without which no Afghan government can hope to achieve stability and sustainability. I realise that neither Gulbuddin Hekmatyar nor the remnants of the Taliban leadership are acceptable interlocutors. However, until it proves possible to win over the support of these tribes and to separate them from their former leaders, the whole construct that we are so laboriously putting together will remain fragile and vulnerable.
1132
Some pessimism would also seem to be in order with regard to the production and trading of drugs. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the latest figures and the prospects in that respect. The drug problem is closely linked to that of security and to the political allegiance of the south of the country. If we cannot find alternative means of livelihood for the inhabitants of these arid and largely barren areas, we are not going to wean them from the drug trade. No amount of repression will on its own do the trick; there has to be carrot as well as stick, which I understand is also the view of Her Majesty's Government. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Baroness, as other noble Lords have asked, where she thinks last week's drugs conference in Kabul leaves this crucial issue.
Over the centuries instability in Afghanistan has occurred as much because of the meddling of its neighbours as of its own indigenous centrifugal tendencies. At least the country is now spared the fate of being a pawn of the great powers, as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. But, in their place, it has neighbours as potentially unstable as itself. I should like to believe that they would have too much on their hands within their own borders to meddle in Afghanistan. But I do not believe that, so I shall repeat a suggestion that I originally made in this House two and-a-half years ago; namely, that we should canvass the possibility of building on the basis of existing commitments and getting a binding, legal international convention to which Afghanistan and all its neighbours would subscribe, and under which all would commit themselves to working for mutual security and the avoidance of any meddling in the affairs of others—a kind of central Asian OSCE, if you like. I have no illusion that such a convention would on its own solve all Afghanistan's problems; but it would, I suggest, provide a solid framework into which to insert the Afghanistan that we are trying to rebuild.
In the end we come back always to that basic task— the rebuilding of a state which has failed; and whose failure has, quite unprecedentedly, made it a threat to us all, because of the way Al'Qaeda ruthlessly exploited its weakness. This issue of failing and failed states is one of the crucial threats and challenges faced by the international community and we are still far from having mastered it. I shall not go into the question of how to stop states failing in the first place, except to say that, as with conflict prevention, we need to concentrate more of our efforts on avoiding the problem than on waiting for it to happen and then expensively and painstakingly remedying it.
In Afghanistan, we are well beyond that. The state failed and we are now trying to help it to rebuild itself. Afghanistan is of course not the only place that we are trying to do this. In Bosnia and in Liberia similar exercises are under way. If we fail to last the course and make a success of these state-rebuilding exercises, we should have no illusions—we shall have undermined the credibility of our whole approach to international relations and we shall have grievously set back the whole effort to find collective responses to challenges which in the past have simply been regarded as too

1133
difficult to be worth taking on. The implications of such failure would be far reaching and thoroughly negative. I would suggest, therefore, that it is surely worth a lot of effort and a sustained commitment to avoid that happening.
4.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the noble Earl is indeed to be congratulated on introducing the debate about a sad country with a tragic recent history, where many very tragic events have recently taken place. Afghanistan seems to have become one of those countries which is almost a case study in what happens when many things go wrong, and we in the West look on feeling rather helpless— over and above the consequences of our rather ambiguous relationship with that country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, alluded, and the recent developments there towards an agreed constitution.
This is one of those debates when although the House is not very full, one is very aware of the weight of experience and knowledge around. I want to concentrate briefly on three areas of concern, some of which have been touched on by others—and perhaps in more detail. The first issue is the question of attacks on non-governmental organisations, including the case of the Tearfund workers.
NGO staff should be able to move around any country in some kind of reasonable safety because they are politically neutral and their primary concern lies elsewhere. But, sadly, as with the attack on the Red Cross worker in Iraq, that is no longer the case. The trouble is that we in the West can be our own greatest enemies. President George Bush may not have been altogether wise in ordering NGOs publicly to identify themselves as part of the US operations in the country or risk losing their funding. One wonders why that step was taken. If Bishops wanted to get some kind of public credit for every good deed done in their dioceses, there would be some very interesting newspaper headlines.
The sad plight of Tearfund in southern Afghanistan is another frustrating case in point. It was working in 28 villages within a 70-kilometre radius of Kandahar—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about this earlier—with a team of 45 staff. In the past six months, 400 civilians have been killed in that part of the country. We are also told that 13 aid workers have been killed in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan in the past nine months.
We can surely endorse the hope expressed by Nigel Timmins—Tearfund's operations manager in Afghanistan—that it will be able to return to the Kandahar region as soon as it is safely possible.
Secondly, I turn to the area covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, which is the increasing problem of drug dependency and the alarming growth in power of the drug barons. According to recent reliable statistics, around 4 per cent of the Afghan population are habitual users of heroin. Opium production accounts for 50 per cent of the country's GDP, which suggests that not nearly enough progress
1134
is being made on reconstructing the country, or setting up an economy which is not only viable and legal in international terms, but also not so dependent on only one thing.
Opium growth has increased hugely since the war. I am reliably informed that one of the basic causes is that the purchase of the seeds fuels this instability because opium farmers have to pay back the costs with the crop itself—a classic case, if ever there was one, of a vicious circle. The problem has, of course, far wider implications. One is reminded of the wise remarks of St Augustine in one of his sermons that,
"swollen rivers are made out of small drips of water".
Not only is the drug trade undermining Afghanistan as a nation, it also funds international terrorism. We are told that the Afghan Government are looking for 300 million dollars to set up a fund to reduce opium production by 70 per cent within four years. I am reliably informed that the UK has already agreed to contribute in the region of 128 million dollars over the next three years. Big initiatives so often have small beginnings. It is important—I would say vital—that the international community sees the importance of this campaign, not just for our own safety—that would be a very cynical motivation—but to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people.
Thirdly, there is the plight of women, a matter alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I know we must tread carefully because different countries have different cultures, but the facts speak for themselves. Village life in many places seems to lock women into a constant production line. Girls are engaged at 10, married at 12 and give birth, preferably to a boy, constantly from the age of 14 until they can no longer do so, often because they die in childbirth. The country has the highest known rates of maternal mortality.
I shall not, I hope, fall into the trap of cultural imperialism, of dictating to Afghans about their marriage practices and family life. But it seems to me that—if I may indulge in something of an understatement—important issues need to be addressed about education, health precautions and hospital care.
Much of what is needed is dependent on the restoration of a proper peace. That seems all too scarce outside Kabul and even in Kabul there are serious concerns. The NGOs fear that the provincial reconstruction teams are not working well enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. Can the Government and other Governments deny that they have been distracted by the problems in Iraq and that resources are spread too thinly? The enormous sums now being spent on Iraq show up the forgotten state of Afghanistan, which has experienced no fewer than 23 years of war and drought.
It is worth noting that in his introductory speech, the new NATO Secretary-General said that his number one priority was not Iraq, but Afghanistan. There are signs of hope in Afghanistan. As a Christian and a theologian, I believe fundamentally in the virtue of hope. Hope often begins when situations seem to have irretrievably broken down.

1135
One sign of hope is the new constitution, but that has involved making deals with many of the warlords and there are perhaps now more risks than ever. The withdrawal of organisations such as Tearfund does not bode well. The recent deterioration in security could make it more likely that the decline in asylum applications from Afghans will be reversed, so it is in the Government's interest to work harder for peace and security in that country.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, when your Lordships read the list of speakers today—indeed, when your Lordships heard the speeches that have already been made and hear those that I am delighted to know will be made—many may have wondered why I am attempting to speak when I do not have military knowledge or knowledge of overseas aid or of working overseas. One thing has bitten me: curiosity. I have never been further east than Damascus, yet Afghanistan is a land of enormous mystery, as we have heard in the debate.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate and for all his work since I knew him almost 40 years ago at Oxford to attempt to benefit situations that are endemic but, at present, unique to Afghanistan. I must say that his Motion is a fair mouthful. Like the right reverend Prelate, I shall attempt to concentrate briefly on three items with which the Minister may be able to assist me—indeed they may be raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who is to follow me.
First, the Motion refers to defeating terrorism. Am I right in thinking that the current strength of ISAF is about 5,500 troops? Is that not a substantial drain on United Kingdom forces, let alone on NATO forces, which are otherwise committed elsewhere—quite rightly, as the right reverend Prelate said? Afghanistan is a major problem. If we take our eye off Afghanistan and concentrate unduly on Iraq, there may be longer-term problems. Am I right in thinking that about 5,500 troops are spread over 38 provinces of that enormous country—or perhaps they are less spread? Am I right in thinking that there is a substantial number— approximately 8,500—of United States forces still in the north of the country?
We have heard a great deal in the debate about the link to terrorism, which is interwoven in the noble Earl's Motion, and to the Taliban. My noble friend Lady Chalker referred to warlords and the drug trade. I hope that I am not unduly naive but not cynical when I wonder how much is indeed what perhaps I may call "normal warlordism" in that enormous country. We have heard about tribal problems with the Pashtuns and other tribes in the north. What concerns me a trifle is how much of that customary disorder is tolerated by Pakistan. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I think it was, referred to further efforts that might be made to speak to leaders in Pakistan.
What rather shocks me is that 14 aid workers have lost their lives during the past nine months in the south of Afghanistan. Is it really true, that, as the noble
1136
Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, 400 civilians have lost their lives? It is a big country and we might consider the loss of life on the roads or elsewhere in this country, but have 400 people been murdered?
I understand that there are more than 100,000 armed militiamen who may have a rifle or be available. In moving his Motion, the noble Earl mentioned that there may be a militiaman this morning with his rifle and motorbike, but this afternoon or this evening he may no longer be a militiamen because he has put away his rifle. That adds to the considerable problems of security and terrorism.
I for one will relish hearing what the Minister has to say about the coupling of national reconstruction of economic and normal life in Afghanistan with security. What is the basic infrastructure in Kabul, let alone elsewhere in the north or the south of Afghanistan? Is it still basic? Is it improving? I certainly hope so.
I understand that the Finance Minister, Mr Ashraf Ghani, is looking for about 20 billion dollars to try to set up a strong central government within reach of Kabul. I think that my noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned that 1 billion dollars had arrived of the 4.5 billion dollars that were promised at the Tokyo conference. That is a tremendous start and, as the right reverend Prelate said, great events tend to start fairly slowly, but there seems to be some hope. I think he mentioned the figure that has been promised, and I hope that it is delivered by the Government; no doubt the Minister can confirm that.
We have heard that coupled with security, terror and the economy is the appalling problem of opium and other drugs. I was interested to hear of a drugs conference that may have been quite successful in Kabul last week. The noble Lord, Avebury, mentioned that 75 per cent of heroin worldwide originates in Afghanistan. I understood that 90 per cent of the heroin consumed in the UK originates in Afghanistan and comes here by devious means. Is it really the case, as I understand it, that in 26, 27 or even 28 of the 32 provinces of Afghanistan, the economy is to no small degree dominated by the drugs trade?
We have heard from my noble friend Lady Chalker and others of the necessity of finding some other form of sustenance for the inhabitants of those dry, arid provinces. It is fine for me and other noble Lords involved in agriculture in places such as Angus in Scotland. It is a little different in Afghanistan, and I have sympathy for the farmers there. I understand that it is estimated that 3,600 tonnes of opium left Afghanistan in 2003. Enormous sums are paid to producers in Afghanistan, of which 25 to 30 per cent goes to the Taliban, which is a serious problem.
I was going to ask about the wonderful work of the United Kingdom forces in Mazar-i-Sharif, about which I have heard, but as soon as I sit down we will hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who has more practical experience and much more detailed knowledge than I have.

1137
Will the Minister alleviate my curiosity to a small extent by spelling out the long-term aim of the United Kingdom's defence forces and what this country can do to assist economic development, in whatever way, starting with civil agriculture, in Afghanistan? What is unique to that enormous country that is different from other forms of aid, which is no doubt very well spent by the noble Baroness and the Government? I thank the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate. Everyone appreciates his enormous expertise. I thank noble Lords for allowing a curious Back-Bencher to raise his voice today. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's response.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, I, too, welcome warmly the noble Earl's initiative in bringing the House's attention back to Afghanistan. As has been said many times today, affairs there have been overshadowed by events in Iraq. However, what needs to be done in Afghanistan poses a significantly greater challenge than that which confronts us in Iraq.
When the United Kingdom inserted and led the first International Security Assistance Force into Kabul in January 2002, I said that we would be in for a long haul, and nothing has happened since then to change my view. The warlord culture in Afghanistan, so very different from what happens in Iraq, complicates enormously the task of trying to help the country to a new, cohesive future. The problems that we encounter today, with the activities of the Taliban and the difficulties in managing the Pakistan border, exacerbate the challenge that confronts us. I support, in particular, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the need for more Pakistani involvement.
There are several areas on which we need to progress, if we are to move forward the process of making Afghanistan a stable country in harmony with itself and its neighbours, ranging from economic, aid, reconstruction, diplomatic, counter-narcotics, security and so forth. I shall concentrate briefly on some aspects of security.
First, I was delighted when NATO took over the International Security Assistance Force. It was good for the country, because of its multinational nature, good for the region, and good for NATO to show its military value. I now hear talk about expanding NATO/ISAF out of Kabul. Can the Minister say whether it is about expanding the ISAF per se into another city, or expanding the ISAF effect through, say, provisional reconstruction teams (PRTs)? If it is the former, where will the 5,000 or so troops required for that come from? A Kabul-type operation in another city will require 3,000 to 5,000 troops, and we cannot afford to deplete the contingency in Kabul. Such an increase in commitment is well beyond the capacity or will of the Eurocorps, which, I understand, might be the next duty formation, or, if it is not, beyond the capacity of whichever NATO high-readiness force headquarters or composite headquarters has the next rotation. How will the force protection of such a second ISAF be managed, as the
1138
United States is already overstretched? That is entering bottomless-pit territory, and we would need to proceed with extreme caution.
Secondly, if we are talking about expanding the ISAF effect through provisional reconstruction teams, that holds more promise. I commend the work done by the United Kingdom provisional reconstruction team in Mazar-i-Sharif and reinforce the noble Earl's comments. The small team is made up of around only 20, compared with, for example, the 200-strong German PRT, most of which is force protection, working under NATO command since January in Kunduz. Our UK team is highly effective and is deploying our Armed Forces' unique talent for such work in establishing relationships, friendships and so on through charm, good humour and sheer professionalism. It does not have an aggressive stance—the same cannot be said for some other PRTs—and is an ideal model, if that is what is meant by expanding the ISAF effect.
Thirdly, if we are not to be in Afghanistan for ever, we must be able to hand over to the country responsibility for its own security. The Afghan army and police are the apparatus for that, not least to build indigenous confidence, but they need to be recruited, trained and retained. It has already been mentioned that that is not happening very quickly at present. In parallel with the training and construction of the Afghan army and police force, the process of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of the tens of thousands of militia, who by and large are not working with the grain in so far as concerns overall security, needs expediting. What progress is being made on those two important fronts?
The final security issue that I wish to mention is the command structure. The United States forces, which also provide force protection for most PRTs, for example, operate separately from NATO. Notwithstanding the different roles of the United States forces and NATO, the separate command structure complicates the overall task. A unified command would surely be more sensible, and we should encourage the United States, if they are considering the possibility of the European command taking over responsibility for Afghanistan from the central command—I understand that there is some thinking along those lines. The SACEUR is the commander-in-chief of EUCOM and also commands the NATO forces, so the significance of having EUCOM take over in Afghanistan is that the commanders-in-chief would be one and the same man.
The efforts of NATO and the United Nations in Afghanistan are to be commended, but there is a long way to go before a satisfactory security situation is established. We must ensure that our eye does not leave this ball, or indeed the Afghanistan ball in general. This debate serves that purpose well.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am very much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for this opportunity. My noble friend Lord Lyell used

1139
an emotive phrase a moment ago, when he asked how much this was "normal warlordism". That serves to remind us what an extraordinarily new and important thing we are attempting in that part of the world. In the past, on such an occasion, we have always tried to empower one faction or another to take over and be friendly to us. We are now trying to hand over to the indigenous people the ability to control their own affairs. That is an entirely praiseworthy and splendid thing to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, failure would be an unmitigated disaster, not merely in the region, but for the whole perception of what good government and world co-operation now are.
The Government pin their hope on the success of democracy, as do we. However, as has been said often already, democracy cannot take place except in a fairly settled and secure environment. I was therefore surprised to read the following comments by the Minister of State during a recent Westminster Hall debate:
"We are examining what support we can provide to a district stabilisation programme, for which the Afghan Government are seeking support, to spread the authority of the state from Kabul to other districts, particularly in the south and east. That programme will rebuild the institutions of the police—such as police stations".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/04; col. 148WH.]
It is a bit late still to be examining that. Much of what is going on is happening a bit late, including the arrival of money. It is not enough to deliver promised aid a month or two before the election that it is intended to secure, because it must then go through the labyrinthine pipes and corridors that deliver it in the form of cement-mixers, schools, teachers, etcetera. We are using sandbags to build a wall against a tide that is already rising. There is an urgency about this that the media have lost sight of, and therefore there is a danger that we will lose sight of it as well.
Can the noble Baroness tell us what progress towards democracy has been made in terms of what percentage of the presumed electoral population has been registered? More particularly, in which provinces have they been registered? I was recently on a parliamentary delegation to Pakistan, and I see this from a slightly Pakistani angle, perhaps. I see the present regime in Kabul through their eyes, as being friendly to the Northern Alliance and its successors, and them being friendly to India. The old bugbear of Indian encirclement is raising its head in that part of Afghanistan that is next to Pakistan, and moreover next to that part of Pakistan over which the central government of Pakistan have least control.
I was encouraged to hear that the Pakistan army is now deployed in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I was not entirely surprised to hear reports that the concentrations of terrorists—if that is what we call them—in those areas had a tendency to disappear 24 hours before the army launched an attack on their positions.
It therefore becomes clear that what is essential for the stability of this area, externally as well as internally, is proper Pashtun representation in the
1140
government that emerges. That will have to rest on the electoral infrastructure now being put in place in this south-east region, in which there have been so many casualties. It was alleged by Mr Kevan Jones in another place on 29 January that £40,000 a head was being offered for the assassination of aid workers in that area. The Minister will probably not want to comment on that, but it lurks as an unpleasant memory in my mind if in none other.
Like my noble friend Lord Lyell, I speak with great diffidence among so many noble Lords who know so much more than I do about this problem and this area. However, I understand that so far the response of the international effort, led by the Americans, is to increase the number of PRTs deployed in that area. Will the Minister confirm that they will be manned using the same number of people as are already there? This is a dangerous thinning out of the effort in what I regard as the most crucial area of all.
Democracy will not arrive for more than a minute without some sort of physical stability. It will not survive for more than a minute unless there is some sort of economic stability. In the same debate that I referred to earlier, the Minister of State said that at the conference last March,
"The international community responded at that development forum, pledging more than two billion dollars for this financial year to fund some 90 per cent of the Afghan Government's budget. The Afghans believe that they will be able to raise the remaining balance".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/04; col. 144WH.]
That involves some 10 per cent. The right reverend Prelate told us that the poppy trade delivers something like 50 per cent of the GNP, and it is our aim to reduce that contribution to nothing. That means that the Afghans have nothing but aid to live on until some alternative source of revenue is produced.
Some years ago, I was in Thailand, looking at their operation to eliminate the growing of poppies. That effort was a bit easier there, because of the terrain and communications. Farmers who removed their poppies, which involved a 12-month cycle, were able to replace them with salad crops, which involve more of a 12-week cycle, and fly them down crisp and fresh to Bangkok, where they fetched a good price. This was a good system—it was better than that for coffee, which has a regenerative cycle of one to two years. What is being replaced here, if we go back to the traditional crops, is apricots and almonds and dried fruit. The trees have all been burnt down. That is like cutting down the olive groves in ancient Greece: it was the worst thing that could be done. How long will it be before those can be brought back? Ten years? Fifteen?
Afghanistan's international benefactors must either be prepared to shoulder a heavy load for a long time or discover some innovative form of product. If they do not, they will have to abandon the scheme, which will put us back 25 to 50 years in world history. The first alternative needs to find some means of preventing Afghanistan becoming debased into an aid-dependent community. We have a duty to those

1141
people. We have a duty to our own people to curtail the sale of heroin on our streets, but we also have a duty to give the people whose living we are taking away something honourable, constructive and worthwhile to do. I would like to hear what the Government's intentions are.
We must also avoid donor fatigue. We have set our hands to the plough, and we must drive it to the end of the furrow. That will cost us. As I have often said in the Chamber, it is time that we woke up to the fact that we will not have an impact on the acute unfairness and immorality of the difference between the wealth of our part of the world and the poverty of others, unless we pay for it. That will be electorally unpopular and dangerous. We need an all-party agreement on a programme and a proportion of the budget, so that resources will not be chiselled away at every election, with parties saying, "We'll reduce taxes more than them because we will give less away to the third world".
It is a straightforward and painful moral problem, and we must face it. Afghanistan is at the leading edge of it, and I hope that the Minister will take to heart my plea that some sort of talks should be started between the parties, so that dealing with the matter can be made politically feasible.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing this important debate. In his cogent speech, he made it clear how complex and difficult the situation in Afghanistan was. It is vital that we do not follow the media in sweeping Afghanistan from the front pages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, have just said.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Avebury emphasised, there was international consensus on taking action in Afghanistan, unlike the position with regard to Iraq. We must do our best in difficult circumstances to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is right: we must stay the course, when dealing with failed states.
There has been some progress in Afghanistan. It is to be welcomed that the Taliban has been removed from power. There are greater freedoms for the people there, especially women and girls, and the first steps are being taken towards the establishment of a new constitution. However, all that is—to say the least— patchy, fragile and possibly unsustainable. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, was right to say that the country was at tipping point. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world, and there is precious little security in the south and east, where the Taliban still operate and the drugs trade shows every sign of sky-rocketing.
With continuing massive insecurity in Iraq, as shown by today's and yesterday's atrocities, the focus of the US and UK Governments is, as others have said, above all on Iraq—not only their focus but their funds and troops are directed to that engagement. At the end
1142
of his two-year posting, the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, rather bitterly commented that he had repeatedly asked for an expansion of ISAF:
"We were told there were no troops. But then they found 150,000 troops for Iraq".
Now the US talks of trying to involve NATO in Iraq. NATO is already over stretched in its activities in Afghanistan on its first such venture outside Europe. What are the noble Baroness's thoughts on the US point of view?
I note that last week NATO defence ministers agreed to expand their forces in Afghanistan. However, they did not say which countries had offered to send more troops. Nearly 6,000 NATO troops are stationed in Kabul. The outgoing deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Major-General Andrew Leslie, said that ISAF should expand its force to up to 12,000 troops in order to maintain security, and that NATO troops could be in the country for up to 10 years. Clearly, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, agrees that it will be, as he puts it, a long haul. Does the noble Baroness also agree? I note that NATO has given no timetable for additional deployments. Could the Minister tell the House what is proposed, by whom and when?
There is also the problem of insufficient funds. Time and again, President Karzai has pleaded for more funds. The US and the UK promised that they would not turn their backs on Afghanistan; in particular, the Prime Minister emphasised that, as has happened so often in the past. As we have heard from other noble Lords, in Tokyo in January 2002, and subsequently, international donors promised some 5 billion dollars towards the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Could the noble Baroness update us on how much has been delivered, as President Karzai has complained that it has been slow in coming? In March, there will be another donor conference to try to move things forward. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us what the UK Government seek to put on that agenda.
The Minister was kind enough to give me a Written Answer to my Question last year about the differential between UK spending on military operations and reconstruction. She told me that in 2002–03 the UK spent £310 million supporting military operations in Afghanistan. It spent only £75 million on reconstruction. It is troubling to note that the allocation for reconstruction in 2003–04 is £55 million, even though the situation has hardly improved. I wonder why. There is an imbalance between military spending and reconstruction, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, argued, surely security and development must go hand in hand if Afghanistan is to be secure and to prosper.
I now turn to one of the most pernicious activities currently taking root in the country; namely, the cultivation of opium, which others have also addressed. The removal of the Taliban had the effect of allowing opium production to seize hold of the country. The UN report in the autumn of last year pointed out that production was up 6 per cent; but, even more significantly, many more areas now have

1143
opium production. Poppies are being cultivated in 28 of Afghanistan's 32 provinces, double the number from the 1990s. I have here a map, which my noble friend Lord Avebury gave me. I very much wish that it could be reproduced in Hansard because it makes a very telling point about the extension of poppy production.
The UN's annual report on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan warns that,
"Afghanistan risks becoming a state controlled by narco-terrorists".
Here, we must bear in mind our own interest; that 90 per cent of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan. Where does the Minister now stand on the Chancellor's commitment in 2002 to reduce opium production in Afghanistan by 70 per cent in five years? She may remember that last year I pointed out that the Government felt that they could claim, in a press release from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that the UK was,
"on track to meet its target of eliminating heroin from Afghanistan on UK streets over ten years"—[Official Report, 4/11/03; col. 687.]
Does she still feel as optimistic?
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN office on drugs and crime, has asked that foreign troops target traffickers if the war on drugs is to be won. US and NATO-led forces so far have resisted calls to tackle drug traffickers, saying that their first responsibility is to maintain security. Last Monday, NATO's Secretary-General argued that counter-narcotics operations were not the prime responsibility of international peacekeepers. But on Tuesday, Mr Costa repeated his warning that Afghanistan was at risk of becoming a "narco-state" because corruption was aggravating the drugs problem. He said:
"The more we tolerate [corruption], the more dangerous the situation becomes".
Does the Minister feel that the distinction between maintaining security and dealing with the opium problem and trafficking can be sustained under the circumstances?
I briefly turn to a few more matters. On 29 January in Westminster Hall during a debate on Afghanistan, to which reference has previously been made, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Gareth Thomas, said that 4 million children are back at school, 37 per cent of whom are girls. Obviously, that is very welcome. Does the noble Baroness believe that this level can be sustained and increased? We hear reports of a backlash against girls in school, as well as school buildings being used for purposes other than education. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Chalker, made clear, it would be terrible to see things slipping backwards again. Could the Minister say something about the participation of women in the political process? Could the moves on that front be sustained? Could she also say something about the rehabilitation back into the community of the 8,000 or so child soldiers that UNICEF has identified?
1144
Given that Afghan clerics have called for a holy war on those who attack Muslim lands, could the Minister comment on the safety of UK aid workers? As we have heard, the period since August last year has been the bloodiest since the Taliban's fall. The killing of a UN aid worker in November led to the UN pulling out its international staff from rural areas in the south and east. Are there any signs that they might be re-instated?
As other noble Lords have pointed out, on 4 February the Tearfund announced that it had decided to pull out as well, noting that in the previous nine months 13 aid workers had been killed in southern and eastern Afghanistan, and that increased and sustained support was needed to ensure areas were safer so that people could rebuild their lives. That is a very sad development and shows the importance of increasing security.
As in the case of Iraq, security must be established in Afghanistan if its political and economic reconstruction can effectively move forward. Given how insecure most of the country is, and its importance to the region and to the world, let alone to its citizens, it is clearly vital that the UK and the US do not forget their responsibilities in Afghanistan as they battle with the problems that are now so evident in Iraq.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the quality of the debate has been excellent. I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing it. I also congratulate the Minister on her stamina in answering for the Government in these two debates, as well as the earlier Statement.
We on these Benches understand the scale of the challenge that remains in Afghanistan. The country is huge. The terrain is some of the most inhospitable in the world. There is virtually no tradition of political stability. Members of the Opposition endorse what the Government are trying to do, but we will press for more action in some areas.
The events of September 11 brought dramatic changes to the political landscape in Afghanistan. In 2001, despite already being overstretched, our Armed Forces made a highly professional contribution to the operations there. The military situation remains fluid and volatile. Once again, British troops are in harm's way and continue to perform their duties magnificently.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, drew the attention of the House to the death two weeks ago of another British serviceman, a young TA soldier. At this time our thoughts are with his family, with those who were wounded, and with their families. How unfortunate that a British soldier died only 24 hours after a Canadian soldier also fell victim to a suicide bomber. Unfortunate, too, that both men died in soft-skinned vehicles, in the case of the British vehicle with even less protection than that given to troops serving in Northern Ireland. The British contribution to ISAF is small, but that is no reason why our troops should not

1145
be properly equipped. Can the Minister confirm that vehicle patrols in Kabul are now sent out only in Saxon armoured vehicles?
My noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned the excellent work being carried out by the 85 British troops in the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-i-Sharif. Several noble Lords were concerned that NATO cannot do an effective security job in Afghanistan unless it is given more troops. One agency to which I spoke believes that between 5,000 and 10,000 extra troops will be required. If NATO does make a specific request for additional troops, will Her Majesty's Government be minded to provide a further contribution?
Despite the significant advances that have been made in Afghanistan, huge challenges remain. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the most urgent is security, in particular in the south and east where Taliban insurgents continue to encroach. Restoring adequate security throughout the country is essential to facilitate the implementation of reforms and projects, as well as the resumption of private economic activity.
Because of threats to the safety of their staff, some NGOs are finding it difficult to operate and are starting to run down their operations. I pay tribute to the contribution of those bodies that continue to function despite the difficult circumstances. I am particularly impressed with the work of the Afghan Mother and Child Rescue charity, of which my noble friend Lady Rawlings is patron.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the Afghan recovery is being severely hampered by a lack of international commitment to reconstruction. The UN and the World Bank have estimated the cost at between 13 and 19 billion dollars. Donors, however, remain reluctant to commit to such large figures. Several noble Lords were concerned at the continued emphasis on Iraq by the international community, which is a major problem. My noble friend Lady Chalker pointed out that Afghanistan is now a "forgotten place", but the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, rightly said that Afghanistan is a much more serious problem.
Afghanistan's provinces are ruled pretty much as independent countries by former warlords who, while rejoicing in the official title of provincial governors, still keep their robber baron habits. They have no intention of handing over their regional revenues to Mr Karzai's budget, so he depends on aid handouts from abroad. Hence the Karzai government does need to know definitively what they can expect in terms of pledges and commitments.
After two decades of war, Afghanistan has few schools and hospitals, and even fewer roads. Even basic provisions such as water and electricity are in short supply. Only three out of 32 provinces are connected to the capital by phone.
The Taliban have regained control of at least five districts along the border with Pakistan and Iran. Over the past two months, at least 280 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded in clashes between
1146
rival factions, battles between the Taliban and coalition forces, or in attacks on government and international aid agency workers. It is also believed that Taliban groups are re-forming in Pakistan.
Lieutenant-General David Barno, the American commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, says that he expects to bring Osama bin Laden to justice by the end of this year. Do the Government share the general's optimism?
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rightly mentioned the predicament of women and girls in post-conflict Afghanistan. It still remains an important source country for human trafficking in the form of the exploitation of prostitutes, forced labour, slavery and the removal of body organs. Most noble Lords mentioned the campaign against narcotics. Britain agreed to take the lead, but as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, illegal poppy cultivation is increasing.
My noble friend Lord Elton pointed out that if we are to tackle the drugs trade in Afghanistan it is vital that we help the Afghans to make a living legally and work with them to develop new sources of income and new livelihoods, difficult as it is. My noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out that 90 per cent of the heroin that reaches the streets of Britain comes from Afghanistan. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that the Government have committed themselves to eradicating opium production within 10 years, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress is being made.
Continuing arguments about the size and condition of the Afghan army have delayed the disbursement of funds allocated for the soldiers. Many have not been paid. The size of the army, and its effectiveness, is still way short of the level where Mr Karzai can use it to bring the warlords into line. I am told that 3,000 men have already deserted the new army and defected to their warlord employers. We cannot have an international programme costing vast sums of money that trains people who then go back and serve the warlords.
The problem of mine clearance is immense. It will require many years of continued effort and the courageous and dedicated work undertaken by a few agencies.
It is excellent news that the transitional government signed a new constitution paving the way for elections to be held later this year. But planning for the elections is not on course and registration has hardly started. The minimum number of police to ensure the safe conduct of the elections, not to mention the security of monitors, will not be trained in time. Large areas of the country remain too dangerous for registration or other preparations to be made. Further areas are snow-bound and inaccessible. In the light of this, is the Minister confident that it will be possible for free elections to take place?
My noble friend Lady Chalker pointed out that there is some good news coming out of Afghanistan. One important sign of progress is that the Standard Chartered Bank has opened an office in Kabul.

1147
According to Ahmed Rashid, writing on BBC Online, despite the cash shortages, Afghanistan is slowly on the road to stability. He points out that the,
"two essential processes of building a nation through political and economic reconstruction while building up the institutions of state and government are beginning to take place".
The Afghan Government deserve considerable credit for the way in which they have taken the lead in the development process, last year holding the first Afghanistan development forum in Kabul.
With the help of the UNHCR, more than 2.5 million Afghan refugees have returned, beginning the process of rebuilding their lives and communities after years of conflict. Thanks to the end of the drought and work by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, grain production increased by 80 per cent in 2002. A record harvest is expected for last year, dramatically reducing the need for humanitarian aid.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate today. I thank him also for the assiduous way in which he has pursued this issue through oral and written parliamentary Questions over the past six months or so. I thank, too, all noble Lords who have shown such a very active interest in the continuing efforts of NATO and the United Nations to improve security in Afghanistan. Helping the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their country is important, not only for Afghanistan itself but, as many noble Lords have pointed out, for the contribution it makes to defeating international terrorism.
In introducing the debate, the noble Earl asked your Lordships to consider the efforts made by NATO and the UN to help the Afghan people to defeat terrorism and improve security. Sadly, there are many countries around the world where people are struggling to defeat terrorism and to improve their own security. One of the first duties of any government is to provide for the security of their people. Without security there is vulnerability to attack from external forces and vulnerability to terrorism; there is bloodshed and criminality; democratic institutions become compromised, justice imperilled and law and order breaks down; health services do not function, children do not go to school and, at all levels, most normal life as we know it—work, leisure and family life—becomes all but impossible.
One of the most appalling problems that faced Afghanistan in the period up to October 2001 was that the entire country was characterised as a haven that harboured, sustained and supported terrorists. In these circumstances, the noble Earl is asking the House to consider how multilateral institutions—in particular NATO and the UN—have helped the people of Afghanistan to rid themselves of the scourge of terrorism and to provide the security that is the bedrock of peace and prosperity.
That point was picked up very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. She rightly said that security without development is stagnation. The noble
1148
Baroness, Lady Northover, re-emphasised that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was also right to say that there is some good news, a commodity which the noble Earl feels is in very short supply at the moment.
Foremost, the 2 million returning Afghans are, to some extent, testimony to their own belief and their desire to engage positively in their country's future. I agree strongly with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the international community should remain committed. I shall do my best to persuade the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that, although much remains to be done, there is a good degree of evidence about that international commitment.
The threat of terrorism that we face crosses national and geographical boundaries. In doing so it demands a multilateral response. Both NATO and the United Nations are powerful vehicles for providing this. They are far from being perfect but both institutions are learning—as, indeed, are we as a government—how to respond to these awful multinational threats.
NATO has supported efforts to defeat terrorism and improve security in Afghanistan from the outset. On the day after the terrible events of 11 September 2001, NATO invoked Article 5 of its constitution, confirming that the terrorist attacks on the United States constituted an attack on the whole alliance. That was a very important starting point. Then the United Nations also reacted very speedily, confirming through UNSCR 1368 that action to prevent further terrorist attacks was permissible under Chapter 51 of the UN charter. Both NATO and the UN immediately affirmed the legitimacy of coalition military action in Afghanistan when it began on 7 October. So both multilateral organisations were responsive and speedy in their reactions.
As the coalition response got under way the United Nations monitored the situation closely and impartially. A matter of weeks after the Taliban fled from Kabul the UN hosted a conference in Bonn at which a broad spectrum of Afghans came together to discuss how to reconstruct their country. With significant international support this conference produced the Bonn agreement, a template for the political regeneration of Afghanistan.
But it was absolutely clear that military peacekeeping on the ground would be vital and, following the Bonn agreement, the UN Security Council authorised the creation of a security force for Kabul. The resulting International Security and Assistance Force—ISAF—was not a UN or a NATO peacekeeping force but a coalition of the willing, albeit with NATO member states contributing the vast majority of troops. It was of course important to have legitimacy from the UN, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stressed.
The UK provided the first headquarters and the first commander for ISAF, followed by Turkey and then a joint German and Dutch HQ. NATO played a crucial role by agreeing to provide practical assistance consisting of a headquarters, strategic control and political direction.

1149
By early 2003 it was obvious that only a limited number of countries had the military structures necessary to fill the role of lead nation, and so NATO began providing enhanced support in April 2003 and took over the leadership of ISAF the following August. NATO's ongoing commitment to leading ISAF has ensured a degree of continuity and stability that was not possible when a new lead nation had to be found every six months. But, of course, non-NATO countries, including Albania, Azerbaijan, the three Baltic states and New Zealand, continue to make very important and valuable contributions to ISAF.
The continuing engagement of the United Nations has also been vital. The UN has played its part by passing successive Security Council resolutions extending the six-month mandate originally provided by UNSCR 1380. In response to a request from President Karzai and the Afghan Government, the UN Security Council expanded the ISAF mandate in October 2003, authorising ISAF to operate beyond Kabul both in the form of provincial reconstruction teams and on limited temporary deployments.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the position of ISAF and its composition. ISAF consists now of some 5,500 troops from 32 nations under NATO leadership. The number of contributing nations and the size of their contributions is constantly changing. I shall not go into the full list now but I shall write to the noble Lord with that list because it is impressive. Each country decides the size of its own contribution within the framework of ISAF's requirements. The German-led PRT in Kunduz came under ISAF command on 30 December. It was the first to do so.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the possible expansion of NATO's deployment into the ISAF mission. It is indeed right that NATO is considering the feasibility of expanding the ISAF mission. It has so far concentrated on the German PRT I mentioned earlier. Plans for temporary deployments and further expansion will depend on nations providing the troops and the capabilities. Contributors will obviously need to plan carefully before making any further commitments. Proposals for further ISAF expansion have not been finalised and there is not a specific timetable for the expansion of the PRTs. However, in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we expect NATO to take over some—possibly up to five—of the PRTs before the Istanbul summit in June.
I should stress, particularly to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, that planning does not include blanket coverage over the whole of Afghanistan with NATO forces. Coalition forces continue to carry out missions under Operation Enduring Freedom throughout the country and to engage Taliban and Al'Qaeda forces.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, with regard to the vehicles used by British soldiers in the current deployment, I hope he will appreciate that we take the security of our forces very
1150
seriously indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks about their courage and tenacity in pursuing their mandate. However, I hope he will understand if I do not go into detail about the specific policies and arrangements for their security at the moment because that might jeopardise their safety. I can assure the noble Lord that, following the recent suicide bomb attacks, extra armoured vehicles have been delivered to the British troops serving in Kabul.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, expressed concerns about the PRTs. It is important to remember that PRTs are not security forces. Their aim is to facilitate reconstruction by helping to improve the security environment. They were originally established under Operating Enduring Freedom but their focus is on stabilisation and reconstruction. That means that they sit fairly well under ISAF, with its emphasis on security, rather than with the war-fighting role of the OEF.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what was being done to encourage greater activity with the PRTs. Representatives from the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID have presented what they called a PRT roadshow in Oslo, Helsinki, Berlin, Rome and NATO headquarters in Brussels as a means of informing other nations about how PRTs work and how other nations might contribute. The team has also briefed officials from Poland, Turkey and New Zealand in London, and that briefing exercise is currently being undertaken in Ottawa.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, asked what more could we do in relation to PRTs. The UK has led a PRT in Mazar-i-Sharif since July, which a number of your Lordships mentioned. The team is under the military leadership and it is run under the OEF. The UK PRT may transfer to the ISAF command as the NATO planning develops. It consists of about 100 mainly military personnel but includes representatives from the FCO and DfID, along with representatives from the Afghan Government and coalition partners. The make-up of the PRTs changes, given the particular role a particular PRT is undertaking. My right honourable friend Geoff Hoon announced on 7 February that the United Kingdom is prepared to command a group of PRTs in northern Afghanistan. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some more information.
The noble Baroness was also very concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about security for the election process. Security will be essential in ensuring that all sections of society can participate in the elections which are due later this year and that they are able to do so without fear of intimidation. It will obviously be a matter for President Karzai to judge if the June elections are achievable. The Afghan Government and the UN are currently finalising an election plan, and we expect an announcement to follow soon, once the plan has been agreed by President Karzai.
The UK and our international partners are doing what we can to support the preparations. We have given £3 million to support the registration process,

1151
which concerned the noble Lord, as part of the overall EU contribution which is currently running at some 20 million dollars.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were all concerned about what is happening over narcotics. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has been extremely tenacious on the question. This is not an ISAF question because ISAF has not been asked to contribute directly to the counter-narcotics work. But one of the effects of the stability we are trying to achieve in Kabul should be, we hope, the creation of a more lawful environment in which it is less easy for the drug criminals to operate. Tackling illicit drugs problems is an area where the UN, however, plays a very active role. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime is working closely with the Afghan Government to help implement the Afghan drug security strategy, together with the United Kingdom, and to co-ordinate with other international bodies in that respect.
The United Kingdom is investing £70 million on sustainable measures over the next three years to support the implementation of the Afghan national drug control strategy, which we helped the Afghans to develop. So I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who also raised important questions on this issue, are, to some extent, heartened by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also wanted to know the outcome of the recent conference on this important topic. More than 200 Afghan and international delegates attended; it was the first time such a high-level group of Afghan officials, including Ministers, governors and police chiefs had come together to discuss the drugs issue, so it was a very important conference. Action plans were agreed by delegates in the key areas of increasing law enforcement, reducing demand and persuading farmers who grow the opium poppies to take up alternative livelihoods, an important point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, wanted to pursue the question of alternative livelihoods. DfID is funding research into the alternative livelihoods to identify sustainable alternatives to poppy growth in Afghanistan. It is working with the Aga Khan Development Network programme in Badakhshan to continue and to expand support for sustainable economic and social incentives to enable farmers to improve their livelihoods and actively reduce and ultimately eliminate poppy cultivation. I can write further to your Lordships on that important point which I know concerned most noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
Other questions were raised about economic development. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said that the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were very much concentrated on this point. The World Bank and the Afghan Government
1152
are undertaking a revised assessment of what financial assistance Afghanistan currently needs. We expect this to show that the Afghan economy has indeed increased as has the capacity to absorb aid. That is a very positive sign, which normally appears two to three years after the end of conflict in any country.
We will also be participating in the next conference, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, which is due to take place on 30 and 31 March this year in Berlin. On the question of how the economy might be expanded and what aid is needed, the exact agenda is still to be discussed. However, donors will be invited to evaluate their pledges and to reaffirm their commitments to Afghanistan. We expect this to show that Afghanistan's capacity has been substantially increased, and I hope that will give the opportunity for donor countries to think about some new ways in which they might deploy the resources available.
My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, were very concerned about the position of women in Afghanistan, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. In March 2003, Afghanistan publicly demonstrated its intention to restore full and equal rights for women by ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That was a welcome move. In the same month, the EU sponsored a resolution welcoming the progress that Afghanistan had made to improve the situation of women and urging the Afghan Government to ensure that a legal framework protecting women's rights was put into place. The number of children attending school has risen; 37 per cent of those students are girls, and a third of teachers are women. The Commission on Human Rights' special rapporteur on violence against women submitted her report on women and girls in Afghanistan last October.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will, I hope, be pleased to know that currently 23 per cent of the delegates to the constitutional Loya Jirgah, which agreed the constitution, were women from right the way across Afghanistan, and that Articles 22, 43 and 44 of the new constitution enshrine women's rights. However, I agree with the noble Baroness—I think it is terribly important that these issues are sustained. We know what pressures there are about women's rights— we should not be in any sense complacent about what is happening. When it comes to the way in which education is moving and women are getting a foothold in the democratic institutions, we should work very hard at sustaining those into the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke about some of Afghanistan's neighbours' attitudes. I agree with them that the India/Pakistan agreement is enormously important. We want their engagement to recognise that the potential for destabilising impact, if there were to be any renewed conflict in Afghanistan, would be very serious. However, I think that is an example of useful dialogue—a good example of what can be done when neighbours take steps to try and reduce insurgency and

1153
extremist action across borders. The six-neighbour non-intervention pact which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, is also an important point.
Much is being done to disarm the private militias. President Karzai announced the start of the first demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration pilot scheme in Kunduz in October. Further schemes have since been introduced in Kabul, Parwan and Mazar-i-Sharif. Again, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, was very keen to know more about what is happening there.
The UN-led DDR process will involve channelling former combatants into civilian life. The UK has contributed more than £2.5 million to the UN as part of the DDR process. ISAF also plays a role in supporting the efforts which have been led jointly by the UN and Japan, importantly, to demobilise, disarm and reintegrate these individuals.
I could also report to your Lordships successes in health. The UK provides 19 per cent of the European Union's package of aid. Of that, £17.5 million is going on health, rebuilding 72 hospitals, clinics and women's healthcare centres. Of course, we recognise and very much regret that a great deal of pressure has been put on the NGOs, as the right reverend Prelate reported to your Lordships, and that some have been forced to limit or to curtail their activities due to a lack of security, especially in the south.
I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about the deplorable murder of the young Frenchwoman working for the UN. That was an horrific deed, which underlines the threat that the United Nations faces in Afghanistan. However, the United Nations is not allowing itself to be bullied out of Afghanistan. It continues to work towards disarming militias and registering voters to ensure that the national elections are as successful as possible.
In short, NATO and the UN have been central to the international effort to defeat terrorism and improve security in Afghanistan. From the moment of the initial declaration through to the work currently undertaken, the roles of NATO and the UN are quite different, but are increasingly converging. As the UN makes progress with DDR and planning for the elections, NATO is working towards improving security and building Afghan confidence that these processes are meaningful steps towards Afghanistan's rehabilitation. It is often said that without security, all other efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan will fail. The support provided by NATO and the UN to improving security is therefore a key element in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
I thank the noble Earl once again for bringing these matters to our attention so forcefully in such an excellent opening speech. I thank all noble Lords for the contributions this evening.
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we have galloped through the debate and I have a minute or two to respond to some of the points made. I am sure that we
1154
are all more than grateful to the Minister and admire the skill with which she manages to answer individual speakers so well. However, there were some disappointments in what she said. I note that the feasibility of expanding ISAFs is still under consideration and that there is no specific timetable for NATO. Some of us who spoke about that will be very disappointed.
Other points were made about the PRTs which, in the time available, the Minister could not deal with in full. However, the discrepancies between the different PRTs must be taken more seriously. My noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce was perhaps most powerful in talking about a unified command structure in Afghanistan. It is absurd that we have so many nations participating, but still no unified structure. I recognise that it is an experiment, as others have said, but it is one of our very serious Foreign Office and defence problems.
I would like to thank individuals who have contributed. The analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about the origins of the Taliban and the Mujaheddin is absolutely correct. The word Taliban did not exist previously; it was created by the United States to refer to resistance to the Soviet Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and my noble friend Lord Hannay, both made strong development points.
The right reverend Prelate was enticed away from the General Synod debate, which was probably much more interesting.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that it is much nicer to be here.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate gave us the first signs of hope. He mentioned the new constitution, to which we should say, "So far, so good".
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a passionate speech in favour of an all-party approach to this problem, which needs addressing. He was the first to say that we are attempting something quite new and that failure would be catastrophic. I also point out to him that olive trees regenerate very quickly, even if they have been destroyed by the Taliban. Many thanks to other noble Lords whom I cannot mention individually.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Ministers in Afghanistan who are wrestling so hard on meagre resources. I would like to single out Anif Atmar, the Minister for rural reconstruction with whom the non-governmental organisations have developed a very good relationship. We should wish good luck to UNAMA, whose work under Reg Austin—the most experienced electoral officer in the UN—must be supported right up until the elections take place, which includes providing resources as well. We hope that the Minister has been fortified enough by this debate to face her Euro-critics in the forthcoming debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union Membership
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch rose to call attention to the case for a cost-benefit analysis of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: I am truly grateful to all noble Lords who are to speak today. The genesis of this debate goes back to the Second Reading of my European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill on 27 June last year. That Bill called upon the Government to set up an independent inquiry into what life might really be like for the United Kingdom if we were to leave the European Union and continue our trading relationships with our good friends across the channel.
During the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, floated the idea that, should the Government refuse to conduct such an inquiry—which they did—your Lordships should set up a Select Committee to do so. In that suggestion the noble Lord was later supported by 50 other Peers, who wrote in November to the Liaison Committee asking that such a Select Committee be appointed. Predictably, your Lordships' Liaison Committee turned the request down, using the intriguing excuse that such an inquiry would not be timely while the inter-governmental conference in Brussels was considering the proposed new EU constitution. The decision was upheld on 14 January this year in a vote, by 189 votes to 58, after an unsatisfactory debate when several noble Lords were unable to speak because of time constraints. I can only assume that so many noble Lords voted against a proposed inquiry because they were impressed by the fact that the Liaison Committee had agreed to set up a Select Committee to look into euthanasia, and our guidelines say that we should not have two ad hoc Select Committees at the same time. Either that, or one must begin to doubt the usefulness of your Lordships' House as the guardian of the British constitution.
Be that as it may, students of our relationship with the European Union should read our debate today in conjunction with debates on 14 January this year and 27 June last year. Anyone who does that will see that there is one constant and very disturbing thread running through those debates, and, indeed, other similar debates for at least the past six years. That thread is that the Government refuse to engage in genuine debate about our relationship with the European Union. They merely assert that our membership of the EU is so obviously beneficial that there is no point in even discussing what life might be like outside it. However, the Government produce no facts to support that contention. They rely instead on the shallowest of propaganda, none of which withstands rational scrutiny. I have no doubt that we shall hear more of this today, so perhaps I may go to meet some of it now and expose some of the presumed benefits of our EU membership for the fallacies that they undoubtedly are.
1156
Apart from the claim that the EU promotes peace, to which I shall return, perhaps the worst piece of pro-EU propaganda is that 60 per cent of our trade and 3.5 million jobs depend on our membership of the EU. The purpose of this propaganda is clearly to make the British people fear that it would be economic madness to leave the EU. I mentioned that deceit in our debate on 27 June and I regret to say that the Minister, who we are honoured and fortunate to have with us again today—especially on such a burdensome day for her— claimed (Hansard, col. 583) that the Government actually believed it. I will try to pin her down today with some very simple questions.
First, what evidence do the Government have that any trade or jobs would be lost if we left the European Union and maintained our trading relationships with the single market? Do the Government disagree with the analyses carried out by the US International Trade Commission in Washington, and by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and the Institute of Economic Affairs over here to the effect that leaving the EU would at worst be trade-neutral? If the Government do disagree with these and other analyses, can they tell us why?
Secondly, given that we trade in deficit with the EU, can the Government produce any evidence as to why we should not continue to enjoy free trade with the single market—as do Switzerland and even Mexico— if we left the European Union itself?
Thirdly, what evidence do the Government have for another piece of Europhile propaganda regrettably, but I am sure innocently, repeated by the Minister on 27 June? She said:
"Because Britain is a gateway to the European market, we, here in the United Kingdom, receive the largest share of foreign direct investment in the EU".—[Official Report, 27/7/03; col. 583.]
When the Minister comes to reply, I ask her to remember that the DTI regularly asks foreign investors why they invest in the UK, and publishes its answers in its White Papers on British competitiveness. Neither UK membership of the EU, nor access to the single market, appears in the 10 most frequently cited reasons for investing in the United Kingdom. Overseas investors say that they like our reliable and flexible workforce, our infrastructure, the absence of corruption, the English language, our business-friendly climate and our low taxes. In parenthesis, one might just wonder for how long foreign investors will see us as offering these advantages, as we become steadily more burdened with the EU's stifling labour and social costs. But the question I have to put to the Minister is, how do the Government justify their gateway theory? Surely it is absolute nonsense.
I would mention one more supposed benefit of our EU membership, again put forward by the Minister on 27 June at column 584 of the Official Report. She argued that if we were not in the EU we would still have to abide by EU rules if we wanted to trade with it, but we would not be able to influence the making of those rules.
So my fourth question to the noble Baroness is, so what? I accept that we would, of course, have to meet EU standards for the 9 per cent of our GDP that goes

1157
in exports to the European Union, just as we have to meet the requirements of other overseas markets which take 11 per cent of our GDP and just as the USA and others do when they export to the European Union. But would the Government be so good today as to admit—because it is a matter of fact—that Brussels rules apply not only to the 9 per cent of our economy that trades with the EU, but also to the 11 per cent that trades with the rest of the world and to the 80 per cent that stays right here in our domestic economy? Will she agree that regulations made in Brussels apply to our whole economy, not just to the comparatively small proportion that trades with the European Union?
I hope that that deals with some of the main claimed economic benefits of our membership of the European Union. There is, of course, one more supposed benefit: that the EU promotes peace. I dealt with that one on 27 June and will not repeat now what I said then. I would, however, point out that many people in Europe seem to be starting to regard the EU's main purpose in life as being a counterbalance to the power of the United States of America, even to undermine her, our greatest ally. This development appears to be inspired largely by France, with her deep psychotic need to bite the hand that freed her in two world wars. Indeed, only yesterday the French defence minister, Michelle Alliot-Marie, boasted that the proposed EU battlegroups are another step towards a European megastate that will rival the Americans. Like many in your Lordship's House, I fear we go down that route at our peril.
So much for some of the supposed benefits of our membership of the EU. What about some of the costs?
The Trade Justice Movement, supported by CAFOD and Oxfam, estimates that UK consumers are paying over £20 a week in higher food prices and taxes to keep the EU's iniquitous common agricultural policy going. Assuming that there are 15 million consumers—or families of four—in the United Kingdom, that makes a staggering £15.6 billion per annum. The higher food prices largely fall as 5p on every pint of milk, 40p on every 60p bag of sugar and 3p on every loaf of bread. It would appear that they hit the poorest in our society hardest.
The Institute of Directors has estimated that EU over-regulation is costing our business some £9.6 billion per annum. The Government themselves estimate that £2 billion a year is going on the Working Time Directive alone. Over the past 10 years our average gross cash contribution to the corrupt octopus in Brussels has been running at £11 billion annually, of which they have been good enough to give back £7 billion on projects designed to enhance their wretched image, making our net cash payment £4 billion per annum.
The common fisheries policy has destroyed our fishing industry, which would otherwise be worth a conservative £1 billion a year to our economy. I could go on.
1158
There is also, for instance, the damage done to our modern art market and to dozens of other British interests. There is the incredible waste of time of our bureaucrats and politicians traipsing backwards and forwards to Brussels. The list is a long one.
Just the net figures I have mentioned add up to £30.2 billion a year. However, I am happy to settle for a conservative £25 billion as the wasted cost of our EU membership annually—or £68 million a day. That is the same as our entire defence budget. It is six times our railways budget, double our transport budget and half our education budget. One billion pounds trips very easily off the tongues of those of us who frequent Westminster, but to real people it is an awful lot of money. One thousand million pounds builds, equips and capitalises a decent-sized district hospital to run indefinitely.
So our membership of the EU is costing us the equivalent of 25 district hospitals every year—not a very good deal, one might think. The picture is just as crazy if one looks at some of the capital projects which our love affair with Brussels has cost us. There is the cool £ 18 billion so far on the useless Eurofighter. There is at least £48 billion on the unnecessary water directives. There was £8 billion on the foot and mouth saga. There is £6 billion for "Reach", the new chemicals directive, and another £6 billion for the waste electrical and electrical equipment directive. That adds up to a cosy £86 billion.
I am not saying that we would not have spent some money on some similar projects if we had not been forced into this huge expenditure by Brussels. So let us be generous and halve it. That still leaves us short of 43 new district hospitals on the capital account.
I imagine that that is enough about some of the economic costs of our EU membership. But the strongest case for a cost-benefit analysis comes from the damage already done to our democracy and what lies in store for what is left of it. By "democracy" I mean the right of the British people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws. The British people are not aware how much of their democracy—their sovereignty—has already been passed to Brussels. No one has told them how their new subservience works. They do not know that the corrupt EU bureaucracy, the Commission, has the monopoly of proposing new laws. They have not got the point that once the Government or executive have agreed or been outvoted on a new law in Brussels, the House of Commons and your Lordships' House must rubberstamp it on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg so-called court. They are ignorant of the fact that this system, this abrogation of their democracy, already applies to our commerce and industry, to our social and labour policy, to our environment, fish and agriculture, and also to our foreign trade relations. Nor do they know that if we stay in the EU the ratchet can only grind towards ever greater integration and servitude.
They are perhaps rather more aware of the proposed EU constitution, which the Government are of course right to describe as a "tidying-up exercise". It will

1159
simply sweep most of the rest of our democracy under the Brussels carpet. A referendum on the eventual constitution might at last reveal the whole existing can of worms to the public, which one suspects is the real reason why the Government do not want to hold one. That is certainly the reason why the Government do not want to carry out an impartial cost-benefit analysis of our present membership. They are determined to continue to hide from the people the truth about the deceit that has been practised on them by their political classes for more than 30 years.
Anyone who doubts that such deceit has indeed been deliberately practised should read a brilliant new book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, The Great Deception, published by Continuum Books. Read that book, my Lords, and you will understand why the Government resist a cost-benefit analysis of our present membership of the European Union and also a referendum on an eventual constitution.
I put it to the Minister that the British people deserve better than this arrogant treatment. They are not so stupid. In constant opinion polls over many years, about 50 per cent of them already say that they would vote to leave the European Union if given the chance. But 84 per cent of them say that their politicians have not given them enough information to let them decide whether the UK should remain in the EU or not, which confirms what I said earlier. How right they are.
To conclude, by refusing a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union, the Government are guilty of arrogance, cowardice and deceit towards the British people. If the Government find that accusation somewhat harsh, there is only one way in which they can prove me wrong. They cannot continue to avoid the issue with flannel and transparent propaganda. They must conduct an open and impartial inquiry; they must trust the British people with the result. Only thus can they bring to an end the greatest deception ever practised on our nation. I beg to move for Papers.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord's speech. I can find one or two points on which I half agree with him and a great deal on which I disagree with him fundamentally. But I have to say that my main perception of his speech is that there appear to be two Europes: the Europe in which I live and the Europe in which he lives. They are so far apart that I do not see how we can inhabit the same territory.
About five years ago, I was invited by the British Council to attend a conference in Prague on the subject of European enlargement. That conference was attended by persons from many of the existing EU countries, as well as individuals from most of the 10 countries that are about to join Europe on 1 May. What struck me forcefully was that these people, who were mainly from countries that had been under communism, saw so much purpose in their countries joining the EU. It was felt that their main mission in
1160
life, as countries, was to become part of the EU and to come back to Europe. That enthusiasm and that wish to be part of the EU contrasts very sharply with the views that we have heard just now and which other critics of the EU purvey.
If so many people want to join the EU, how can it be the awful place that the noble Lord says that it is? That does not make any sense. Many of the arguments, although not all, would apply to the membership of other EU countries as well, yet they do not seem to have the sort of arguments and campaigning stance that the noble Lord has put forward.
I shall say something that the noble Lord will find even more contentious. Looking back over history, I believe that we shall be judged as a country as having made a big error in not having joined the European Iron and Steel Community way back in 1951. Had we done so, the EU would have been moulded much more in the way we would wish than some of its details are today. In other words, at the time we were the most powerful country in Europe; the Germans would have wanted a structure such as the EU set up because they would have wanted the credibility from becoming part of it; and the French were less forceful than we were. We made a mistake.
The reason why we were unable to join at the time was because we had not come to terms with the end of empire. We saw ourselves as an imperial power, and our interests stretched way beyond Europe to the far-flung parts of the world. I can understand why at the time it would have been difficult for any British government to say that we should join at the beginning, but it is a decision that has cost us dear with regard to a number of details of the EU.
The main detail is the common agricultural policy, on which I agree with the noble Lord. I am not happy about it for some of the reasons that he mentioned— because we support agriculture whose products are then sold in competition with the products of developing countries. I agree with the Trade Justice campaign. However, the CAP is already on its way to being changed, and the accession of the 10 countries will make it even more likely that the CAP will be changed further in the interests of this country and our agriculture.
I do not share the noble Lord's criticism of all things that come from Brussels—and he used some very strong language about it. I agree that some procedures in Brussels could be changed, and we are well on the way to doing that, if the decisions floated at the last IGC come to pass. With regard to joining the euro, I would argue that it is not a matter of whether we do so but when the time is most appropriate.
However, I do not agree with the noble Lord's condemnation of all the figures that show how much we benefit. The EU will contain 450 million people by May. I cannot easily say, "It doesn't matter, we can get all those benefits even if we are not members". Three million British jobs depend upon it. They may not all be lost if we were to leave the EU, but we might lose some of them. Fifty-five per cent of UK trade is with our EU partners; surely, that is pretty significant. I am

1161
not as confident as the noble Lord that there would be no change to our pattern of trade if we left the EU. The EU market is bigger than that of the United States and Japan combined. Our exports to the EU are three times greater than our exports to the United States. If the EU is as bad as the noble Lord says that it is, why have we managed such a big growth in exports to the EU? Why has not our trade to North America increased more?
The noble Lord said something about peace. I go along with John Hume, who said that the European Union was the longest and most successful peace process in world history. John Hume knows something about peace and peace processes, and I believe that he was right in what he said.
The EU gives us a chance to co-operate on security, anti-terrorist measures, difficulties with asylum and immigration policy and tackling international crime. We can deal with environmental issues together. The EU gives us in this country better opportunities for travel and for our students. It is very much in the interests of this country to be in the EU. We have more international influence through our membership of the EU than we would have if we were a small isolated country off the northern shores of Europe. Our sense of identity and Britishness has not in any way been weakened by membership of the EU. Other countries do not sense that, and I do not believe that it has any effect on us.
I welcome the enlargement of Europe. I welcome the fact that 10 countries that have given up communism are keen to join Europe and will do so on 1 May. I wish our industries and British industrialists were keener to invest in those countries; the Germans are doing far more in investment than we are, and we are losing out. There is an enormous opportunity there.
Finally, I have a vision of Europe in which the former communist countries and the western European countries are part of a greater endeavour. Yes, there are faults and weaknesses and there must be changes. However, I believe that it is a mission for peace and that we share our dedication to human rights, democracy and the freedom of the individual. Those values are important and they are what is driving other countries to join Europe. That is why I hope that we shall have none of the noble Lord's suggestions.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I rise to support the case for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union put by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. First, I declare an indirect interest. My noble friend's charitable trust has given financial support for many years to my own charitable trust for our educational and humanitarian activities. However, I trust that your Lordships would accept that that would not in any way influence my contribution to this debate or, indeed, to any debate.
I begin by referring briefly to two issues that I highlighted on 27 June, which are still cause for concern, and which support the case for a cost-benefit
1162
analysis of our membership of the EU. I spent much of my time in that debate identifying research demonstrating the EU's long-term and irreversible economic decline, partly due to demographic trends. Evidence has shown that the economic and demographic trends in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Far East are forecast to remain beneficial, while those in the EU suffer from a poor prognosis. Should we not undertake an assessment, at least, of whether we would do better to follow our economic fortunes with areas of the world with positive demographic and economic prognoses, rather than pool our future with Europe?
Tonight, I turn to the implications of those economic and demographic trends for two issues that concern me deeply: Britain's contribution to the economic development of less developed countries and our role in meeting humanitarian needs in crisis areas with maximum effectiveness. The Government's determination to stay in the EU without even contemplating a cost-benefit analysis seems hard to square with those concerns in at least two respects. First, one-third of our international aid budget—or some £600 million a year—is spent by the European Union. I am sure that the Minister is aware of criticisms levelled at the EU in many respects. By way of example I quote concerns from the House of Commons International Development Committee 8th report of October 2003. The first states:
"EC Development Programmes funding, estimated at £865 million … [for] 2003–4. appears as a separate line with no objectives or targets indicated. For such a significant sum it is important for the Department and taxpayers to be clear whether and how this money delivers the government's development objectives".
The second concern states:
"With more volatile exchange rates the £sterling equivalent of the Euro amount attributed to the UK can vary significantly year-on-year. Because the total DfID budget is set inclusive of the EU) element, this means that adverse exchange rate movements have to be funded out of the remainder of the department's budget. This is essentially 'top-slicing' and reduces the resources the Department can direct to priority areas".
The third concern states:
"The Department told us that whilst poverty reduction is now at the centre of EC policy, 'question marks remain as to how widely the policy has been applied' and that only 44% of EC funding has gone to low income countries in 2001. The EU's record in terms of the share of aid reserved for poor countries remains substantially worse than that of individual member states".
My final example of concern states:
"The enlargement of the EU may pose a new challenge for achieving DflD's objectives. The accession countries have small aid programmes and also have understandable interests in their own immediate regions. DfID will have to find ways of ensuring that the accession of the 'ten' does not reinforce the tendency for the EU to focus on the 'near abroad' … In addition, we would like to see more information in the departmental report about how these funds are used, the framework for distributing EC development funds, current shortcomings and limitations in this, including in measuring aid outcomes and DflD's own efforts in this area".
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she think that in a typical African country there should be 15

1163
different EU aid programmes or a country strategy paper for each country, drawn up collectively by the EU, on governance and all the matters, judiciary and so on, that need to be co-ordinated through the EU?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, this is a timed debate and so I shall respond very quickly. I spend much of my time working in Africa. I should like to see British aid of maximum effectiveness being allocated to any African country and a cost-benefit analysis of its effectiveness being carried out.
The concerns that I mentioned fit directly into the case for a cost-benefit analysis made by my noble friend and amplified by the remarks made on the opposite side of the Chamber. There is obviously a need for assessment of the most effective use of resources given by the UK for aid and development, for accountability to our taxpayers and to the people suffering so acutely in many parts of the world from natural and man-made disasters and/or economic underdevelopment.
My second anxiety about ways in which our membership of the EU is damaging our ability to help the developing world as effectively as possible relates to the common agricultural policy, to which my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. I understand that we pay about £8 billion a year towards the CAP's £30 billion annual budget. Therefore, not entirely irrelevant are estimates by Oxfam that while each European cow enjoys two US dollars a day in support from the CAP, 1.2 billion people around the world live on just one dollar a day, and millions starve every year.
Before I conclude, I wish to deal with a different subject. I was disappointed in our debate on 27 June to receive no reply to my concern about the lack of any Christian or spiritual content in the proposed new constitution for Europe. I quote again from a speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in your Lordships' House on 7 January last year:
"To want to be at the heart of Europe and yet. at the same time, to ignore the soul of Europe would be to make a profound mistake".—[Official Report, 7/1/03; col. 920.]
That is my view and it is shared by millions of people across Europe. Poland was particularly disappointed not to get some reference to our religious heritage included in the proposed EU constitution. Such an omission may leave a dangerous vacuum that could be filled by ideologies incompatible with the values of liberal democracy which were born and enshrined in Europe's spiritual and cultural heritage.
I conclude by saying that I hope the Minister will appreciate that these are not in any way party political or parochial concerns but attempts to enable and ensure adequate research to assess the implications of the complex realities involved so that decisions will be made which are based on truthful, honest policies grounded in as much evidence as can be adduced relating to past experience, the current situation and assessment of future trends. The Government owe the
1164
people of this nation that reassurance and I trust that the Minister will be able to give us that promise tonight.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I would be risking a charge of hypocrisy if I were to say that I welcomed this debate or that I regarded it as timely or desirable. I voted against the attempt to overturn the Liaison Committee's recommendation not to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the costs and benefits of our EU membership. I voted against it not least, but not only, because it was a fairly transparent device to prepare the ground for our withdrawal from the European Union, as the original title of the Select Committee proposal revealed and as a number of those who participated in the brief debate we had before voting, and a number of those who have already spoken today, have also revealed. What I do welcome, however, is the opportunity today to explain why I opposed such a Select Committee and why I believe that the present debate is neither timely nor particularly useful—a view in which I have been fortified by the customary moderation with which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. introduced the debate.
The clear implication of the inquiry that was proposed and of the title of our debate today is that our EU membership is a simple matter of readily quantifiable cost-benefit analysis. But it is surely not like that. It is not only the case that many aspects of the fundamental strategic decision we took when Parliament endorsed the terms of our accession in 1971, and when that view was confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the referendum of 1975, are simply not susceptible of accurate quantification, although that consideration should obviously weigh in the balance. There is also the question: how can one quantify the consequences of a decision that has fundamentally influenced every aspect of our economic policy, our business life, our trade policy and many other policy areas in the past 30 years? And how can one quantify the implications of a different set of circumstances, with Britain outside the European Union, when such a calculation requires a series of heroic and unsubstantiable assertions about the conditions under which we would have found ourselves living? One might as well try to quantify the costs and benefits of our membership of NATO, or of the United Nations, or for that matter of the Union of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. I have not noticed any great rush to set up such futile and counter-productive exercises.
But even those aspects of our EU membership that give a possibly misleading impression of being readily quantifiable—budgetary costs, the trade balance, inward investment and so on—are not in fact susceptible of a clear cut presentation. Back in the 1980s the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whose achievement in building the single market must not be forgotten, commissioned a report on the cost of Europe's innumerable non-tariff trade barriers and of the benefits of removing them. The Cecchini report, as

1165
it was called after its author, laboured mightily and used all the econometric tools available. The kindest thing one can say about it, with the benefit of hindsight, is that the sign in front of the figures was correct—it was, indeed, a plus—but the figures were far from correct. That is surely a warning for those who wish to achieve precision and certainty in this field, where none is available.
The Cecchini report was in any case a relatively simple set of calculations compared with what would be needed if one was to put the whole of Britain's membership under the microscope. It had a firm basis in fact in the shape of the current situation and the barriers that existed and had been catalogued by the Commission. It had a reasonably firm basis for the other end of the bridge because it could posit the removal of these barriers and the sort of EU regulatory apparatus which would, in some but not all cases, be needed to take their place. The case of Britain's membership would be far more complex. What would, for example, be the effect on inward investment if we were not a member of the European Union? What kind of agricultural policy would we operate if the CAP no longer applied in this country? Where would we stand so far as concerns trade policy both vis-à-vis our biggest trading partners, the other European countries, and vis-à-vis the rest of the world? To what extent will we be compelled simply to replicate what the EU did without having any chance to influence it— the situation in which Norway and Switzerland find themselves?
Even if a reliable, credible and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis was readily available without too much delay and without too many resources being lavished on it, which I argue that it is not, I would still question the desirability of conducting such an exercise. If the United States, for example, were to undertake publicly and officially a cost-benefit analysis of its membership of NATO—or if one of the permanent members of the Security Council were to do the same with the United Nations, or if a nationalist party were to insist on an assessment of the value of the Union—we would be mightily alarmed and would argue that it was a retrograde step that would undermine both the credibility of the organisation in question and the commitment to and influence in it of the country that undertook the assessment. We would be right to do so.
What then makes us think that we could embark on such an exercise with respect to the European Union in this House and not have a damaging effect on ourselves and our interests? Naturally, our partners in the European Union would be dismayed and would no doubt be made all the more so by the vigorous efforts of those who do want us to withdraw from the European Union, to ensure that the assessment was negative. Until that exercise was concluded, there would be a question mark over our continued membership, and that during a period when we need to be influencing the formulation of EU policies effectively—over the implementation of enlargement,
1166
the economic reform agenda, the world trade negotiations, the budget and foreign policy—and not sidelining ourselves in the debates.
Do those arguments against a cost-benefit analysis weaken the case for our membership? Are they based on a fear that such an analysis would be negative? I would say "No" to both points. There is nothing extraordinary or indefensible about arguing that the long-term strategic decisions of a country or a group of countries can and should not be based purely and simply on a narrow assessment of "nicely calculated, more or less". When the original six European countries came together in 1952, they were not so based—and who would say now, more than 50 years later, that they have not justified their decisions?
Our own decision in 1971 was quite clearly based on a similar, wider political analysis. I will quote only one statement made at the time, and that not by a politician caught up in the parliamentary debate but by Sir Con O'Neill, who was the senior official in charge of the accession negotiating team. He said:
"The true purpose of the Community is security as well as prosperity; and gradually, by the consent of its members, to extend the advantages of working together into new spheres. Its objectives, whatever the forms through which they first expressed and still express themselves, are not usually economic".
And, when the countries of central and eastern Europe, recently freed from the crippling political and economic stranglehold of the Soviet Union, decided to join the European Union, was that a decision based purely on a narrow cost-benefit analysis? Of course it was not. So there is no need to be ashamed, or the slightest bit defensive, about arguing against the wisdom and the usefulness of our now carrying out such an analysis.
I would like to end on a positive note. I hope that this debate will help to clear the air. All the main political parties are committed by their leaderships to Britain's continuing membership. Let us then turn to the massive agenda which faces Europe in the years ahead and concentrate on ensuring that decisions are taken that are in both Britain's and the European Union's best interests.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I fear that I am about to demonstrate that independents are people who cannot be depended on, as I stand at approximately the opposite pole from my noble friend Lord Hannay. Indeed, I start by repeating from the Cross Benches my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for his brave persistence on the issue, which I regard as second only to national defence against terrorism. The powerful study that he quoted, The Great Deception, shrewdly defined the threat to our country from Brussels as a "slow motion coup d'etat". No doubt many noble Lords, including some present, regard the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as a very great bore—and so he is. So was Churchill in the 1930s, in his repeated calls to arms against an enemy.
For me I am afraid, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has proved a truer guide to significant developments in the European Union than our Select Committee

1167
reports, however admirably presented, which have largely concentrated on the minutiae of the latest directions from our would-be masters. After much reflection, however, I have concluded that he would do better to confine his call to an economic cost benefit. Economic costs are more tangible and susceptible to some kind of accurate assessment than any vague benefits.
After all, why do people support the European Union? Very few do from an economic standpoint. For some, a psychic or emotional satisfaction is a sufficient reason. For others, broad political considerations predominate. For better connected elites, some of which are represented sometimes in this House, support may turn on notions of loyalty, personal friendship or—perish the thought—personal ambition and self-interest, including safeguarding pensions.
The problem for the noble Lord's cost-benefit analysis is that what the late Lord Robbins called, in another context altogether,
"the mystic joys of tribal unity"
are subjective. However real they may be to Euro-philes, they cannot be measured. The merit of concentrating on the economic costs is that they are tangible and quantifiable. My challenge is that it simply will not do to commend support for the EU "irregardless", as the late Lord George-Brown would have said, of its costs. Can it be such a fine thing that any cost would be justified? Would even the Liberal Democrats dare to commend the EU without showing the least regard for the cost?
Because we cannot measure everything, as my noble friend Lord Hannay said, should we not try to measure anything? That is an absurd proposition on which I hope noble Lords will reflect. Must this large issue of policy turn entirely on a mixture of emotion, hopes or fears, ignorance or rival propaganda? Nor will it wash to dismiss the patient call for information from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on lofty, pseudo-technical grounds, as I have heard in this House, that cost-benefit methodology has no bearing on such complicated issues. That altogether underrates the sophistication of specialists in that line of business, especially if they are offered a fee.
It is difficult to suppress the dark thought that opposition to measurement conceals a preference for sweeping claims of disaster if we dare to contemplate withdrawal, and absurdly exaggerated claims about the EU as the guarantee of peace in Europe and the world. For both Euro-sceptics and Euro-philes, economic benefits may not even be the most important part of the equation. However, for all rational beings, the measurable economic burden is relevant as indicating the opportunity costs of our membership— that is, the sacrifice of alternative uses of the resources.
In an earlier debate, I ventured to offer some broad orders of magnitude of the opportunity costs that might be saved by British withdrawal. The figures were admittedly derivative, but a retired economist can hardly be expected to undergo the fatigue of original
1168
research in such a matter. Anyway, I suspect that hordes of experts in the Treasury could produce much of the data for which we are looking from their word processors in their lunch hour.
My first approximation differs a little from that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I start from a gross payment to the EU and its institutions shown in the Pink Book at almost £12 billion, from which might be deducted up to £7 billion, including the Thatcher rebate, which of course the French and Germans would like to snatch back. Then there are estimates of the total cost of the CAP, which range from £5 billion to £9 billion. Is it about right to put at £5 billion the higher priced imports that follow from the EU's dubious anti-dumping duties? Such outside "guestimates" would suggest that annual costs might range from £15 million to £25 million—a little short of the estimate made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. They are huge figures to set against the arguable political and psychological advantages of membership.
Rather than retreat into her usual charming evasions, would the noble Baroness, the Minister, at least acknowledge the desirability of a more accurate assessment than I have been able to offer? The stakes are high. The Minister might even avoid further re-runs of our unending debates.
7 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson for initiating the debate and I congratulate him on his excellent speech. It admirably set the scene.
For reasons that defeat me, all the Front Benches are to a greater or lesser extent in favour of the EU; some want more, some want less and some want the unattainable. So it is usually left to Back-Benchers to question the whole relationship; to question whether it is a good idea for Britain to be in the EU at all; and to examine the costs. But when we dare to ask those questions we are slapped down as "Euro-phobes"—a convenient catch-all label which means that we are so far beyond the pale that it is not even worth having the debate. An example of that occurred last month in a Liaison Committee debate when one of our opponents—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I think —called it "damaging" to have such a debate on our membership of the European Union and its costs. I do not see how it can be "damaging" to ask for an open debate about the fundamentals of the EU—called the "bottom line" by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Our gross annual contribution to the EU budget is £11 billion—I prefer to deal with the gross, rather than the net, figures. The British taxpayer is handing over £30 million every day of the year to an organisation in Brussels and that is a byword for—how shall I put it— financial irregularity. It is an organisation whose accounts have failed to be signed by the European Court of Auditors for nine consecutive years. But the poor old taxpayers are never asked whether they think that is a good idea or told how their money is being spent. I suppose it would be "damaging" to do that. When it comes to the EU, honesty is definitely not the best policy.

1169
So what happens to that £30 million a day? Where does it all go? As we have heard, most of it goes on the Common Agricultural Policy. Although there is talk of reform, I shall tell the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the bill has not come down and does not look like coming down. We are still paying the same amount, it just goes into a different pocket. That reform will not be particularly promising. The EU has also been lucky enough to be able to contribute towards modernising the Spanish fishing fleet so that it may operate with full efficiency in what used to be our North Sea waters, while the British fishing fleet is laid up. I am sure that we would all like to pause and thank Sir Edward Heath for making such self-evident benefits possible.
What do we get back? After careful study of replies in House of Lords Hansard, the Government's case appears to rest on two positives: first, our membership of the single market. I do not propose to deal with the claims about jobs as they have already been dealt with and subsequent speakers may also wish to touch on that point. All I shall do is to remind the House that a Government Written Answer on 30 March, 1999 slated:
"There are no meaningful figures on the effect of European single market legislation upon net UK job creation between 1993 and 1997" [Official Report, 30/3/99; col. WA 32.]
The second alleged positive is that within the EU we are able to shape the way it develops; to make it, in the Minister's words,
"more democratic, more effective and of course more efficient".
If only that were true, but it is patently not. Britain has been hit by a tidal wave of EU directives, regulations and red tape that damage rather than help British competitiveness. An absolute classic of that kind is the Commission's recent ruling that Ryanair's deals with Charleroi airport are illegal. Now, instead of paying say £10 or even less for a flight to Brussels, would-be travellers—those outside the EU and government salariat who do not have to count the cost—will have to pay enormous sums. They will be back in the hands of the grisly gang of "state champions"—Air France, Aer Lingus, and Alitalia—and will probably have to take out a second mortgage to afford a ticket to Brussels. I am afraid that the Commission would not recognise competition if it fell over it.
EU red tape has now become an avalanche. It flows into every corner of our life, with directives on working time, parental leave—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he be in favour of allowing local governments to subsidise illegally airlines that wish to come to their airports? Would that be a good use of taxpayers' money? Does he favour a single market in which such practices are common and allowed?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I favour an open and competitive policy. It was open to other airlines to do the same as Ryanair; they were just too slow to do it. The Commission should recognise competition for what it is, not what it thinks it is.
1170
I was talking about the various directives that have flowed our way—working time, parental leave, pregnant workers, part-time workers and an uncountable thicket of health and safety regulations. Also our horses must have expensive and unnecessary passports in case they get eaten by our Belgian or French friends; fanners are criminals if they bury a dead ewe on their own land; and any trader is a criminal if he sells goods in pounds rather than kilos.
But I do not wish to be too negative. When she wound up our debate on this subject in June last year the Minister pointed out that thanks to the EU we in Britain have safer toys. She is quite right. Thanks to the EU rocking horse directive, we now have a new "free height of fall" standard which will ban all rocking horses that are over two feet high. Just as we are deemed too spavined to clean up our own beaches and provide clean drinking water for ourselves, we can now sleep easy in the knowledge that killer rocking horses will longer damage our kiddies. That makes it all worthwhile.
The politicians and Euro-crats who have charted our progress into the European morass are fond of the image of vehicular progress to instil the necessary urgency in us laggards. We must not miss the boat, train or bus; we must keep pedalling the Euro-bike in case it loses momentum and we all fall off. The Euro-limo is looking more like a Euro-banger day by day. After the findings of massive fraud in Eurostat, the smell over the Commission's own accounts, the ignominious collapse of the stability pact and a collision with Poles on the way to the constitution, the wheels have come off the Euro-limo in a big way. It is now parked hissing and creaking in a lay-by, waiting for the rescue service.
The rescue service comes in the shape of the President of the European Commission. His solution is a whacking 25 per cent increase in the European budget. In broad-brush terms that would bring Britain's annual contribution up to £13.25 billion. Would the Minister say whether the Government are in favour of such an increase? And if not, could she explain why the Government believe that £13.25 billion is not right, but that £11 billion is. We would like to know. If the Government are so confident of their case, they should be able to make it in the study for which we are asking.
7.08 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend for initiating this debate and to congratulate him on the vigorous and sincere way that he deployed his arguments. I also congratulate him on his good timing—I shall return to that matter.
His request for a cost-benefit analysis is reasonable by any standards. I would have thought that europhobes and europhiles alike would be seized of the wisdom of being in possession of as many facts as possible before taking the next and possibly irrevocable step. If nothing else, the Iraq war has taught us that. I have heard it said by noble Lords who are on the europhile side of the argument that there is

1171
no point in carrying out the sort of exercise that my noble friend is requesting, because the benefits of remaining within the EU are so obvious. I can only say that I, and increasing members of the British public, find that argument is wearing thin.
There is another argument that is deployed by the europhiles, which is that a cost-benefit analysis would be so complex—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to that—that it would be difficult to carry out and it would be time consuming and expensive. It may be all of those things, but I do not believe that that absolves us from carrying out the work.
This is one of the most important and long-lasting decisions that we have to make in our lifetime. And assembling all the facts which would then enable us to do our "due diligence" has to be the right way forward. Indeed, to do anything less would be—to use a City expression—an abrogation of our fiduciary duty.
I mentioned earlier the good timing of my noble friend Lord Pearson in getting his Motion on to the Order Paper today. As we all know, the EU spending budget is very much in the news at the moment. A 25 per cent increase in contributions is being proposed, with, very possibly, a demand in 2006 that we forfeit our annual rebate of nearly 3 billion euros. To read some comments in the press, one would think that this was a bolt from the blue. But after enlargement it was ever going to be thus. Of course the richer countries were going to have to increase their contributions because the poorer countries joining were always going to be the net beneficiaries. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, that is why so many Europeans think that the EU is a brilliant wheeze. It benefits them, it is right that it should and it is right that we should help them. It goes some way towards answering the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Many of us warned that this would happen and so I found it somewhat extraordinary to read yesterday in the Evening Standard that our Chancellor, Gordon Brown, will label the proposals for increased EU spending as,
"unacceptable and unrealistic, wasteful, inefficient and unfair".
I found that most interesting and I want to focus on two of his words; wasteful and inefficient. For me, they summarise so much of what is wrong with the EU.
At present, our net contribution is running at about £4.5 billion per annum. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke says that the gross figure is some £11 billion and my noble friend Lord Pearson came up with £25 billion. By any standards, it is a large contribution. Among other places, it going is down a black hole of fraud, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Willoughby.
The EU auditors have been unable to sign off the accounts for the past nine years because they cannot account for the whereabouts of what they acknowledge to be about £3 billion to £4 billion. It is of course more than likely to be even greater than that.
If that is the case, it becomes apparent that our entire net annual contribution of about £4.5 billion is being lost to fraud of one kind or another. One talks
1172
nowadays in billions without capturing in a real sense the amount of money we are talking about. Let us say that our contribution is £4.5 billion; that is £4,500 million. It is a great deal of money and all of it is coming from the long-suffering British taxpayers' pocket. To what extent are British taxpayers aware that an amount equivalent to almost all our net contribution is being lost down a black hole of fraud in the European Community? I do not suspect that many are but people should know.
I may be exaggerating the figures, but I fear that I am not. In any case, the only way to find out is to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the kind my noble friend Lord Pearson is advocating. I live in the hope that the Government may be persuaded that this is the only wise and sensible way forward.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is a debate which should not be needed. But it is and all your Lordships should be grateful—although I am sorry to discover that some are not—to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his tireless efforts to achieve it.
It is self-evident that any country which is a member of an organisation which involves money should have a cost-benefit analysis both economic and political. I am sure that the Government will say that they have one. Possibly they have, but it is my contention that if they have, it is out of date and extremely tendentious.
And therefore, it is probably advisable that those of us who support the Motion should make it clear where we come from. In so far as I speak for the Green Party on this matter, I have to say that the party's policy is in favour of Britain being part of the EU but would like to see it reformed. That, I think, is a triumph of hope over experience. No one looking at the EU as it is at the moment can hold out much hope of it reforming itself in the direction we want; that is to say, becoming less bossy and less economics oriented.
As for myself, I have abandoned hope of reform and I will campaign for our speedy exit. I was not always thus. Soon after our accession, the British office of the EU gave a small dinner party for those of us who had campaigned for it before what were then the "big parties" decided to. My wife and I had helped to organise, under Lord Gladwyn and Mark Bonham-Carter, a small conference in 1963 called "Europe— after Britain joins" and so we were counted among the good, if not the great, and were rewarded accordingly with a nice dinner party.
But my devotion to Europe, which is as strong now as it was then, was to a Europe des Patries, as De Gaulle would have called it, and was deeply rooted in the concept of Christendom, the basis of which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, pointed out is disappearing down the plug hole. I failed to notice for far too long a time that such ideas were being swamped by economic factors. Far from a reversion to Christendom, we were heading inexorably into the jaws of Mammon.

1173
I must point out that I have spoken for more than the nought minutes, which is shown on the clock. I welcome what it is doing to me and I promise not to over-run, but I think I should point that out.
I am an unrepentant reader of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph on the basis that together with the Financial Times they have by far the highest standards of British journalism. Therefore, your Lordships will not be surprised that I could not bombard you with the endless instances of the dictatorial record of Brussels, which Christopher Booker and his colleagues provide. But tonight is not the time for that. That time will be when we set up a body, as envisaged in the Motion, to draw up the balance sheet. I am sure that sooner or later we will.
In the mean time, I will continue to fight to maintain British independence against a take-over by the Brussels Commission's United Europe, as I saw done when I was a boy against Hitler's United Europe and as our ancestors did against Napoleon's United Europe. Now that the opinion polls tells us that the majority of all members of the EU are opposed to that body—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked us to consider why so many people want to get in but I would ask him to consider why so many people want to get out—I see some hope as long as doughty fighters such as the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, stick to their guns.
In 1940, after the fall of France, the Times printed a poem by my beloved Dorothy L Sayers called "The English War". It had the courage to rejoice in those dark days that we stood alone and contained the stanza:
"This is the war that we have known And fought in every hundred years, Our sword upon the last, steep path Forged by the hammer of our wrath On the anvil of our fears".
So, stirred by that clarion cry, let us at the very least press for a cost-benefit analysis!
7.19 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, we are, yet again, indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for instigating this topical debate. Ever closer union with Europe is to many people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, indeed, the fulfilment of their vision of a supranational European state bringing—
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I did not argue for a supranational European state. I thank the noble Lord, but that is not what I said.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I apologise. I am delighted that the noble Lord made that point clear. However, to many people, the fulfilment of their vision is a supranational European state bringing peace in our time. They argue that the nation state is on its way out and will soon be part of yesterday's political framework. They argue that we are on the escalator of commitment and the die is cast. I used to think that way, too, but my vision has been tempered by reality.
1174
I believe that the nation state is far from dead and that Europe should be built on foundations that acknowledge basic tribal patriotism rather than attempting to eliminate it. One glance at the crowds at international football matches should be enough to alert all politicians to the force of nationalism. Nationalism should be embraced in our arrangements if we wish to give the whole European ideal democratic legitimacy. As the Government ponder on the new EU constitution, now, indeed, is the time to do so.
Interestingly, only last week Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, said that he had,
"learnt a lot from the Iraq conflict which split the EU down the middle".
and that,
"the dispute raised fundamental questions of how close European neighbours with different histories and traditions could agree on vital policies".
He went on:
"I think all countries have the same interest: a strong Europe. But we have different traditions, different political disputes at home, complicated parliamentary systems—we have to balance that and go forward".
Wise words indeed.
Meanwhile, as every poll on the popularity of the EU shows, the British public are becoming increasingly doubtful about the whole exercise and sceptical as to its benefits. Even the Government's own representative on the Giscard committee, Gisela Stuart, changed her mind after first-hand experience of the realities of the EU, saying in her recent speech:
"The fabric of the EU is tottering and it needs amending"
If the Government sign up to this constitution, forced on our people without reference by a political elite, it will reinforce the growing alienation from the democratic process. I wish I could remember who said:
"If you value peace over freedom, you will finish with neither".
but he was dead right. We must have an arrangement with the EU that works with the grain of human nationalism. Another botched deal based on reluctant consent is in no one's interest. What the public need is an assessment of where this country stands, what economic benefits it has reaped from our membership to date and what, if any, alternative arrangements it could have within an enlarged Europe. Change is in the air. We have all read the audit of war; now it is time for an audit of peace.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the suggestion of a cost-benefit analysis is not encouraged and supported by many on the opposite Benches. It could well vindicate their vision and justify their belief in further economic integration. Alternatively, are they terrified of seeing one of their sacred cows, grazing in the verdant pastures of Europe, suddenly slaughtered by a fact?
Others in this debate have spelt out areas and parameters that a cost-benefit analysis should examine. Time is short but I hope that, not least, we can look at the true cost of our 1 per cent GNP contribution to the EU and the dubious benefits and lack of utility of much of the grants returned to us— grants which can be spent only on items which our own

1175
Government would not have supported in the first place. It is good to see that this week the Treasury is having some thoughts on this financial roundabout and all the waste that goes with it—probably up to 0.25 per cent of our GDP frittered away and well over £2 billion.
I hope that our analysis could also examine the cost of over-regulation and why we gold-plate our regulations and others do not. A perfect example of our attitude and how damaging it is to our economy is in this week's press. A fully HSE-licensed and approved waste paper furnace was used to heat a building—an excellent example of recycling. Out comes a new EU regulation describing it as an "incinerator" and no longer as a "furnace". So the same HSE department takes steps to close it down, albeit previously recognising its intensely useful function. That results in the destruction of a highly commendable recycling operation. Have we gone mad? Whatever happened to subsidiarity in cases such as that? One could repeat that type of example a thousand-fold.
The European Union is making the most significant decisions about its future structure since the Treaty of Rome established the Community in 1957. We need the facts because the Government, whatever their red lines, will be under pressure to sign up. As ever, we shall witness diplomacy by exhaustion and the future legal and financial framework of this country will no doubt be changed irreparably. Deeper embedded will be taxation without adequate representation and regulation without the possibility of rectification because the new constitution gives the EU a legal entity in its own right and its laws will take preference over those of national parliaments.
The constitution of this country has been developed over 1,000 years and has given us, uniquely, remarkable political and economic stability second to none—one which we all too easily take for granted. The British people must know what they are getting in exchange. The EU convention is not just a matter for governments; it is a matter for parliaments and people. The recent vote in Sweden was not only a vote against the euro but a vote against the political establishment that was taking people along a route which was going they did not know where and which, instinctively, they did not like.
The Government must find the resources to establish the facts and then the British people must be allowed to decide on those facts by way of a referendum. If a new EU constitution is imposed upon them without a real effort to explain its desirability, those football crowds will divert their patriotism into strident nationalism, and the dream of a peaceful Europe—a dream we would all like to see come true— will turn into a nightmare.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on putting this item on the agenda today and also on his
1176
persistence in pursuing this particular view. I also congratulate him on his presentation a few Sundays ago on the Jeremy Vine show. That was certainly well received, and I believe that he has had a great deal of encouragement and correspondence about it.
However, it is beyond my comprehension that, after 32 years' membership of, first, the Common Market and then the European Union, there is a blank refusal by the Government and the main opposition parties to agree to the need for a cost-benefit analysis of our continuing membership. What on earth are they all afraid of? We have had myriad inquiries about virtually everything else; why on earth cannot we have an inquiry about the most important issue to face this country during the rest of this century? We should have such an inquiry and we should have it now.
Surely we want to know what benefits—economic, social and political—we derive from membership, how far the governance of Britain has been handed over to the European Union and what future lies in store for us as an independent, self-governing democracy. Those are huge and important issues and they affect the future of this country. Why on earth cannot we have an inquiry into the matter? If this item is not worthy of an inquiry, what on earth is? Perhaps we should have an inquiry into why there is such resistance to having an inquiry into this most important issue confronting Britain.
Unfortunately, those of us who raise these matters are accused of being little Englanders, extremists, nutters—you name it; we are them—and even worse. But what we are seeking is the truth about the European Union. I should have thought that everyone wanted to know that—not only people such as me who believe, and have always believed, that it is not good for us. Those in favour should welcome such an inquiry. So often, the predictions of people such as myself are scoffed at, as are the outcomes.
All too often we have been proved right. I take, for example, the issue of scrapping the pound and adopting the euro. Those who cautioned against it again were attacked for not wanting to join the "euro express" and were even labelled unpatriotic because they believed in keeping our own currency. Events have proved us right. Even Jacques Delors, the former commissioner, agrees that we were right. A Times report of 17 January 2004 quotes him as saying:
"The UK was right not to join the flawed euro".
So we have his endorsement.
One important result of an inquiry might be to find out why the Prime Minister was so anxious to get us into the euro post-haste, and led a campaign to achieve that.
One advantage claimed for EU membership is trade. Yet Britain has consistently had an average trade deficit of £5 billion every year since we joined. Think of what that sum means in terms of jobs. So, in fact, the advantage of trade does not lie with this country, it rests with other countries in the European Union.
An inquiry could also establish whether our fishing and agriculture industries have thrived within the EU or whether they would do better outside. It could also

1177
examine the effect of membership on other great industries, such as shipbuilding and steel, and indeed the effect of the overregulation throughout the whole of the EU and its functions.
Furthermore, an inquiry would examine whether the taxpayer is getting value for money, and the effect of losing our rebate amounting to £3.23 billion each year, which is clearly under threat and is being defended—I am glad to say ably—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And, of course, a cost-benefit analysis at this time would be able to examine the new demands by the Commission, of which we have already heard; for example, a huge increase in funding for education. So far as I can understand from what has been said, it wants to take over further education and it wants to spend an extra £1.8 billion on administration alone.
Finally, we are always being told that if we do not further integrate with the EU we will be isolated. Of course we will not be isolated. That is complete nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that we would be described as a small isolated country if we were outside the European Union. But we are the fourth largest economy in the world and we are respected throughout the world for our experience in diplomacy.
There is a wide, wide world beyond the European Union. What we should consider is our place in that world and whether we should be thriving in it, leading a Commonwealth comprising one quarter of the world's population, rather than rooting ourselves further into the stagnant regulation-ridden backwater of the European Union where we can only—and always do—follow while others lead.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, suggested that the Government should welcome an impartial inquiry. I am confident that the Government, and indeed the main Opposition parties, will welcome the quite admirable clarion call of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Why? For this reason: ordinary mortals—among whom of course I number myself—are fully entitled to be swayed as much by emotion and sentiment as by cool calculation when evaluating the pros and cons of membership of organisations such as the EU, but governments, and what the French call la classe politique are not supposed to allow their hearts to rule their heads. Hard-headed practical considerations, both economic and non-economic, are all that should count.
As Palmerston famously put the matter 156 years ago:
"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
This traditional lack of sentiment—rather dismaying to a layman it must be said—has been all too well illustrated by Britain's treatment of New Zealand. In this country, 55 years ago New Zealand was riding as
1178
high as possible in public estimation. Together with the Canadians and the Australians, the New Zealanders had rallied to help us in two world wars. New Zealand had suffered—like the Canadians and Australians—disproportionately high casualties in the process. Its people were mostly of British stock, and most of our lamb and butter came from there.
Yet, less than a quarter of a century later New Zealand was politely but firmly cast adrift, to facilitate Britain's entry into the EEC. How strange then, given this Palmerstonian lack of sentimentality—indeed ruthlessness—that there are those in the British establishment who argue that any talk of loosening our formal—I stress "formal"—links with continental countries collectively must be firmly squashed, since it would allegedly "hurt the feelings" of those countries and indeed be deemed a "hostile act", and provoke them into inflicting unspecified Lear-like retaliatory horrors upon us. Such a mixture of emotionalism and panic is inconsistent, to say the least, with traditional British foreign policy.
Emotion and sentiment in the field of foreign relations is fine for individuals, but where governments are concerned they need to be subordinated to practical considerations.
Most Euro-enthusiasts, like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will now concede that there are some disadvantages to EU membership while most Euro-sceptics will concede that there are some advantages to EU membership. For example, I willingly admit that, when standing up to American bullying in matters of trade and tariffs, there is a lot to be said for being part of a large, populous negotiating bloc such as the EU.
So, if we can agree to put emotions and sentiment on the back burner for the time being, it is simply a question of whether or not the overall advantages— both economic and non-economic—outweigh the overall disadvantages. What could be wrong with that?
If, at the end of the day, the evidence points overwhelmingly one way, that is probably the end of the argument for most people—not of course for everyone—and a lot of talk, time and money would be saved. If the evidence demonstrates only a small overall benefit in continued EU membership, that is the moment when emotional and sentimental considerations can legitimately come into play in deciding what steps to take.
If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that there is a small overall disadvantage in EU membership, that would give the Government a golden opportunity to pinpoint the most disadvantageous aspects of that membership, with a view to seeing whether it might be possible to initiate a ground swell of public opinion across the Community in favour of rolling back the frontiers of the acquis communautaire in certain areas. One would have to pitch one's arguments directly to the continental electorates; it is no use appealing to the European elite, who do not want to relinquish their grip on power—their "benign" grip, as they would argue, unconvincingly.

1179
The ordinary people of the Continent do not want "obsessive harmonisation" as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, put it many years ago, or interference in the nooks and crannies of their everyday lives—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—anymore than we do. So improvements are, although in practice unlikely, theoretically by no means impossible.
The inquiry would have one other great benefit. It would knock on the head two big lies and one smaller lie, or at least fib. Quite disgracefully, too many Euro-enthusiasts have successfully terrified much of the British electorate by claiming that 3 million jobs directly depend on membership of the Community and that, if we left the EU, 3 million people would lose their jobs overnight or before long—something that they know to be untrue. But I exempt the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, from those strictures, because he admitted that 3 million was a grossly exaggerated figure.
The second big lie is slightly less inexcusable, in that some people genuinely seem to believe it—quite amazingly. That lie is that only the existence of the EU and its earlier manifestations has prevented western European nations from going to war with one another once again. Time and again, I have challenged those who make that assertion to set out one plausible scenario in which western European democracies would have gone to war with each other in the past 50 years had the EEC never been created. Unsurprisingly, no one has ever risen to that challenge.
A smaller lie—or perhaps misconception, as it may well have been genuinely believed—was advanced in debate on the Maastricht Treaty some years ago, I think from the Conservative Back Benches. That was that the continued existence of the European Youth Orchestra depended on our signing the treaty. I yield to no one in my admiration of the European Youth Orchestra or any other youth orchestra; they are marvellous, inspiring, usually a joy to see and hear and give one enormous hope for the future of our civilisation. But if the European Commission vanished overnight and the Council of Ministers never reconvened, the European Youth Orchestra could still flourish and go from strength to strength.
It is quite possible that, ultimately, the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might find continued EU membership to be beneficial to the United Kingdom, on balance. But if it did so, at least the findings could no longer be based on the ridiculous claim that withdrawal would lead to mass unemployment, a third European war and the diminution or cessation of all social, cultural and intellectual contact with the European continent.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Black well: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Motion moved by my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, few more important questions face us at this time. The reason for that is that, week by week and year by year, we face a huge number of decisions on how we participate in Europe, including, later this year, the issue of the
1180
constitution itself, which other noble Lords have mentioned. It surely cannot be sensible to enter those negotiations and agree outcomes without a clear view of what is at stake and what are the alternatives to proceeding with that option.
As other noble Lords have said, the Government's tactic tends to be to assert that there is simply no alternative to signing up to whatever option is offered from Europe, other than full withdrawal. It is then argued that such a step would be economically and politically disastrous, and that those who question the benefits are therefore extremists whose questions can safely be dismissed. I reject that form of response to an attempt to have an intelligent debate on matters of such crucial importance.
I cast my case for the Motion in the context of current discussion under way in Europe and the reality that there must be a high probability that failure to reach an agreement on the proposed constitution acceptable to all—in particular, if it is vetoed by Britain or other countries—will inevitably drive practical consideration of what has in the past been called a multi-tier Europe. We cannot assume that Europe will from this point on always proceed at a uniform pace or in a uniform way. A multi-tier Europe is a likely outcome—whether now or at some point during the next few years. That is what my noble friend Lord Hurd has previously called variable geometry.
I believe that there is nothing wrong with that; indeed, it is probably highly desirable, because we must recognise that different countries in Europe have different needs and that different outcomes are likely to suit their interests. There may be many in Europe with different situations from that of Britain who would benefit from a higher level of integration than that from which many of us believe that Britain would benefit.
If we are to participate in such discussions, as and when they appear on the agenda—which I believe is likely to be sooner rather than later—we must decide what kind of tiers we want to help shape in a multi-tier Europe and which of those tiers bests suits our interests. That means that we need clarity about what aspects of the current European Union are in our favour; and clarity about which aspects, on balance, we would rather be outside.
I am sure that there is general agreement in the House that many things occur alongside our membership of the European Union that we would want to preserve under any scenario—in particular, the notion of free trade across Europe and as much of the world as we can achieve. That applies similarly to co-operation on aspects of crime, security and other matters that cross national borders. None of those things is in doubt. The question is: how much of the current European Union overheads do we need to deliver those benefits; and what burdens imposed by those overheads do we not need?
Let us take the single market as an example. It is clearly desirable to have as low a level of tariffs across Europe as possible. The truth is that, since the European Union was founded, tariffs have dropped

1181
across all global trade. Several countries outside the European Union now achieve as favourable terms with our European partners as we do, without being part of the European Union. Yet the costs of the single market are now significant.
Thousands of regulations are imposed every year— many of them introduced into UK law without effective scrutiny. Can the Minister tell us how many regulations originating in European legislation have been passed into UK law during the past 12 months; and whether on that narrow aspect the Government have any estimate of the cost to British business? Despite the fact that we are all in favour of free trade, it is reasonable now to ask what are the benefits of additional trade that we may achieve in Europe through being a member of the single market, versus the loss of trade elsewhere that may arise because of diminished competitiveness due to those regulations.
As other noble Lords have said, we should enter that discussion recognising that the European Union accounts for less than 10 per cent of Britain's GDP and that, as my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, the European Union will actually be one of the slowest growth areas for trade in the coming years. It will be China, India, Russia and similar countries that will drive world growth during the next 50 years. They are where our future lies.
Germany, by contrast, will have flat or close to flat GDP during the next 20 years, if current forecasts are to be believed. If its productivity continues at no more than 1 per cent a year, or thereabouts, and its population in work declines by 1 per cent a year, simple maths says that it can look forward to little growth in its overall economy during that period. So we must be clear in a hard-headed manner about where our interests lie against the true engines of world and British growth in the years ahead.
As other noble Lords have said, beyond the single market there are huge questions about the benefits that we may achieve from our membership of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and other common policies. If we were constructing Europe today—and if, as I believe, we have the chance to construct a new Europe now that better suits our needs—would the Government choose to be a member of the common agricultural or fisheries policies? If not, may we see the benefit analysis that justifies that decision; or their arguments why we should continue our membership? It is not a question of dismissing them as part of a "take it or leave it" package; we have the opportunity now to shape a new Europe. Let us shape it around our interests, not around the false argument that we must accept everything or nothing.
The final argument made against the proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, is that because we cannot estimate something to decimal places, it is not worth doing. In my experience, there are few very important questions to which one cannot get approximate answers and an approximate analysis. This is a case in point: we do not need the answer to decimal places. If the Government set up such an inquiry, it should be able to give a ballpark estimate
1182
that would at least give direction to the debate. If I am wrong, and such an inquiry could not come up with such an analysis, the Government should admit that neither they nor we know, rather than continuing to assert that the evidence of benefits is so overwhelming. If it cannot be proved, we must all accept that the answer is unknown.
The only conclusion that one can reach is that the Government are afraid of the analysis. Surely, it is almost a dereliction of duty to negotiate the kind of steps being proposed without at least attempting an analysis. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will concede to Parliament the kind of analysis for which my noble friend's Motion calls.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. I should like first to say a word about the noble Lord. As he is one of the rare parliamentarians who say without equivocation that we should come out of the European Union, quite a number of Peers seek to disparage him as a lonely eccentric. That is a serious mistake I have noticed a tendency in this House to be impatient with views that run counter to the general consensus. I remember how Peers made it clear that they regarded the repeated efforts of my noble friend Lady Mar to alert them to the dangers of organophosphates as tiresome and boring. The time came eventually when they recognised that she was right and paid her the respect that she was due.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, suffers in much the same way. However, he has built up a great fund of knowledge about the EU and knows more about its workings and its effects on this country than most Members of the House. If we look at opinion outside the House, it is clear that the noble Lord is not part of a negligible crackpot group but puts forward views held by a substantial part of national opinion. MORI polls have recorded that for the past 25 years just under half of all its respondents want us to get out of the European Union. The latest available MORI figure for June last year was 46 per cent. The fact that all three of our main political parties support continued membership seems to have had little effect on the public's views.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, complained for a long time that the BBC was biased against those who wanted to leave the EU. He arranged to monitor a large number of programmes and demonstrated that his suspicions were correct. The BBC was somewhat abashed and finally asked him to come on to "The Politics Show" during prime time television. He put the case for leaving the EU and answered questions. At the end, a bemused BBC presenter said that they had received more than 400 e-mails in 20 minutes and that most of them called for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to become Prime Minister or whatever. Later the switchboard was jammed for an hour and a half, with 90 per cent of callers in favour of leaving. I cannot think offhand of any other Member of your Lordships' House who could persuade the BBC to give

1183
him or her a solo slot to put forward a controversial case on Europe and secure such massive support from viewers. I suggest that in future the House would be wise to take the noble Lord's views with the seriousness that they deserve.
I welcome the debate. I had hoped that the House would have been able to discuss our relationship with the EU after I had moved an amendment to the Motion on the Liaison Committee's report on 14 January, but that hope was frustrated. In a vote that evening the House resolved by a large majority that within the next 12 months the slender resources available for an ad hoc committee should be devoted to euthanasia rather than to our relationship with Europe. That seemed an odd choice of priority. Why do we devote relatively little of our time and resources to questions of great concern to the people of this country, such as immigration, crime, MRSA in hospitals, the need to strengthen the family and our relationship with the EU, and instead spend weeks discussing the banning of hunting or a whole series of Bills improving the standing of homosexuals? That does not do much for the standing of this House. I am in no doubt that, if we are to have an early inquiry into the pros and cons of detachment from the EU or of a looser relationship, sadly we cannot look to this House to carry it out. We shall have to make other arrangements.
On 14 January, I said that an inquiry should first bring together, in a readable form, details already in the public domain. On reflection, I concluded that this part of the inquiry would best be carried out by a research organisation rather than a committee. Arrangements have therefore been made for the respected independent research institute Civitas, with which some noble Lords are associated, to collect from impeccable sources and to publish in a clear and easily understood way the costs and benefits arising from our membership of the EU. I hope that it may be available by the summer. It will be interesting to see whether the view expressed before our entry by the head of the Treasury, as recorded on page 225 of Hugo Young's book This Blessed Plot, that the advantages were far outweighed by the costs, now appears to have been correct or not.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, those who feel strongly about the matters covered by this debate are fully entitled to put their views to the House, and so far have been doing so at full throttle, if I may say so. None the less, I have a certain sense of dé jà vu.
The topic of the debate was the subject of recent exchanges on the report of the Liaison Committee, as some noble Lords have mentioned, when decisions were taken on the appointment of a Select Committee on another matter but not on the cost-benefit analysis of UK membership of the European Union. The merits and demerits of our membership certainly played a major role at the Second Reading of the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch,
1184
moved in March 2000, and which we debated on that occasion for more than four hours. It was also relevant, in one way or another, to the discussion and decision on the Nice Treaty and to the UK Government's support for the convention that led to the draft constitutional treaty, which this House debated for eight hours on 9 September last.
It is highly desirable that we should look at the benefits and disadvantages, not only of individual proposals, but of some sectoral policies as they have developed in the European Union. In the field of environmental protection and consumer affairs, for example, it seems fairly evident that European Union actions directed at the maintenance of high water quality; the reduction of potentially damaging emissions; the protection of certain habitats; or the control or removal of damaging chemicals, all within a European Union context, are of benefit to the United Kingdom and the individual citizen. None the less, it is desirable from time to time to assess the policies to see that they are being applied in the most effective manner, and that from the strictly national perspective we are getting maximum benefit from positive measures.
Similarly, we ought to be attentive to cases where, for example, judgments of the European Court of Justice have given rise to a different interpretation of the law from that which we expected. An example now being examined by the social affairs sub-committee of the Select Committee on the European Union, from which I have come directly to this debate, is the European Court of Justice judgment that, when a junior doctor is on duty in a hospital, the time that he or she spends having a rest break or even sleeping is to be counted as working time. That complicates considerably how some medical services are currently organised in the National Health Service and in some other countries.
Thus, I believe that the proper way to approach policy developments within an established structure, such as our membership of the European Union, is a continual process of assessment. The work of the Select Committee on the European Union is an important contribution, by providing material for Parliament, Government and the private sector to make such assessments. Over the years, a number of reports within the European Union have also sought to quantify the value of certain policies, most notably the Cecchini report on the internal market.
It is a separate question whether we ought to seek today to attempt a complete cost-benefit analysis of UK membership of the European Union. In the light of the detailed attention that is given to all proposals and to the progress or lack of progress on policies in the European Union, there would only need to be a comprehensive examination—which is obviously a mammoth task—of all the elements, quantifiable and non-quantifiable, of our membership of the European Union, if there were some special reason to do that. I do not see it. The situation remains in many ways similar to that prevailing for many years, and in some important ways it is better.

1185
The budget of the European Union remains capped at 1.24 per cent of gross national income and has often been under spent. It represents less than 2.5 per cent of public expenditure in the European Union, the remaining 97.5 per cent being spent by member states. The single market is in effect, and although there is more to be done, the four freedoms—free movement of goods, services, capital and people—are largely respected. The single market was the biggest single initiative to remove red tape in Europe. Millions upon millions of forms were abolished. All of us who experienced it know what an enormous change that was. It is true that some things are not perfect now, but before the single market they were totally different and markedly worse.
The common agricultural policy has been considerably reformed. It will no doubt be further changed when, as I hope, the current round of international trade negotiations gets under way again. We have had a huge vote of confidence from the 10 countries who will become members of the European Union in May.
It is important and the most useful course for Britain to concentrate our attention more strongly on practices in the European Union that do not correspond to our approach nationally, but where it is realistic to conclude that the EU practices could, over a period of time, be corrected. I have in mind—I give examples, but they are important for the UK—three features of European Union legislation that should concern us as parliamentarians. There are many cases where criticism in the British press of decisions or legislation is mistaken or just plain batty, but it is none the less true that the perception of the British public that the EU is legislating in nooks and crannies has some element of truth. We know that the European Commission is capable of saying, as it did to the Select Committee recently, that it is going to put forward "only" 126 proposals or communications. I pointed out that we do not think like that in this country.
My message is that we can do something about it. Since almost all European Union primary legislation is decided by the Council and the European Parliament, we ought to make sure that the delegated authority to make secondary legislation is limited in the primary legislation to what is strictly necessary. We should use far more sunset clauses, which are not favoured in Brussels, but are a very good idea. The Commission should always present a list of legislation which it proposes to repeal or to let expire at the same time as it puts forward proposals. In this way, we can make practical changes that would be beneficial to us.
I am inclined to the view that a cost-benefit analysis on the scale suggested would be a diversion. We need to make best use of the advantages of EU membership, and to target strongly and in a focused manner areas for improvement, as I have indicated in relation to legislative practice.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, it is the custom of the House to thank the noble Lord who has introduced the
1186
debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has been fortunate in winning the ballot for today's debate, but he will not be surprised to hear that there is not unanimous agreement on these Benches with all the points that he made in his characteristically vigorous introduction. Nor will your Lordships be surprised when I say that I particularly valued the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Williamson of Horton.
Initially, I shall say one or two words on cost-benefit analysis, a point to which I shall return when I deal with one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson—before he leaves. I shall deal with the noble Lord's point at this stage. I go back to the wise words used in the debate on 14 January by someone who is one of the most distinguished academic economists in the House and Chairman of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs—the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He put that day's proposal in its place from an academic economist's perspective. He has dealt with cost-benefit analysis for 40 years, and is therefore in a better position to speak on such matters than many of the rest of us. Tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, made it clear why it was a difficult way of proceeding.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that there were two very different pictures of Europe drawn by Members of the House. I am one of those who see the European Union and its development during the second half of the 20th century as one of the most remarkable political achievements of that century. One cannot give it credit for all that has changed and all the differences, but I think that it is not unreasonable to claim, when one considers Europe in the first half of the 20th century, that it has been a significant contributory factor.
Perhaps the most significant evidence of that is the extraordinary fact of a new entity that has attracted all its neighbours into wanting to join. Nobody who has argued the case from the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has had much to say about enlargement. The Union attracts even those that are not members at this stage. Ten new members will come in on 1 May. Every one had a referendum in order to decide whether to go in: in each case the proposal was carried. That must be very strange and they must have a rather different picture of the European Union from the one we have heard about tonight. I wonder why they have been so misguided. There are another dozen countries that I suspect may become members of the European Union in my lifetime. These include Romania and Bulgaria, with which negotiations continue, and six countries in the western Balkans, including Moldova, and perhaps Turkey. Nor do I exclude the other three European countries—Iceland, Switzerland and Norway—from joining the European Union before 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that it would be a lie to say that the European Union had stopped a war. In a sense, he is right. We cannot prove the negative. We cannot prove that if the European Union had not existed there would have been a further conflict in Europe. In the same way, one cannot say

1187
that NATO deterred the Russians. We do not know that the Russians would not have attacked even if there had not been NATO. But those two institutions have created a culture of co-operation among the countries that belong to them and have been one of the most fundamental confidence-building measures among their participants. They have created something referred to by a Czech political scientist as a "security community"; that is, a group of countries that cannot imagine the use of force to settle disputes among themselves. Of course, that is very different from what we knew in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. That is an outstanding achievement.
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson, referred to the creation of a common economic space—the single European market—for which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, had an enormous amount of responsibility as a member of the Commission. That freeing up of European trade was not just the removal of tariffs. It was much more than that and much more fundamental.
Here I agree with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The role of the European Union within the World Trade Organisation enabled us to organise and negotiate collectively. When the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was commissioner, he did that in a remarkably effective way.
I should like to make a point about cost-benefit analysis. It is impossible to think of any way in which one could evaluate financially the value of the benefit of being in a group like that when negotiating. That is why cost-benefit analysis, which is all right when deciding whether to have a Victoria Line—one of the first decisions where cost-benefit analysis was used— becomes much more difficult with something of this kind.
In conclusion, perhaps I may echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in the earlier debate. I, too, congratulate the Minister on her remarkable stamina. She has not only given a most important Statement on the ways in which this House will play a larger part in future in dealing with European matters, but she is also winding up two of the debates. I look forward to hearing her response.
8.11p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, warmly thank my noble friend Lord Pearson for bringing forward the debate. I salute his determination on this issue, which he has shown again and again in bringing the matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Roper, I, too, add commiserations—I am not sure that that is quite the right word—or I note with sympathy the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, when she speaks following me, will have performed three times today at the Dispatch Box on arduous and difficult subjects. I hope that the immense work she puts in is recognised in the right places and that she receives a pay increase, and so forth.
1188
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Moran, indicated, we have heard voices in this debate which ought to be heeded and, if possible, should be argued against by good robust arguments. They should not just be dismissed, or met with stale facts that may have suited yesterday's debates but are not good enough for the 21st century, nor just met with mere assertions. That is difficult because there are deep feelings on either side on those issues. From time to time, the re-assessment or revisiting of our major international commitment is, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, self-evident.
That must be so in the situation that we face in Europe where, clearly, enlargement, with the prospect of still greater enlargement in a few years' time, and the prospect of Turkey joining the EU after that, means that we are dealing with a completely different entity. We have to reckon with completely different policy considerations from those that drove the original six countries together or, indeed, inspired the commitment of the United Kingdom to the then Common Market. The original European Union has been totally transformed, as have been the original reasons for its creation. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, observed, it is self-evident that one needs to look again at these issues with care in order to find the right arguments to carry public confidence in the policy, otherwise it will simply drain away.
In economic terms, I strongly hold the view that the original Common Market, as we called it, was for the United Kingdom a way forward out of socialist and corporatist stagnation and into free markets and competition, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in his contribution. But that was many years ago. Recently there has been a complete reversal. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the UK has gradually emerged as the competitive, free market economy while large parts of the original European Union are now stagnating, weighed down by excessive labour and other kinds of regulation, as well as high taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, keeps pointing that out with great vigour, and no doubt he will continue to do so.
There is nothing inevitable about this contemporary and rather unhappy trend, one which is leading to considerable quarrelsomeness. The Commission is litigating against nation states and the Stability Pact has been driven through in a way described by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. While I may not carry all my noble friends with me on this, the signs are that with enlargement, with the arrival of 10 new countries and more to come, along with the obvious failure in so many areas of the integrationist agenda and the bitterness that that is causing, the European Union is on the point of very great change. That, too, is self-evident. Its citizens and some of the member states want that change.
In my view, this is not the time to think about cutting loose from the European Union, because this is probably the best opportunity during my lifetime, or certainly for the past three decades, for reshaping the European Union in ways that are more comfortable, sensible, democratic, open and flexible; that is, in ways

1189
that I suspect the vast majority of the people of Europe now want. So this is not the time to break away. Therefore, the wider debate, to which I hope our debate today has contributed—and to which my noble friend Lord Pearson has certainly contributed— should not turn so much on the narrower traditional issue of the UK's precise relations with the rest of the European Union, but on what kind of Union we now want to set our sights on, and what kind of Union can now be achieved in the new conditions constantly appearing around us. How flexible, comfortable for its members, open, convenient, useful and committed to free market principles can it be?
That is plainly not the kind of EU we have now; we have something very different. It is obvious that a Union structured to meet the problems of 30 or 40 years ago cannot meet the needs of the totally different world now emerging. The agonies of some recent treaty-making negotiations such as Nice demonstrate the clash between the past and the present. The Union cannot meet the needs of the newer or smaller member states which are now joining, and it cannot even meet the needs of some of the existing members, as we hear every day.
What is now called the European Union was inspired by great ideals and has great achievements to its credit. But everyone knows that the EU institutions have become hopelessly out of touch with the peoples of Europe. That was the problem the recent convention was meant to address, but did not. It is also hopelessly out of touch with and remote from our democracies. The attempt over recent years to force on Europe, from the top, the priority of deepening integration has been not only deeply unpopular, it has failed Europe and those of us who from the start have fought for and believed in greater unity within Europe. It has also led directly to the serious mishandling of the widening and enlargement of Europe which should have been the Union's greatest aim and highest fulfilment.
We should put all these failures behind us. It is high time that Britain, with all its acknowledged inventiveness and negotiating skills, its great public servants and its passion for democracy, took the lead towards this new and better Europe instead of dancing all the time to the old tunes of others who cling to the past and lack an understanding of changed global conditions.
If the present Government cannot muster the will to do this, then we will take up the baton. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are tamely going to return to a warmed-over version of the ill-conceived and centralising constitution, then we will take the lead in showing that there are much better ways forward, both for our own country and for an enlarged Europe.
In reshaping the Union for modern conditions, constant monitoring of the economics is important, but also very difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, reminded us, cost-benefit analysis is tricky enough for the layman. In the hands of economists, it rapidly slides off into total confusion. However, the British people are not prepared to be fobbed off with the kind of stale arguments which may have worked 20 years ago, but which today look frankly implausible. I would not dare to go on the doorstep and say that the
1190
reason we must stay in the Union is all the wonderful jobs that are being created. People read the newspapers and see that, just across the water, there are yawning levels of unemployment looming like huge black holes which, luckily, we have avoided here.
The economic issues are bound to be very subjective and difficult to get to grips with. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that they are only part of a broader political case for remaining deeply involved in our region as well as being a global power—an involvement which we would be very unwise to break. We have broken with it once or twice in the past with absolutely disastrous results.
I cannot see that a committee of this House carrying out a cost-benefit analysis will be a terribly useful answer. I do not in any way want to cast doubt on the extraordinarily good reports that come out of our committees, but in this case, as we have heard during the debate, there would be more heat than light. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, quite freely admitted that he lives on a different planet, or in a different world or different Europe, from those whose voices he has heard. Both of these extremely opposing viewpoints would have to be represented on a balanced committee. Whatever the intentions, I wonder whether we would get anything out of it at all.
As to whether the Government should undertake an analysis, again this is a very subjective issue. The last analysis they carried out was on the euro. That came through as an enormous two-foot high block of paper—I have tried to read most of it—but it reached no conclusions; the economists all argued with each other. The only use I have found for it is as an excellent pedestal for my grandchildren to stand on when they are washing their hands. So I do not see that as a solution. Perhaps the Civitas Group will provide a clearer answer.
As our global involvement becomes more and more intricate and as Asian power rises and there is a huge shift in the centre of gravity of the world economy towards Asia, perhaps we should establish not a Lords cost-benefit analysis committee but a Lords foreign affairs committee. Such a committee would be well placed to look at European and wider policies in the many areas which, as I know from experience, are not covered in another place and which will not be covered, inevitably, by our excellent EU Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, quite rightly said the other day, the EU Committee will be increasingly occupied with scrutiny.
I hope that your Lordships will give that suggestion and the need for a wider and less Euro-centric perspective—which we must bring to our foreign policy and international relations—serious thought in due course.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have listened with enormous interest to the contributions made by your Lordships today. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said, this is certainly not the first time that we have considered his

1191
proposal. Once more, as on previous occasions, noble Lords around the House have made eloquent and forceful speeches. I was particularly struck by the heartfelt words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and by the clarity and intellectual precision with which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, set out his case in his forceful contribution. The forensically argued contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, was, as usual, very powerful indeed.
To answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I do not dismiss the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am here today to make the Government's case and I am prepared, as always, to argue the Government's points. In the time remaining, I shall try to focus on the principal themes raised by your Lordships and, at the same time, to make the Government's position as clear as I can.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—which was introduced most recently last year—proposed a committee of inquiry to examine the implications of this country withdrawing from the European Union. Again today the noble Lord asks for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, said, something of dé jà vu.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, wants to defend our democracy; that the noble Lord wants to defend the sovereignty of this Parliament. Those are noble aims that we in the Government share. The Foreign Secretary set out earlier today in another place—indeed, I repeated his Statement in your Lordships' House—new proposals for achieving greater engagement by Parliament in European Union affairs. These would include an annual White Paper to give Parliament and the public a clear overview of the issues which are coming up in the EU and the Government's priorities in that context. In addition, the Government favour creating a committee to build on the success of the Standing Committees established last year on the convention and the IGC, in which Members of both Houses can participate.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, says that in arguing these points, the Government give no facts. He implied that there was no real discussion. The fact is that Ministers and officials have attended 13 sessions of committees; we have responded to 16 Select Committee reports, and we have had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floor of both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, reminded us. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that gold-plating, as he put it—and as my right honourable friend put it in his Statement—is being tackled. The Statement this afternoon made that very clear.
The fact is that Parliament decided to take this country into the European Union. It has not changed its mind since. In the case of every major treaty amending the terms of our membership under governments of different political persuasions, it has voted to enact those treaties into United Kingdom law.
1192
I do not think, as the noble Lord believes, that it did so in ignorance. On the contrary—it did so because it saw clearly the arguments in favour of EU membership. If the noble Lord or any of your Lordships disagree, it is for your Lordships to set out the contrary case, as, indeed, many have done so eloquently this evening. But it is also to secure a parliamentary majority in favour of the argument—that is the nature of our democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, wanted to know why such a cost-benefit analysis would be damaging. The Government's agreeing to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would send two very misleading messages, the first being that we believe that Parliament is ill-informed on Europe. As we have heard today, even when your Lordships' views are, in our opinion, incorrect, your Lordships are certainly not ill-informed. Those who want to know more about the way in which the European Union works and to influence our approach to its future agenda have in any case more and more opportunities to do so, not least those which the Foreign Secretary proposed in another place today.
The second false message would be that we have even the smallest doubt about our EU membership. We do not. In the time remaining to me, perhaps I can try to explain why. Before I do, I would like to make a third point. Some of your Lordships have suggested or implied that if there were a cost-benefit analysis and if it were proved somehow that the enterprise were not in this country's favour, that would be fine. But it would be equally fine if that were not the case. The idea that such a cost-benefit analysis would be undertaken on a risk-free basis is fanciful. It would involve many risks to us.
Let there be no mistake about the Government's position. We are absolutely convinced that membership of the EU is in the best interests of the United Kingdom. I freely acknowledge the financial contributions that the UK makes to the European Union. Between 1995 and 2002, the EC budget has averaged around £55 billion per annum. The UK contribution before abatement has been in the region of £9.5 billion. Our average receipts have been £4.45 billion and our net contribution, once we have taken into account the abatement, has been around £2.75 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, referred to the Commission proposals on future financing of the EU. The Commission proposals are unrealistic and unacceptable. A budget of no more than 1 per cent of EU gross national income could meet the needs of the enlarged union and be affordable. Incidentally, before the point is raised, we believe that our abatement is fully justified and non-negotiable.
The issue of cost is not the end of the story. There are the benefits of the single market and the unquantifiable benefits—yes—of peace and democracy in Europe. I make no apologies for putting

1193
forward that argument. However, I was not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, wanted the argument to focus totally on the financial issues. But I hope that the noble Lord remembers that the economic arguments for our membership convinced the British public in 1975 that EU membership was in this country's interests. Those arguments are even stronger today. British jobs and prosperity have increased as a result of our free trade with Europe. There are more than 370 million customers in the single market—38 per cent of world trade. Within a few months, enlargement will increase that number to 450 milliont—the world's largest single market; bigger than the United States and Japan combined.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, thinks that we have behaved badly towards New Zealand. I do not believe that, taken in the round, New Zealanders think themselves that badly disadvantaged. However, it is not ruthless but plain common sense to recognise that a market of 450 million is more advantageous than one of 3 million. There are 3 million jobs in the United Kingdom that depend upon that market, and 800,000 British-based companies trade with Europe. We already export three times as much to the EU as to the United States and more to France and Germany than to the whole of the developing world. Nobody argues that all that would be lost. I do not argue that. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, made it very clear that he does not argue that either. However, it would be placed in jeopardy.
Enlargement alone is expected to boost the UK economy by £1.75 billion. Britain receives the largest share of inward investment into the EU because we are a gateway to the European market. Being outside the single market would kill foreign direct investment and devastate our manufacturing industry. We may not be isolated, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that the Government argue, but we would be hugely disadvantaged. I was a trade Minister for two years and I know how often investors told me that our position as part of Europe was vital to their decision to invest in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, took an interesting line. He said that we need not buy the whole package and that we could partially disengage. I do not think that the noble Lord can honestly believe that we could cherry pick our way through even the last four treaties—the Single European Act, the Treaty of Maastricht, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Treaty of Nice—with one willing partner in Europe, let alone 15 or 25. He is right; there is China and India and possibly even Russia, which will grow exponentially. So, incidentally, will Mexico and Brazil, in all probability. However, does the noble Lord really think that we would strengthen our negotiating position as a market of 60 million? Or would we be better advantaged as part of a market of 450 million—the strongest and arguably the most attractive market anywhere in the world?
In promoting the benefits of withdrawal from the EU, the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Willoughby de Broke, fail to
1194
take account of one crucial fact: even if we were not a member of the EU, we would still have to abide by the EU's standards to be able to trade with Europe. But there would be one fundamental difference—we would have absolutely no influence over setting those standards. The costs of this would be considerable. I quote a member of the noble Lord's own party, Kenneth Clarke—perhaps the noble Lord does not have much time for Ken Clarke. He said:
"It is hard to see what form a new semi-detached model might take, even if it were possible … the Norwegian government has no choice but to accept single market laws and regulations made by the Member States.
If we are to abide by EU rules, it is better to play a part in drawing them up. Under this Government, by engaging positively with European partners, we are able to win the arguments on a range of important policy issues. The EU has signed up to enlargement, to the Lisbon agenda, and to CAP reform. We are confident too of making our case on the EU's future financing, a subject about which many noble Lords are very interested.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that we can leave the EU and enjoy free trade. I find that a remarkable argument. Does he think that we would be able to escape the tariffs and taxes? Does he think that we would have free movement of capital and product markets? The argument that we can leave the club and still enjoy all the benefits of membership defies sensible analysis.
Let us consider the other benefits. Thousands of British workers have benefited from EU legislation to improve their working conditions. Every member state must apply the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. As a woman, I can tell your Lordships that that is a very important issue. Under EU law, it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. EU law means that both men and women are entitled to at least three months parental leave.
It is not only the UK workforce that benefits, it is our customers too. The very persuasive contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, made that admirably clear. The reality has been that the EU has been championing better consumer safeguards on a range of subjects, including the environment and package holidays. Thanks to the single market, British consumers have access to a greater variety and quality of products at competitive prices. An example is the price of long-distance calls across Europe, which has been almost halved since 1998, thanks to telecoms liberalisation in the EU. The single market has helped to deliver the highest standard of living in European history and has helped to provide greater choice and cheaper prices for consumers.
Let us look at freedom of movement. Being in the single market means that British people now have the right to travel, work, study and live, visa-free, throughout the whole of the European Union. Hundreds of thousands of British people have been able to take advantage of this. UK residents will make

1195
around 40 million trips to mainland Europe this year alone. One hundred thousand Britons are currently working in other EU member states. Some 234,000 UK pensioners draw their pensions in other EU countries; and more UK students study abroad in the EU than any other country—on average, 10,000 each year.
What is more, the European Union improves our quality of life. Everyone knows that issues such as crime and environmental pollution recognise no borders. Because of their transnational nature, such issues are better tackled on a European basis rather than by individual countries. By working together we can achieve far more than we are able to achieve in isolation. Measures taken within the European Union to protect the environment have made our beaches cleaner, our air cleaner and our countryside greener. I could not help being very surprised by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose green credentials are, as we all know, very strong indeed. But action at EU level against crime—another issue—has also helped to ensure that fewer drugs end up on Britain's streets.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, poked some fun at me over the issue of toy safety. I think that toy safety is something in which most sensible parents of young children are extraordinarily interested. As he made the point, I asked officials to have a look at this issue. I am told that three-quarters of a million accidental injuries a year are caused by unsafe products. That is very serious for those who are injured; it is very serious for the children who are injured. So rocking horses may seem quite fanciful, but there is a serious issue, as the noble Lord knows in his heart of hearts, when he considers how important safe toys really are.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the point I was trying to make in respect of both drinking water and toys is that, if it is that important, we can do it ourselves. We do not need to be told to do it by Europe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; but the party opposite did not do that in 18 years of government. We are able to talk about standards across the whole of Europe, not just standards in this country. The noble Lord has to grasp that we do not trade in isolation; we are talking about what we buy into this country and about the possibilities when people go overseas. This is a serious issue; it is not a fanciful one.
It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. Although the economic arguments for EU membership are overwhelming, the other arguments are, in their own way, even more powerful. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roper. One cannot know with any certainty what would have happened in Europe had there not been a European Union. What we do know is that tens of millions of Europeans died in the wars of the first half of the twentieth century,
1196
and we were all threatened by the Cold War and the division of Europe. Along with NATO and the United Nations and other international institutions, the European Union has helped to prevent those terrors recurring. It has provided a model of democracy, tolerance and freedom for both its immediate neighbourhood and the wider world.
I was very struck by the point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs who, quoting John Hume, said that the EU is the longest and most successful peace process anywhere in the world. I thought that was a very powerful point.
In Europe itself in the early 1970s, the period when the UK joined the European Community, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all at some point ruled by military dictatorships. Today they are peaceful and democratic members of the EU. I do not claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that I might, that war would have been the inevitable result had the EU not existed. I do not claim that; I merely state the facts.
In the wider world, we now face new threats and challenges. The visit to Tehran last year of the Foreign Secretary with his French and German counterparts was an example of how we can achieve far more in partnership with our neighbours than we can in isolation.
On 1 May this year, we have the accession of 10 new member states of the European Union, and we shall finally see the last traces of the Iron Curtain pulled away. It is a strange time to argue that the costs of EU membership outweigh the benefits or even that the benefits can be quantified financially. When the countries of eastern Europe have chosen unity with Europe, should Britain really be retreating from it? I listened very carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but does he really believe that 10 countries have been simultaneously misled by a massive conspiracy to believe that the benefits of joining the EU are entirely illusory and that their governments are either perfidious or just plain stupid? That really does defy rational analysis—that 15 current governments and 10 others due to join us are somehow part of a massive conspiracy seems an extraordinary suggestion.
The noble Lord said that the Government were guilty of arrogance, cowardice and deceit. No—I simply disagree with the noble Lord. If I may say so gently to him, I thought that the use of those accusations was pretty outrageous. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I do not regard the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as a crackpot. I do not use words such as "arrogance", "cowardice" and "deceit"; I simply say that I disagree with him, and I disagree with others of your Lordships. But I do so respectfully—I hope that I do so sensibly—and I do so with candour.
Of course, there are things that need reform. Many will argue that we have mistaken their position and that it is not the unity of Europe but the European bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are rarely popular, but they are necessary to some degree or other—but yes, we need some reforms. We have supported reform of

1197
the European Union institutions, including those introduced by Neil Kinnock to improve accountability and transparency. We also support the reforms agreed at Seville in 2002 on the workings of the Council of Ministers. Our presidency in the EU next year will give us a valuable chance to keep the agenda alive and in good focus.
On one point I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I thought that he was absolutely right in many of his criticisms of the CAP. Again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Dubs on this point; the UK is firmly committed to further modernisation of the CAP, and we are strong supporters of the reform deal agreed last June, which brought about the decoupling of direct payments and transferred resources towards wider rural development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was right, of course: every cow receives a subsidy of two dollars a day, as opposed to the one dollar a day given to the 1.2 million starving people around the world. She is right— that is outrageous. I have argued that from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. However, I am not going to turn my back on that argument or stop being part of the engine for that reform. I want that change, not only from this country's point of view but from the point of view of all the European Union countries. I want to be there, having that argument.
I agree that EU aid could be better spent. We are working with the Commission and the member states to improve its management and to focus on global poverty reduction. We are engines of that argument; if we were not there, a lot of the passion in putting that argument would not be at that European table. The noble Baroness may disagree with me, but I have been there and been part of making those arguments and I can tell her that they are made with enormous force by the UK Government.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. We have a chance to reform; we in the UK are committed to that. I might even go so far as to argue that we in the UK—all of us, in all parts of your Lordships' House—are engines for that reform in the future. I disagree with him, however, on his points about the constitutional treaty. We discussed that earlier this afternoon. I believe that that text will help us in the reform endeavour.
I have come to the end of my time. The notion that somehow this cost-benefit analysis will do anything to reform the European Union and would take our arguments forward one iota is fanciful. It would be not only time-wasting and expensive but, I argue as passionately as I can, immensely damaging to everything that we value about our relationship with the European Union.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Table advises me that this debate should end at 8.47 p.m., which I believe leaves me two minutes in which to thank all noble Lords who have contributed. Of course, my special thanks go to the 12 of your
1198
Lordships who supported me, but I also wish to thank the five noble Lords who spoke against the Motion as at least that made for something of a debate.
There are a number of points that I should like to put to the noble Baroness but she has run me out of time, so I cannot. No doubt we shall have another opportunity. Finally, however, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for his extremely generous comments about me. I have a confession to make, which is that in 1992, when I was, obviously mistakenly, put on your Lordships' European Union Select Committee, I made the mistake of reading and understanding the Treaties of Rome. I do not think that many people in this country have done that. I am afraid that it has given me inspiration, as the noble Baroness said, to try to save our democracy. Our involvement with the European Union is taking us to disaster in that respect. As the noble Baroness rightly suggests, I, at least, and, I think, many of my noble friends, will try to continue to do just that. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.46 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donoughue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
(Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996]:
Lord Donoughuemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert "and the National Gamekeepers' Organisation jointly"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak also to the related Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Not wishing to delay the Committee, especially those such as myself who will be heading for Dover at dawn, I shall explain very briefly the related amendments, which respond to the Minister's Second Reading comments about a certain lack of balance in the authority as between the three main groups; that is, the welfare groups, land use and field sports. I accept those comments and to meet them I propose the following.
In Amendment No. 1, I propose that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the National Gamekeepers' Organisation have just one representative. Amendment No. 2 would remove the separate representation for the National Gamekeepers' Organisation. Amendment No. 3

1199
would include the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare in the list of organisations. Therefore, the sports bodies' representation would be reduced by one, the welfare groups' representation would be increased by one and there would be a broad division of 3:3:3 representation as between welfare, land use and sports groups. It is not a perfect balance and perhaps the Minister may say that, but my noble friend will know, as a member of the present Government, that nothing is perfect. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I speak in full support of the noble Lord, who has explained his amendments. I believe that they strengthen substantially the authority. We must not forget that the Secretary of State can accept or not accept the conclusions of the authority. The amendments would achieve a far better balance in the authority than was the case hitherto and would address one of the major points that was made by the Minister when we debated the matter previously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I am grateful that my noble friend heeded my words at Second Reading. I therefore welcome the amendment. I regret that he has to leave the country early tomorrow morning, and I hope that that is nothing to do with the Bill.
The provision does not go far enough, however. Although I do not wish to object to the move, we still have an authority that in my view and the view of not only those concerned with the animal welfare dimension, but of a number of neutral observers, is still not balanced. It over-represents the interests of the field sports and under-represents the views of those concerned with animal welfare, particularly given that
1200
views on the issues expressed by those whom my noble friend described as land-use bodies tend to coincide with those of the shooting and hunting organisations.
There is probably a more fundamental problem about how the authority ever reaches a consensus, as it is difficult to see how it would do that on the codes. Therefore, many items would be referred to the Secretary of State, whereas it would be really helpful if the authority were sufficiently balanced to sort out such matters. It has also been suggested that the balance could be redressed by additional members appointed by the authority, but that authority is unlikely to appoint people who would change its overall balance significantly.
Although I accept that the amendment is a move in the right direction, it is not sufficient to address the central points of balance that I raised at Second Reading.
Lord Donoughue: I thank those who have spoken, including my noble friend. As always, we shall look carefully at what he has said. However, I firmly believe that the amendment improves the balance of the authority.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 3, leave out line 6.
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Smoking
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Smoking
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Business Plan 2004
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Business Plan 2004
  Northern Ireland: Victims
  Northern Ireland: Victims
  Northern Ireland: Police Budget
  Northern Ireland: Police Budget
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Hutton Inquiry
  Hutton Inquiry
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  European Council: Voting
  European Council: Voting
  BBC World Service: Mandarin Broadcasts
  BBC World Service: Mandarin Broadcasts
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Regional Planning Guidance: Gypsies and Travellers
  Regional Planning Guidance: Gypsies and Travellers
  Nursery Classes and Pre-school Playgroups
  Nursery Classes and Pre-school Playgroups
  Royal Parks: De-icing
  Royal Parks: De-icing
  Sport and Physical Activity: Young People
  Sport and Physical Activity: Young People
  Green Tourism: Merseyside
  Green Tourism: Merseyside
  Tidal Power
  Tidal Power
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Unsolicited E-mail
  Unsolicited E-mail
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Government Support for Charities
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Government Support for Charities
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sudden Oak Death Virus
  Sudden Oak Death Virus
  State Veterinary Service
  State Veterinary Service
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations
  Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Railways
  Railways
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  Heathrow Airport: Lifts
  Heathrow Airport: Lifts
  Port Waste Management Plans
  Port Waste Management Plans
  Driving Standards Agency
  Driving Standards Agency

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001:Report on Part IV
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  Lord Carlile of Berriew has completed the report on the operation of Part IV of the WS 50
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in 2003, which will be laid before the House today.

  We are grateful to Lord Carlile for his work and I am pleased to note that he is again satisfied that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has certified persons only in appropriate cases and that he has exercised his independent judgment in each case having given due regard to advice from officials.

  We welcome Lord Carlile's recommendations, which we will be considering in detail over the next few weeks. They will provide a useful contribution to the debates.