Sitting of 13 January 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Whisky Duty
    Mr. Alistair CarmichaelWhat estimate he has made of the cost to the Scottish whisky industry of introducing a duty paid stamping scheme. [146391]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government have made it clear that we will proceed with tax stamps for spirits if the industry is unable to put forward an alternative proposal that would be as effective in tackling spirits fraud.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer; it may be an answer to something, but it was certainly not an answer to the question that I asked.
    The estimate of the Scotch Whisky Association is that the Chancellor's proposal will constitute an extra cost to the Scotch whisky industry of about £280 million. In return for that, the industry will get a system that is so effective that the United States and Greece got rid of it. The system was also considered by Belgium, Germany and Norway and rejected. Will the Secretary of State make 2004 the year that his Department does something useful for Scotland and the Scotch Whisky Association, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to think again?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the last six Budgets, duty on Scotch whisky has been frozen, which has brought considerable benefit. That did not happen under previous Governments; it has happened because of the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The House knows that the problem is that spirits fraud has been rising year on year. It is estimated that about 16 per cent. of the spirits market has been subject to fraud, amounting to about £600 million. After many years of discussing those things with the industry, the Chancellor has said that we must do something about the problem. He believes that stamps offer the best way forward, but has made it clear
    652
    that the door is open to the industry if it can propose something more effective. I understand that the industry has been speaking to Customs and Excise, but I am sure that most Members accept that no Government can put up with losing nearly £600 million a year because of fraud. That money could be usefully invested in services and other things. Something has to be done about the problem and if the hon. Gentleman has any good ideas, we should be happy to hear from him.
    Mr. Brian H. DonohoeThe Secretary of State will know that I am the secretary of the all-party group on Scotch whisky and that, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, I have made strong representations to the Government and to the Chancellor to ask them to try to find alternatives to the stamp duty. What part will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take in any representations that are made, in relation both to industry management and to the trade unions?
    Mr. Darling: I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in whisky—I confess that I, too, take an interest in the subject from time to time.
    The Chancellor and all Ministers are acutely aware of the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the Scottish economy, but we are also acutely aware of the fact that fraud in the spirits market has been growing and that when we are losing nearly £600 million of revenue through fraud, something needs to be done. Discussions have been held over a number of years and the Chancellor has said that he will introduce the new stamping system unless the industry can come up with something better that is more effective. As I said, the door is open to the industry; if there is a better way of stopping that fraud, we will discuss it.
    Angus RobertsonCan the Secretary of State name even one leading figure in the Scotch whisky industry who is in favour of the proposal?
    Mr. Darling: It is not surprising that people in the industry are reluctant to take responsibility for ensuring that tax is paid. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Government have two duties. First, we must do everything that we can to encourage industries, but, secondly, no Government can stand by and watch their revenue being systematically removed owing to fraud. I should have thought that the nationalists would accept that.
    Mr. Michael ConnartyThe Secretary of State will know that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was not a Member when we persuaded the Treasury, in the last Parliament, not to bring in strip stamps. At that time, there was no doubt that the industry association and all those involved in the whisky and spirit industry accepted that there was massive fraud and that we had to do something about it. It is clear that we have to do something, but do we have to bring in this inefficient system that has already been used abroad and abandoned? I believe that the association will meet the Chancellor in February, so will the Secretary of State lobby at that time for a much

    653
    broader survey of exactly how much fraud is going on? What is the source of the fraud and can we find a better way of dealing with it than strip stamping the bottles, which will cost small producers such as Whyte and MacKay in my constituency a disproportionate amount of money?
    Mr. Darling: As I said, the Chancellor has made it clear that he is happy to discuss with the industry other ways to combat fraud. The problem is that those discussions have been going on for some years now and the amount of fraud has been growing year on year. We have reached a stage where, whether the fraud is £600 million or £100 million either side of that figure, an increasing amount of money is going missing from the Exchequer. Of course, there may be other ways to deal with the matter—that is what the Chancellor said—but, unless the industry can come up with another means that is just as effective and workable, he sees no alternative but to introduce the tax stamps. To do nothing and pretend that the problem will somehow go away seems foolish because all the evidence shows that fraud is increasing year by year. Let no one forget that we have frozen the duty on whisky for six successive Budgets. The Chancellor has said that he intends to continue that for the rest of this Parliament, but he can do so only if we do something about the fraud that is being perpetrated in the industry.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Given the Government's borrowing requirement of £120 billion for the years to 2006, one might have thought that they would want to encourage one of Scotland's most successful trade and revenue-generating industries to fund their burgeoning deficit. Did the Chancellor consult the Secretary of State before the pre-Budget report and the announcement paving the way for this damaging whisky tax stamp proposal? If so, why did he not veto it?
    Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not expressed any concern about the fraud that is being practised on the spirits industry. As for Budget deficits, he was not a Member at the time, but those of us who have been Members for some years will remember that Government borrowing rose to astronomical levels when the Conservative party was in office. The borrowing that we have today is not only manageable, but a small proportion of the amount borrowing compared with our competitor countries, never mind what happened in the past.
    In relation to this proposal, I have said that the industry is crucial to Scotland, which is why we have frozen the duty for six successive Budgets—something that did not happen under the Tory Government—and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman accepted that, if there is fraud on this scale, we have to do something about it. To ignore it would be grossly irresponsible.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What assessment he has made of the implications for Scotland of the Miles report on housing finance. [146392]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The interim report by David Miles on the UK mortgage market was published on 9 December 2003. The Government will consider it carefully and look forward to the final report, which is due by the 2004 Budget. It would therefore be premature to make any assessment specifically for Scotland.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: When the Government come to consider the final Miles report, and also the Barker report, will she make it clear to the Treasury that the problems associated with volatility and shortage of supply in the housing market affect not just the south-east of England, but places such as Edinburgh as well? Will she use her good offices with the Treasury to ensure that, if any pilot scheme emerges from the reports, my constituents in Edinburgh, who often have difficulty affording housing in the city, will benefit from those reports?
    Mrs. McGuire: Many of us share my hon. Friend's understanding of the hot spots in the housing market in Edinburgh, and even my own constituency of Stirling faces significant difficulties. I reassure him that the Scottish Executive are fully engaged with the Miles report. In fact, I hope that his comments about including Scotland in any pilot areas that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may embark on will be fully taken into account.
    John Thurso: In his interim report, Professor Miles states that there is
    "a poor understanding of risk"
    among mortgage borrowers. Does the Minister accept that it is often the most vulnerable in society who have both the largest amount of debt and possibly the least appreciation of the associated risks, and that that problem is shown by the report to be worse in Scotland than in the UK as a whole? What research will the Government undertake to consider that aspect of the question?
    Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One of the difficulties, particularly with those on fixed or lower incomes, is perhaps that they do not appreciate the full risk that they are taking on, partly because of poor advice when they take on that debt. The Miles report is only an interim one and has made no recommendations, and David Miles has said that he wants to discuss issues related to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes with the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.

    Cross-Border Health Issues
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about cross-border health issues. [146393]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of subjects.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Unlike that answer, I would like to be helpful to the Government. The Secretary of

    655
    State will be aware that the Labour Government supported—and many Scottish Members voted for—foundation hospitals for England, but that the Scottish Executive took a different decision. Should we not be seeking the provision of the best possible health care for all people of the United Kingdom? If foundation hospitals are supposed to provide that for the people of England, will he share with me the reason why the Scottish Executive reached a different decision and opposed foundation hospitals in Scotland?
    Mr. Darling: They did so because they were entitled to take that decision. The whole point and consequence of devolution in Scotland, Wales and London is that it is open to the devolved bodies to take different decisions on devolved matters. That is a logical consequence of devolution, and it is why the Scottish Executive took that decision.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the publication of Scotland's proposed sexual health strategy? While the number of people dying from AIDS in Scotland has been dramatically reduced, is he aware that those who survive face a growing threat from resistance to anti-HIV drugs? Will he encourage Ministers in the Department of Health to consult their Scottish counterparts on that and other HIV issues, not least because the number of people diagnosed with HIV in Scotland is again approaching record levels?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right to raise a matter in which he has long taken an interest. It took people a long time to realise how serious HIV and AIDS were, especially in Scotland. It took longer than it should have done for people to realise that action needed to be taken. I know that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the Scottish Executive share the same concern. The last thing that we need is to become complacent about HIV and AIDS, because they are as much a threat now as they were all those years ago.
    Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State will be aware that Scotland is losing four out of 10 of its newly trained medical graduates. Does he think that that figure will increase or decrease when England secures better finance and resources for foundation hospitals?
    Mr. Darling: Scottish universities get a higher portion of funding per head of population than universities in England at the moment. The big issue is to ensure that we get more funding into all universities, both north and south of the border. The Government have been increasing funding. The issue in relation to student finance in England is making the system fairer and getting rid of top-up fees up front—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is against that. We must ensure that there is adequate funding for Scotland and England over a long period. We have found over the years that other countries have done better than us. The people who oppose the legislation that we shall discuss in the House shortly must ask themselves how they would get
    656
    more money into higher education. The hon. Gentleman does not have an answer for Scotland, and he certainly does not have an answer for elsewhere.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents travel to Cumbria, and Carlisle in particular, to avail themselves of both basic and specialist NHS treatment? Is it not the duty of every hon. Member to participate in debates and vote on a truly national health service for the entire UK?
    Mr. Darling: We are all Members of the House and we vote as we think appropriate. I was interested by an article that appeared today in The Scotsman. The Conservative spokesman on Scotland seems to take the same view, because I note that he voted for the Mersey Tunnels Bill. It is difficult to conceive how that legislation could possible affect Scotland. He also voted for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. The article reports that he said in mitigation that
    "on occasion he may have voted in error for a matter only of concern to England".
    He should have looked at the short titles of those Bills, because it was clear to everyone else exactly what they referred to.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Alex Salmond: When he last met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss the Scottish fishing industry. [146394]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I regularly meet representatives of a wide range of organisations in Scotland, and I keep in close touch with developments affecting the Scottish fishing industry.
    Mr. Salmond: We all wish the Scottish Fisheries Minister, Ross Finnie, well in his present medical condition. Last Thursday, however, he said that the fishing deal in Brussels had an "unintended consequence" and he might have to go back to Brussels to change parts of it. The deal is vital for the survival of the white fish fleet in Scotland, so can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will give Mr. Finnie his full support as a Cabinet Minister and participate in those discussions?
    Mrs. McGuire: I echo the hon. Gentleman in wishing Ross Finnie well for his forthcoming operation. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House send him their best wishes.
    My understanding is that Ross Finnie said that he was prepared to look with the fishing industry at the issues that it raised about the Fisheries Council decision and that, where possible, he would consider ways of investigating some of the issues that it raised about the practicality of the new fishing regime. The Fisheries Council decision gave Scottish fisheries in particular an increased quota, which the hon. Gentleman has been demanding of our negotiations for many months. In fact, we now have an increase in the haddock quota of

    657
    66 per cent. It is disappointing that, in making what may be valid representations on behalf of his constituents, he has not welcomed the fact that we came out of tough negotiations with an increased haddock quota—the very thing that he has been demanding for months.
    Mr. Calum MacDonald: It is correct that there was a significant and welcome increase in the haddock quota and a breakthrough establishing the twin principles of decoupling and spatial management. The Minister will know that there is some concern about the operation of the cod box, which is a designated area north of the Hebrides in which cod fishing is banned. However, we have ended up with a ban on all fishing in that area, including pelagic fishing and the potting of crab. The Minister will know from her own family experience of the crab industry that it is not particularly easy to catch a cod in a crab pot, so the cod box may need to be adjusted. Will she take that on board and raise it in discussions with her colleague, the Scottish Fisheries Minister?
    Mrs. McGuire: I should say for the sake of clarification that I do not moonlight as a lobster or crab fisherman, but my hon. Friend is right that I have some knowledge from family associations of the fishing industry and the difficulties experienced by fishermen who go out in all kinds of weather to catch the fish that we like to eat. I accept the point that he made, and I am sure that similar representations were made last week to Ross Finnie, who has given a commitment to look at such issues.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Minister confirm one positive benefit to Scots fishermen accruing from 30 years' membership of the common fisheries policy?
    Mrs. McGuire: If that is a coded question about whether I think we should withdraw from the European Union, I am afraid that I am not going to fall for that bait no matter how attractively it is packaged. I remind the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and people who criticise the common fisheries policy—we all have our criticisms of the CFP—that had it not been in place, we would have had to reach an international agreement about how we manage fishery stocks, particularly in the North sea and around our coast. I hope that he at least has the courtesy to recognise that we came out of those negotiations with a better deal than anything that was ever negotiated by his party.
    Mr. Duncan: We did not do very well with that question. Is the Minister aware of comments by the Scottish Executive, who said that the objectives of the December Council had been achieved, including
    "better outcomes for fishing businesses and better outcomes for fishing communities"?
    Does she recognise those outcomes and, given her family acquaintance with the subject, would she invest in a fishing boat today?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not willing to face the reality. The difficulty that must be balanced by our Fisheries Ministers at Westminster and in Scotland and the European Union is that there is a
    658
    conservation issue, as well as a fishing issue. I am deeply sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not willing to recognise that one of the challenges that we face in managing our fisheries is how we conserve them so that there will be a future for the fishing industry and for fishing communities, including members of my own family, across the whole of Scotland.

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

    Devolution
    Ann McKechin: What devolution issues she has considered since 2 December 2003. [146406]
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 2 December 2003. [146407]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 2 December 2003. [146408]
    Mr. Alan Reid: What devolution issues she has considered since 2 December 2003. [146409]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 2 December 2003. [146410]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I consider all devolution issues that are intimated to me. Since 2 December 2003, there have been 32 devolution issues. Two of them arose in the civil area, while the rest concerned criminal matters such as pre-trial delay, failure to communicate information required by sea fishing measures, and the use of sexual history evidence in trials.
    Ann McKechin: In relation to the current debate about our proposals for the new supreme court, what advantages does my hon. and learned Friend consider the proposals have over the existing arrangements for the Privy Council in connection with the Scottish legal system?
    The Advocate-General: Considerable representations have been made on the matter. In my personal experience, appearing both in the Privy Council and the House of Lords, legal principles and disputes do not necessarily fall into easily defined categories. They have a nasty habit of spreading across into other areas. Thus, a devolution issue before the Privy Council may raise more general principles that in other cases are considered by the House of Lords. One possible advantage of a supreme court would be that only one superior court would exist to decide such cases. But there are, as my hon. Friend knows, a range of issues that a number of Members of Parliament have raised, as

    659
    well as many other groups, all of which are being considered by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
    Annabelle Ewing: Sticking with the supreme court, does the Advocate-General agree with her fellow members of the Faculty of Advocates who recently concluded that the current proposals for a UK supreme court were unconstitutional? If she disagrees, can she tell the House why?
    The Advocate-General: The proposals are being considered along with other proposals. If there were any suggestion that there was any illegality in the proposed arrangements, that might be referred to me as a Law Officer but, on the general issues, there is no question, in my view, of their being unconstitutional, in the sense of illegal. They may be politically controversial, which is another matter altogether.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does the Advocate-General share the view of Lord Hope of Craighead, who, with regard to the creation of a supreme court, told the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 2 December last year:
    "what we are talking about, when we are talking about a final court of appeal in Scottish cases, is an amendment of the Court of Session Act, which is a Scottish Act, which really is under the supervision of the"
    Scottish Parliament?
    The Advocate-General: Of course I defer entirely to Lord Hope, particularly when I am appearing in front of him, but in other areas of dispute, it depends how the proposals are brought forward. These matters are all still being considered.
    Mr. Reid: At the European Fisheries Council meeting in December, a decision was taken that placed certain restrictions on Scottish fishermen fishing in the North sea, but the same restrictions were not imposed on fishermen from other European countries. Surely that is illegal under the treaty of Rome. Does the Advocate-General agree that that is illegal discrimination?
    The Advocate-General: If there was a substantive case of that being illegal discrimination, no doubt someone might raise it as a devolution issue. In that case, I should be happy to consider it.
    Miss McIntosh: Has the hon. and learned Lady been asked to give her advice on the constitutional implications of the West Lothian question of Scottish Members of Parliament being allowed to vote on laws that will apply exclusively in England? If a test case were brought, which Law Officer would act as adviser?
    The Advocate-General: I shall be delighted to see any test case that is brought and to consider it. I am sure that such a case would raise interesting issues. On the general question, the constitutional issue that the hon. Lady mentions seems to me a political controversy, not a legal one.

    SCOTLAND
    The Secretary of State was asked—

    Energy Policy
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on energy policy. [146395]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have regular contact with the First Minister across a range of subjects.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving such a full reply. What action is he taking to ensure the security of the electricity supply in view of the fact that thousands of homes and businesses lost electricity in southern Scotland over new year? Will he consider the undergrounding of domestic supplies before we have to import our electricity supply, by 2012 or 2020, from external, independent, third-country dodgy suppliers?
    Mr. Darling: There are two points there. First, the hon. Lady is right to be concerned at any interruption in electricity supplies. Over the past few months, there have been some quite serious disruptions to electricity supplies not only in Scotland, but in London and other parts of England. The Department of Trade and Industry, my Department and others are looking at the matter, first to find out exactly what happened and secondly to take appropriate action.
    Secondly, I may have misheard the hon. Lady, but I am not sure that burrowing electricity cables is a practical proposition. On longer-term electricity supply, she is right to say that all Governments must ensure security of supply. Of course, there will come a point at which, for perfectly good reasons, we have to import electricity. There is nothing wrong with that, but we need to make sure that our supplies are secure, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.

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

    Supreme Court
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What representations he has received on where the proposed UK supreme court should sit when considering devolution issues. [147116]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I have received a wide range of representations on the proposal for a UK supreme court, including a small number referring specifically to where the court should sit. I will publish the responses to the consultation shortly. Various options for the main permanent base of the supreme court are being considered, although the Government believe that, as a UK court, it should be located in the UK capital city. That will not preclude it

    661
    from sitting elsewhere in the United Kingdom from time to time. It would be for the supreme court itself to decide when it was appropriate to do so.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. When he considers the matter further, will he bear it in mind that the White Paper on Scotland's Parliament, which was published back in 1997, said at paragraph 4.17 that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, when dealing with devolution issues, might sit in Edinburgh "as appropriate"? That has never happened, as he will be well aware. Will he find out why not and also consider why there should therefore be a requirement on the new supreme court to sit from time to time, when considering devolution issues, in Edinburgh or elsewhere in the UK as appropriate?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend comments on the consultation paper—I think that he responded to it—that contained a proposal to consider transferring the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of devolution issues to the new United Kingdom supreme court. As I said in my earlier answer, it might be appropriate for such a supreme court to sit in places other than London around the country, but that would be a matter for it and would be subject to logistical questions. I am not closed-minded on that.
    Mr. David Heath: Is it not abundantly clear, not least from the evidence of Lords Cullen and Hope and the Faculty of Advocates, that the Government have completely failed to understand the Scottish dimension of what they are proposing with the supreme court? Given that we still have no idea where the court will eventually sit—to the extent that the Lord Chancellor has suggested that it may end up camping out in the House of Lords—should we not take time to get this very important reform, which many of us support wholeheartedly, right rather than rushing it through so haphazardly?
    Mr. Leslie: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of having a consultation paper in respect of any subsequent legislation is to scrutinise such matters in much more detail. We will look very carefully at the representations made about the location of the supreme court. I believe fundamentally that, as a UK supreme court, it should be located in the UK capital city. As I said, however, that will not preclude it from sitting in other parts of the country from time to time.
    Keith Vaz: If my hon. Friend looks at the evidence that has been given so far to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, he will see that many other concerns have been raised. May I press him on his answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Surely a pause in the consultation process and an extension of the timetable would give the House, and the country, the opportunity to have a proper, firm set of proposals on replacing the current system. I do not oppose the proposals, but more time is needed.
    Mr. Leslie: I understand that my hon. Friend and the Constitutional Affairs Committee have been looking at those matters, and we are happy to have that dialogue
    662
    and to learn from any suggestions that they might make. However, an inordinate delay would not be in the interests of the proposal. It is right that we should undertake a consultation process, analyse and respond to the responses, and introduce legislation—and that is what we intend to do.

    Party Funding
    Norman Baker: What plans he has to amend the law relating to party funding. [147117]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The current law on party funding is fully in line with the recommendations made by the Neill Committee in 1998. The Electoral Commission is undertaking a review of all aspects of party funding. It is due to conclude its considerations this summer, and we will consider its recommendations carefully.
    Norman Baker: The Minister may recall the Prime Minister telling "Newsnight" in 2002:
    "If I could get shot of ever raising a single penny for the Labour party ever again, would I not do it? Absolutely, of course I would."
    Will the Minister help the Prime Minister in this difficult matter by bringing in a clear system of state party funding so that he does not have to rely on dubious business men for his money?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Leslie: There is not yet a consensus on state funding, as we heard from the reaction to the hon. Gentleman—although he usually gets that reaction. Given that the state already funds the Conservative party to the tune of £4.3 million and the Liberal Democrats to the tune of almost £2 million, a considerable amount of public resources already go to the hon. Gentleman's party and others. It is important, however, that we continue to talk about such matters, and consider the recommendations of the Electoral Commission when it reports this summer.
    John Cryer: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to rule out any consideration of state funding for parties, despite the pleas of Liberal Democrat Members—and does he agree that this is a question of rights? I contribute to the Labour party because I choose to do so; I do not want to pay through my taxes for the campaign of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), or of any other Opposition Member.
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course it is good for any party to be a volunteer party—that is, for fund-raising to be by choice. Judging by the amount of expenditure at the last general election, there was no shortage of money available. Additional scope for funding already exists in the form of parliamentary allowances, policy development grants from the Electoral Commission, Short money and so forth. The Electoral Commission is aware of the situation and will report on it.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: What the hon. Gentleman says is all very well—we accept that there is a degree of indirect state funding in

    663
    that regard. Does he accept, however, that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) spoke for many Members on both sides of the House when he urged that it should not be increased? We do not want our ordinary party political activities to be funded by the state, and I hope that the Minister and the Government will turn their face against any such ridiculous suggestion.
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman reflects the views of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Electoral Commission—the independent expert in this field—will no doubt make its recommendations, which we will consider very carefully. I do not want to have a closed mind on the subject at this stage.

    Second Chamber
    Tony Wright: Whether the Government intend to separate membership of the second Chamber from the honours system. [147118]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government do not plan at this stage to break the link between the life peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Our Bill will, however, propose ending the link between the hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords.
    Tony Wright: May I remind my hon. Friend that the royal commission on Lords reform, which the Government established, made a clear and unanimous recommendation that the award of a peerage and membership of the House of the Lords should be "completely distinct"? Whatever else we do on House of Lords reform, will he give an undertaking finally to separate being awarded an honour from service in the second Chamber of Parliament?
    Mr. Leslie: What my hon. Friend says about the royal commission is true. Last February, however, there were discussions and a lack of decision on the composition of the second Chamber. That has considerably changed the landscape. We will introduce a Bill to make incremental progress when we can, but our minds are not closed about future changes that may be required. Some issues may need resolving later.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: When it comes to separating honours from political power, what is the Under-Secretary's verdict on the people's peers who signed a contract to work in the Lords, yet have never even bothered to turn up? How does he reconcile his party's promise, which was binding in a contract with the people called a manifesto, to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative, with the subsequent contrary policy that it will be all appointed?
    Mr. Leslie: To take the hon. Gentleman's first point about the appointments process, the proposals in the Bill to create an independent statutory appointments commission will not only remove patronage from the Prime Minister but allow general election results to be
    664
    reflected in the process. That is a step towards a more democratic and legitimate system, although I accept that there may be a need for further discussion beyond the Bill. I believe that the Lords do a good job with the work that they contribute. When we consider the Bill we shall discuss a statutory appointments commission, so that appointments can be made on merit in future.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: But are we getting value for money from the House of Lords Appointments Commission? It is almost three years since the first batch of people's peers was appointedca—and as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, we do not hear much from them.
    Mr. Leslie: I am not sure whether it is fair to generalise in that way. Different Members of both Houses will have different records in Parliament. However, I believe that it is our job—and especially mine—to examine the framework in which appointments are made, and that the Bill will be firm about the way in which we structure a statutory appointments commission to ensure that we have good criteria for appointments in future.

    Magistrates Courts (East Anglia)
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the magistracy from East Anglia to discuss court closures. [147119]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I have no current plans to meet representatives of the magistracy in East Anglia to discuss court closures—not least because there are no planned court closures in East Anglia.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am pleased to hear that. I am sorry that the other Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) is not answering this question, because we have had previous exchanges on this subject.
    Does the Under-Secretary accept that not only the present Government but, to be fair, the previous Government, have been too cavalier about closing magistrates courts? In my constituency, Hunstanton and Fakenham have been closed; again, that happened not only under the present Government but under the previous Government. Those courts were good at ensuring that local justice was administered to local hooligans and thugs by local people. Surely the time has come to stop further closures. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be none?
    Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that in the last year of the previous Administration, 21 courts were closed. As I said, I do not intend any courts to be closed in East Anglia at the moment, and the magistrates courts committees do not have any plans to do so either. I shall keep his suggestions under review and I am glad that we have already been able to hear a small number of appeals on magistrates courts and to allow some of them, thus preventing more closures than have been prevented in any other year.
    David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to secure the future of courthouses in rural parts of East Anglia and elsewhere in the United Kingdom is for him to reassure the magistracy—I declare an interest, as a member of the Magistrates Association—that the decisions will be placed in the hands not of short-sighted accountants who cannot see beyond the next balance sheet, but of people who appreciate the value of local courthouses with local magistrates dispensing justice locally?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that we have sufficient local courthouses to administer local justice. However, we must make sure that we respond flexibly to modern circumstances, and that we have adequate facilities for victims, witnesses and so on. Those are the considerations that we have borne in mind when considering the resources in the magistrates courts estate across the country.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not recognise that far too many courthouses in rural areas have already closed under this Government? About 100 courts have closed since they came to power. It is not acceptable simply to say that there may not be so many closure plans in the future. The real problem is that the Minister's Department boxes in local magistrates courts committees and makes it more or less inevitable that any small courthouse will fail to meet Government criteria. The Government must recognise that local justice is more important than their obsession with the tick-box culture and political correctness.
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is clearly seeking some line of attack on the closure of magistrates courts. I remind him that we are not planning any such closures in East Anglia, and that 21 closures took place in the final year of the Conservative Administration. That compares with the 10 courts that closed last year. This year we have allowed more appeals than ever before, which has ensured that fewer courts are closing. We have to look at each case on its own merits. We are also building new courts—for example, in Ipswich and in Cambridgeshire. That is a sensible way to move forward.

    Miners' Compensation
    Mr. Graham Allen: What progress he has made since 2 December 2003 regarding lawyers' fees for former miners' claims for compensation and the role of the office for the supervision of solicitors. [147120]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The Law Society's compliance board is urgently investigating the claims made in this House that some solicitors have inappropriately charged additional fees in compensation cases for mining-related diseases. The board is also investigating the basis on which the charges have been made. I am expecting to hear from the Law Society later this week.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Front-Bench teams both in the Department for Constitutional Affairs and in the Department of Trade and Industry, on behalf of hon. Members of all parties, for their speedy response to the problems faced by former miners and their widows. Those people have been ripped off—to use the technical legal expression—by being charged extra fees over and above those charged by the DTI. Will the Minister also look into the claims-handling companies, which are just as involved in this malpractice? I understand that a company called Vendside has taken millions of pounds in fees from the DTI. My hon. Friend has done a great job helping former miners and their widows, and I hope that he will also look into the claims companies.
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in campaigning on behalf of miners in this matter. I undertake to investigate the matters in respect of claims companies that he has raised, and to write to him about them. The Clementi review, which was set up by my Department, is looking into regulation in this sector, and there will be some proximity to claims companies. This is a serious matter, and I look forward to what the Law Society has to say later this week.
    Adam Price: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), it is true that Union of Democratic Mineworkers officials Neil Greatorex and Mick Stevens have paid themselves six-figure salaries through a subsidiary company established—with the Government's active co-operation—to process claims. Will the Minister confirm that the remit of the Law Society's office for the supervision of solicitors includes such companies, which subcontract the legal work and then charge miners and their families up to £500 for the privilege?
    Mr. Lammy: Solicitors are required by their rules of conduct to agree with clients the basis for charging from the outset of a case. In the absence of a specific agreement, the Law Society would view as improper any subsequent deduction. That is why the matter, which falls clearly and squarely within the Law Society's remit, is so serious. We must wait to see the outcome of the investigations that are continuing.
    David Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in the cases of many miners in my constituency, the Law Society of Scotland has decided already? They were underpaid before 1999, and then received a payment of £1,000. Because of the advice of lawyers, they are now receiving payments in excess of £10,000, £12,000 and £15,000. Will the Minister investigate to determine that the same is not happening in England and Wales?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will be aware that we keep a close eye on what arrangements take place in Scotland. Those are different from the arrangements in England, but clearly in this case there is a perception of unfairness, and some merit in that perception.

    Asylum Seekers
    Dr. Evan Harris: What steps he is taking to ensure that adequate legally aided advice and representation is available to asylum seekers. [147121]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The Government want to ensure that legal aid is targeted properly on those genuine and complex cases that can demonstrate the need for it by passing the merits test. All asylum seekers meeting that test have access to appropriate advice and representation. The Legal Services Commission constantly monitors supply to ensure as far as possible that, as in all areas of law, sufficient quality suppliers exist to meet the needs of asylum seekers.
    Dr. Harris: I thank the Minister for that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—or rather, I thank him for that answer. He will be aware that I have written to him that Darby's, the last city-centre firm in Oxford, has withdrawn from publicly funded legal aid for asylum seekers. The Legal Services Commission wrote to me that
    "we did make DCA Ministers aware during the consultation process"—
    on the new arrangements—
    "that firms are threatening to withdraw if the proposals go ahead and if remuneration rates are not reviewed."
    In his letter to me, however, the Minister merely states that his proposals will improve matters. Does he recognise that they will make matters worse, and that fewer good decisions will be made because of inadequate representation for asylum seekers?
    Mr. Lammy: No is the short and simple answer to that question. There were three suppliers in Oxford providing asylum and immigration advice. One of those has withdrawn, but we are presently in a bid round, and three suppliers have expressed an interest. If those three suppliers get the contracts, there will still be three suppliers in Oxford. As Oxford is not a large dispersal area, that provision is adequate.

    The Leader of the House was asked—

    Post-legislative Scrutiny
    Mr. David Heath: To ask the Leader of the House what assessment he has made of options for post-legislative scrutiny. [147108]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Some argue that Parliament should do more to monitor the effects of legislation passed. Departmental Select Committees can do that at present if they wish, but I am open to suggestions as to how the matter can be taken forward.
    Mr. Heath: With a Government who churn out legislation, create new offences by the hundred—more than 660 before last summer—and have new Home Office Bills such as antisocial behaviour Bills, asylum and immigration Bills and criminal justice Bills queuing up for attention, we often see measures taken that are considered to be the panacea for a particular ill, but are then repealed or replaced even before they are implemented. Is not there a strong case for Parliament to take a reasoned view of what happens after Acts leave this place and how they work in practice, and to examine the consequences of what we pass for the public whom we are trying to serve?
    Mr. Hain: There are two issues in that question. The first is the list of Bills to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Is he suggesting that we should not be doing something about illegal human trafficking? Is he suggesting that we should not be doing something about antisocial behaviour? Is he suggesting that we should not crack down on criminals who are evading the net of justice? The way in which he and his colleagues have sometimes voted suggests that that is indeed Liberal Democrat policy. On the wider point about procedures in the House, he has a good argument. I am sympathetic to the case for post-legislative scrutiny. It is important that the impact of the Acts that the House passes is evaluated properly. As for how that can be done, several ideas exist, some of which the Modernisation Committee canvassed a few years ago. I do not want to overload departmental Select Committees, which are the obvious vehicles for such post-legislative scrutiny. On the other hand, we need to find a way forward.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I had the privilege of leading for my party in Committee on the Child Support Act 1991, which was introduced by Baroness Thatcher, and that everyone agreed with those principles, but that because we had not consulted battered wives or Families Need Fathers, we have had to make four or five subsequent efforts to try to get that legislation right? Such considerations apply to all parties. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we listened to such groups earlier in the process we would avoid problems? Progress is no faster if we rush legislation through this place; it is better to have full consultation and get things right—as he may feel that we could have done on foundation hospitals and university fees.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has advanced a powerful argument in respect of the Child Support Agency. I remember finding, as a constituency Member, that the Act was proving a disaster within weeks of its implementation. He has also made a strong case in respect of post-legislative scrutiny, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) —but the stronger case is for pre-legislative scrutiny, for which he has also been a powerful advocate. As he knows, the Government have been introducing more and more Bills that have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, so that there is proper consultation and we get things right. Sir Humphrey does not always get things right.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is absolutely right: both pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny are very important, relevant responsibilities of the House. He is also right to stress the importance of Select Committees, especially in the context of post-legislative scrutiny. My own Procedure Committee is currently dealing with the consequences of devolution for the House. If the Leader of the House agrees with me that post-legislative scrutiny is the responsibility of Select Committees, will he ensure that they have the staff and resources that will enable them to perform that function?
    Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have improved resources. His Committee and others play a valuable role, and I am grateful for the work that he does. There are a number of issues associated with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. If we gave departmental Select Committees extra responsibilities for post-legislative scrutiny on a systematic basis—of course, they sometimes do the job voluntarily—we would have to consider not just increasing resources even beyond their present level, but the size of Committees and whether Sub-Committees should be established for particular purposes. I know that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Liaison Committee have strong views on that, but if a solution can be found, I am willing to look for it.

    Pre-legislative Scrutiny
    Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Leader of the House how many draft Bills have been subject to online consultation. [147109]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Only one draft Bill, the draft Communications Bill in 2002, has so far been the subject of an online forum. However, all draft Bills are subject to online scrutiny to the extent that they are published on the Parliament website, and all Select Committees have published e-mail addresses to which the public may send comments.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that online consultation does not mean a choice between Pentiums and Parliament, but is a way of involving the silent majority in the legislative process, and another step in the evolution of Parliament?
    Mr. Woolas: Yes, I do agree. I think that online consultation involving online forums is the way forward. These are, of course, matters for the Committees themselves, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has expressed his support for that type of consultation, which benefits the reconnection of Parliament with the voting public in many ways.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that what made the online forum considering the Communications Bill so effective was the high quality, well organised moderation of the questionnaires that were sent out electronically, and of the replies that came back? What discussions has he or the Leader of the
    670
    House had about this, and what is being done to make such facilities available to all Select or Joint Committees that want to undertake online scrutiny? Is it not true that there has been no similar forum since then because the arrangements have not been properly established, and should the hon. Gentleman not get a grip?
    Mr. Woolas: My right hon. Friend and I have got a grip, and I am pleased to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House will know that my right hon. Friend has written to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee opening discussions on the draft Bills that are to be scrutinised and the methods involved. As from this month, Select Committees and Standing Committees are webcast, so that the public can follow their proceedings, and arrangements for the online forum—a more in-depth and useful form of online consultation than a simple e-mail—will follow discussions with the Chairman on scrutiny of draft Bills.

    Sitting Hours (Child Care)
    Vera Baird: To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to assess the need for child care facilities for hon. Members if the House were to revert to its former sitting hours. [147111]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): My right hon. Friend has no such plans. He is aware, however, that many Members with young children find the new sitting hours beneficial, especially in the evenings.
    Vera Baird: Is my hon. Friend aware that half of all politically active women of all parties who were interviewed by the Equal Opportunities Commission cited the late sitting hours and the lack of child care as the main deterrents to standing for Parliament? Would not any change back to late night working without the introduction of child care strike a double-blow against the greater participation of women in the House?
    Mr. Woolas: Clearly there is that danger, and if press reports are to be believed, several Members, including Ministers, would, if the decision were reversed, have problems because of their own personal circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a statement last week at business questions about the way forward on this matter. We know that strong views are held throughout the House, irrespective of party-political affiliation, and the Modernisation Committee will examine how best to move matters forward.

    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

    Exhibitions
    Helen Jones: What criteria are used in making decisions on allocating exhibition space in the House; and whether he will make a statement. [147112]
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Dates for exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall are allocated by ballot, overseen by the Serjeant. Such exhibitions sponsored by Members must be non-commercial, non-controversial and nonpolitical. They also require the support of the appropriate Department and need to be endorsed by the Chairman of the Administration Committee.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful for that reply, but would the hon. Gentleman give some consideration to giving priority for exhibitions in the House of work done by local people in Members' constituencies—particularly the work of young people? That would enable them to
    672
    connect with the House and ensure that Members and the public saw much of the good work that young people do.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: That point is well made. I know that the hon. Lady takes an interest in these matters and that she has been unlucky in the ballot. I hope that she will persevere. The Chairman of the Administration Committee has some say over what particular exhibitions can be exempted from the ballot, and that is usually decided with reference to their specific relevance to Parliament. I invite the hon. Lady to make her views further known, and I shall certainly make sure that they are brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Administration Committee. I hope that she will keep trying.

Points of Order
12.32 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. From the headlines in today's newspapers it seems clear that the Government are determined to press ahead with yet another outrageous stealth tax on motorists to fund compensation for victims of crime. In the Home Secretary's foreword to the consultation paper issued yesterday, he said that, when the consultation was over, the Government intended to legislate through amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. That Bill has already received its Second Reading in the other place. Is not the last-minute announcement of major changes to a Bill that is already on its way through Parliament a serious discourtesy to the House and the other place? Is it not also an indication of the contempt that the Government show for Parliament? Will you, Mr. Speaker, investigate what has taken place on our behalf?
On a further point of order, a Home Office press release yesterday stated that there will be a 12-week period of consultation, which is the standard minimum period specified in the Government's own code of practice, but the deadline for responses is 29 March—only II weeks away. Will you, Mr. Speaker, inquire why the Home Office is making inaccurate statements and why it is ignoring the Government's own guidelines on written consultations?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady refers to a consultation document, and I can tell her that the House will have ample opportunity to debate that matter and respond to it. On the other point of order, she gave me notice and I have taken advice, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have answered the point of order, so I do not propose to open it up again. I will take the point of order from the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
674
You may have noticed that during last Thursday's business questions, I asked the Leader of the House about the fact that the subject for the Opposition day debate was not announced last Thursday. We are getting totally inadequate notice of Opposition day debates, and the public and lobby groups are unaware of what subjects are being discussed. Could you require the Opposition to make the subject for Opposition day debates known in time for the Leader of the House to make an announcement at business questions?
Mr. Speaker: In days gone by, the right hon. Gentleman and I were in opposition. We did not impose such restrictions then, and I will not impose them now.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to make this point of order in the presence of the Leader of the House and the Defence Secretary, because both have been very good about coming to the House to make statements. As column 529 of the relevant Hansard shows, yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and I discussed the principle of whether, when British troops have been in action, a statement should be made to the House of Commons. Did we interpret you wrongly, or were you rather sympathetic to that point of view? And have you received a request from the Ministry of Defence that a statement be made about the events in Amara?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman heard no terms of sympathy from me on that matter.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. Has a Home Office Minister indicated to you today that the Home Office will make a statement on the categorisation of prisoners, in terms of whether they should go to open prisons? In the past, only those designated as safe and unlikely to abscond have gone to open prisons. I have an open prison in my constituency, and in the first seven months of this year some 56 people absconded, of which 11 had been convicted of either murder or grievous bodily harm. That is causing great concern, and the Government should make a statement to the House on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could initiate an Adjournment debate on the matter.

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Audit Office Report on Operation Telic
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.37 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I beg to move,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Armed Forces on their outstanding contribution to the success of the Coalition campaign in Iraq; welcomes the positive findings of the National Audit Office Report on Operation TELIC—United Kingdom Military Operations in Iraq; endorses the conclusions and recommendations of that Report, but is gravely concerned about its criticisms of major deficiencies in the supply of vital equipment to UK forces in theatre, deplores the fact that approximately 200,000 sets of enhanced combat body armour issued since 1989 seem to have disappeared and that few troops received their full complement of the extra quantities of clothing and boots ordered from late 2002 onwards; is particularly appalled that there was a 40 per cent. shortfall in tactical nerve-agent detection systems, vital to alert personnel that an attack was underway, and that the operational filters needed to protect Challenger 2 tanks from radiological, chemical and biological attack were not delivered to frontline units until months after the fall of Saddam, given that the Government's casus belli was fear that the Iraqi regime possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that might be used at short notice; condemns as totally unacceptable the extreme peril to which these supply failures exposed service men and women, because of the perceived WMD danger; and calls upon the Government urgently to address the deficiencies identified in the Report.
  Before I begin, the whole House will wish to acknowledge the awarding to the Secretary of State for Defence by the United States Defense Department of the distinguished public service award, in recognition of his support for the US-led war on terror. May I also suggest to him that for his part, he should ensure that the issuing of campaign medals for those involved in the Afghanistan conflict and in Operation Telic be expedited, so that the achievements of our servicemen and women may be more formally recognised?
  The motion draws attention to the findings of a thorough and wide-ranging National Audit Office report entitled "Operation TELIC—United Kingdom Military Operations in Iraq". The report rightly finds that Operation Telic was a significant military success. I pay the warmest possible tribute, as the whole House has done on many occasions, to all those involved before and during the conflict, and in the post-conflict phase. But the NAO report finds that there were a number of profoundly serious logistical problems that could have had disastrous consequences for the 46.000 British servicemen and women involved. The report lists an extraordinary catalogue of problems, many of which were identified, incidentally, in "Lessons Learned", but which were not implemented in Operation Saif Sareea 2, in Oman. Commanders were unaware of where equipment was stored. Life-saving—
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that matters arising from that exercise were not addressed, but that is not the case. Investigations into the exercise showed that the Challenger tanks and, indeed, the SA80 rifle performed well.
  Mr. Soames: That is true. but I shall come later in my speech to further glaring deficiencies, particularly with tanks and weapons, so the hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
  Life-saving plates for enhanced ceramic body armour disappeared. Vital protective equipment against chemical and biological weapons was deemed unserviceable. Weapons—for example, the excellent Minimi machine-gun and the underslung grenade launcher—turned up so late that soldiers did not have enough time to train with them. Crucially, the secure satellite links to London broke down on the first day of the war, which was not a helpful start.
  Perhaps even more seriously, the raison d'etre of the Government's main case for going to war was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, that was represented as the principal casus belli. If the threat were genuine, all our troops deployed should have been protected against that kind of attack, which was definitely regarded as a possibility. On 24 September 2002, the Prime Minister said that the September dossier concluded
  "that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes".—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 3.]
  Shamingly, the NAO report states:
  "There were difficulties in providing nuclear, biological and chemical protective suits in certain sizes in sufficient numbers".
  It also said that the MOD's
  "entire stock of 4,000 residual vapour detector kits was unserviceable".
  The NAO also reports a 40 per cent. shortfall in tactical nerve agent detection systems. Those failings were potentially dangerous, and the consequences could have been appalling. The situation was wholly unacceptable, and we would like a detailed explanation from the Secretary of State. In one extreme case, Headquarters I UK Armoured Division was so desperate to locate missing chemical detection equipment that it sent a team from Kuwait to Bicester to search for vital missing stores.If further evidence is required, the Secretary of State should reread the MOD's account of the audacious, courageous and brilliant assault on the Al-Faw peninsula by 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines:
  "As final preparations were made on 20 March in the tactical assembly area to launch the assault, there had been attacks by Iraqi missiles. The brigade fully expected to be subjected to chemical attack and the helicopters to be engaged by air defence artillery."

  677
  The House should also hear about this account published in the Royal Tank Regiment journal by a squadron leader serving in the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment during Operation Telic:
  "The strident call of 'Gas! Gas! Gas!' rang out over the battle group assembly 14 times a day; we learned of several Iraqi surface to surface missile launches and generally the threat of WMD use was more a matter of 'When?' rather than 'If?'".
  The NAO report states that critically—and to compound the seriousness of the situation—7 Armoured Brigade's Challenger 2 tanks and other armoured vehicles did not have
  "viable nuclear, biological and chemical defence filters fitted throughout the warfighting phase of the operation".
  That was a disgrace and a deplorable failing, and it was a merciful deliverance that those filters were not required.
  Had Iraqi forces used the chemical and biological weapons that they were suspected of having, it would have been against British forces that lacked the proper protection that they were entitled to expect. British casualties could have been very serious.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Are not those defects extraordinary given the fact that they were presided over by a Government who asserted to the House that it was the possession of weapons of mass destruction that constituted a threat to the United Kingdom? Yet the Government apparently left our armed forces unprotected against that very threat.
  Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The removal of weapons of mass destruction and the threat of chemical weapons was the principal casus belli in the first place.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: If the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence—the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who is not in the Chamber today—and the then Leader of the Conservative party visited our troops in the Gulf during the build-up to the campaign, did the troops express concerns about their equipment?
  Mr. Soames: Neither of my colleagues shared that news with me.
  Mr. Robert Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deficiencies that he has just described cannot be laid at the door of the civilian work forces at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down nor at the Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Centre at Winterbourne Gunner, all of whom worked flat out during the run-up to the operation? Those workers are as disappointed as anybody about the deficiencies that have emerged.
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have paid tribute to the work done by all those who prepared for the operation and I shall do so again. I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's words. The problem was not so much about getting the equipment to
  678
  theatre—people performed heroically—but the tracking of the equipment in theatre and the fact that it did not reach the units for which it was meant.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but how does he reconcile the line of argument that he is pursuing with the NAO conclusion that the protection against chemical agents was good?
  Mr. Soames: That is the line taken consistently throughout the whole report, but I have a number of other things to say on that point and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of answering them in more detail when he makes his speech.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making some important points. He and I are involved with the same regiment—the King's Royal Hussars; I served with the 14th/20th and he served with the Royal Hussars, and he has great experience. Before the Secretary of State replies, will my hon. Friend speculate about why that essential equipment was not available when, clearly, considerable preparations were being made for the conflict?
  Mr. Soames: I shall indeed be speculating about that question. My hon. Friend raises an important point that I propose to deal with, if I may, a little later in my speech.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to deficiencies, and I wonder whether the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) would care to comment on the following quotation:
  "That is not to say that there are not deficiencies. There will always be deficiencies. There are always things that the services need to do their job better."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Soames: Yes, and I had intended to talk about that before the end of my speech, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to make a little further progress. Of course, there are always logistical problems, but our contention is that the problems that occurred were unacceptable and placed many of our troops unacceptably in harm's way, and that the replies given on these matters thus far by the right hon. Gentleman have been complacent.
  On 6 February 2003, the Secretary of State reassured the House thus:
  "I have given that assurance in the past and I repeat it: we are taking the necessary steps to provide our troops with appropriate protection against a nuclear, chemical or biological threat."—[Official Report, 6 February 2003; Vol. 463, c. 399.]
  Ms Dari Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I am delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the requirement to deploy in Iraq was urgent? If so, does he also accept the statement made in the NAO report that on this occasion—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I am

  679
  upsetting Liberal Democrat Members. The NAO report stated that the MOD completed its deployment in about half the time taken in 1991, and did so successfully.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is an adornment to the Select Committee on Defence and she is very knowledgeable on these matters, but I disagree with the suggestion that there was not enough time to prepare. The possibility of the need to go to war had been known about for a long time. Part of our contention is that the steps necessary to get everything in place were not taken when they should have been.
  Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No, I want to get on.
  At Defence questions on 15 December 2003, the Secretary of State reassured the House yet again that
  "British forces were properly protected and every British soldier had a chemical protection suit available to him."—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1304.]
  Can the Secretary of State clarify the profound discrepancy between the reassurances that he so blandly gave to the House and the seriousness of the NAO's findings? Specifically, did every soldier have a chemical protection suit available to him, together with all other necessary equipment to deal with a chemical-biological warfare attack before and during the war-fighting phase, which must have been deemed essential, given the nature of the threat? It is, in our judgment, impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of those matters, and they demand the most clear, unambiguous and serious response.
  Second only to the appalling let-down over CBW protection was the body armour fiasco. Despite efforts to obtain covers and sets of ceramic plates to go in them, the report says:
  "insufficient numbers were distributed in-theatre, largely as a result of difficulties with asset-tracking and distribution".
  It goes on:
  "The MOD's defence clothing integrated project team estimated that approximately 200,000 sets had been issued since the Kosovo campaign in 1999, greatly exceeding the theoretical requirement, but these seem to have disappeared."
  Will the Secretary of State inform the House about the whereabouts of the body armour plates issued since the Kosovo campaign?
  The importance and value of body armour can hardly be overestimated. The American defence science and technology laboratory has reported that
  "body armour reduced the number of US forces killed in action from torso wounds by at least 50 per cent. (possibly up to 90 per cent.) and those killed in action overall by over 20 per cent. (possibly up to 32 per cent)."
  Can the Secretary of State confirm the reports that, in the tragic case of Sergeant Roberts of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment who was killed in Iraq on 24 March 2003, those very plates would have saved his life? Is it true that Sergeant Roberts was told to hand his back because they had been withdrawn from tank crews owing to shortages elsewhere, even though his troop was operating a vehicle checkpoint and Sergeant Roberts was dismounted at the time, stopping and searching vehicles for weapons?
  680
  For our part and more generally, we believe it to be unforgivable that soldiers should have been placed in harm's way without the right equipment to protect their lives, and I put it to the House that, in truth, there can be no greater dereliction of duty and failure of the highest office than for the Secretary of State to have ordered the deployment of troops into the field without the fullest available personal protection in such very hazardous circumstances. The House is entitled to ask how many lives, had things gone wrong, might have been lost, given the very serious nature of those equipment deficiencies.
  Can the Secretary of State explain why the extra quantities of desert clothing and boots were available only after the fall of Baghdad? The NAO report makes it clear that, shamefully,
  "few troops received their full allocation of kit and mismatches in sizing remained into the post-conflict phase of the Operation".
  How does the Secretary of State account for his thoroughly complacent and, as it now turns out, wholly inaccurate evidence to the Select Committee on 14 May last year, when he said:
  "all the requisite numbers of boots and clothing and equipment were there".
  That was clearly not the case. How does the Secretary of State explain that?
  What about the L110 Minimi machine guns and the grenade launchers? Some 587 Minimis and 520 underslung grenade launchers were ordered before the invasion. Many of the grenade launchers did not arrive until after the fighting had started and troops had limited time to train on the Minimi, although it was a great success. Indeed, the grenade launcher, regarded as a "key infantry capability", was issued to troops around Basra only after the city had fallen. Moving on, the report highlights many other instances of the MOD inexcusably failing to stockpile the necessary equipment in advance.
  There are two key reasons—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)—why the Government got themselves into this bind. First, they failed to learn from the hard-won and important lessons of Saif Sareea 2 in Oman and had negligently allowed stocks of equipment to run down to save money. Secondly, because a sizeable number of their own Back Benchers were deeply hostile to military action, Ministers were not prepared to give instructions for the purchase of additional equipment in good time. They left it until the very last minute to avoid sending signals to their own party that they were indeed contemplating war against Iraq. In fact, what they were doing was trying to soothe the anti-war element into believing that it would all be sorted out at the UN. If they got wind last September that advanced preparations for war had been put in hand, the sincerity of the Government's political moves at the UN would have been completely undermined.
  The result of that just-in-time policy was that, in some critical areas, the kit arrived just too late. Indeed, as the NAO report acknowledges, it is a tremendous tribute to the logisticians that so much was shipped and delivered to the theatre in time. But, as General Sir John Reith, the chief of joint operations, told the Defence Committee last year, "we came perilously close". Ministers must bear the responsibility for coming perilously close and for the other equipment deficiencies. That is the gravity of the charge against them.

  681
  The Government are no strangers to that practice, as it is now clear—not as I thought before all the documents were made available to the Hutton inquiry—that the Prime Minster's most senior aides appear to have secured changes that altered the meaning of key intelligence material in the September dossier. The relationship of trust between the armed forces, intelligence services and No. 10 is a critical one and should never be undermined in that way again.
  The Secretary of State has already said that he intends to procure an asset-tracking system. This is not before time. Indeed, it is frankly impossible to understand, given the lessons and problems of earlier operations, why that equipment is not already in place, not least since the Government have made so much of their deemed improvements in deployability in recent years.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: I will not; I shall press on.
  Asset tracking seems to be the reoccurring problem. The Public Accounts Committee report on Exercise Saif Sareea 2 stated that
  "the Department's current asset tracking systems…give commanders in theatre no oversight of the assets being sent to them."
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Soames: Indeed.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I remember when he was a Minister in the MOD. Why did he not introduce an asset-tracking system?
  Mr. Soames: In the light of what has turned out, I very much wish that that had been a priority then and that we had done so. It is quite clear that an asset-tracking system is long overdue. Indeed, the lessons learned from all military operations in the past few years have been that moving supplies is very difficult and that a most expert tracking system is required. The Government have much work to do on asset tracking and, in the view of the Conservative party, it should have been done some time ago.
  Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He rightly highlights a lot of issues about equipment, but does he agree that there are also deficiencies in a variety of services? Chapter 8.24 of the Government's document, "Lessons for the Future", says:
  "Experience on this operation demonstrated that the MOD cannot necessarily rely on contractor support in regions where the threat level is high."
  If we are to learn lessons, should we not learn them now and avoid the privatisation of the defence fire service in the months ahead?
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in respect of the defence fire service. I am not
  682
  sure that contractor support does not have an important role to play in the future, but that is a matter for the Secretary of State—for the next 18 months or so, and then we will sort it out.
  It is important to keep a sense of proportion on these matters. The latest operations in Iraq were a great triumph for British forces, and it is true that there will always be some problems with logistics. Indeed, the report rightly praises the work of the Defence Logistics Organisation and others in getting so much kit shifted. But the worst of the reported failings were potentially catastrophic and the House will, I am sure, feel that they are completely unacceptable for a modern-day army, finding itself deployed on dangerous operations in hostile climates. That British troops invading Iraq were deprived of vital equipment, including body armour and protection against chemical or biological attack, as well as such basic equipment as desert boots and clothing, is truly unforgivable in our judgment. The Secretary of State's continually complacent response is unacceptable to my party, the wider country and, especially, service families, who will share a sense of outrage that our troops were placed in harm's way without the proper kit. The Secretary of State should go.
  1 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move in line 3. to leave out from "Iraq" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `and welcomes the report of the National Audit Office "Operation TELIC—United Kingdom Military Operations in Iraq", which is consistent with the main conclusions of the Ministry of Defence's own report "Operations in Iraq—Lessons for the Future".'.
  I congratulate the official Opposition on their choice of subject for today's debate. Indeed, I welcomed the report on Operation Telic by the National Audit Office when it was published last December. I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides once again to acknowledge the outstanding performance of our armed forces in Iraq because, in the words of the NAO, Operation Telic was a "significant military success".
  As an independent body. it is not the NAO's role to lavish praise on Government Departments. It rightly gives credit where it is due, as it has done in the case of Operation Telic, but it also addresses areas in which performance can be improved. The NAO report rightly highlights the resounding success of Operation Telic, but it also points out a number of examples where there is scope for improvement in the way in which we conducted operations in Iraq. I welcome the NAO's views on those matters as well. In substance, its findings are no different from the conclusions of the Ministry of Defence's "Lessons Learned" process.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I remind them that the Ministry of Defence published two reports on Operation Telic last year. The first was published in July and the second in December. The first gave an interim account of the operation together with some early indicators of lessons for the future. The second, which was based on the Ministry of Defence's customary more thorough analysis of the operation, gave a fuller account of our conclusions. That was published on the same day as the NAO report

  683
  and the two are broadly consistent. That is no surprise, because as I made clear at the time, we aimed to produce a full and frank report on all aspects of the operation—not only the parts that went well, but those that could have been done better.
  Before I address several of the specific points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), let me set the operation in context. This was the largest logistics effort by the UK armed forces since the 1991 Gulf conflict. We deployed around 45,000 servicemen and women from all three services over 3,400 km to the Gulf region, together with all the supplies of food, water, fuel and ammunition required to sustain them. That required more than 70 ship moves and more than 1,200 chartered and military aircraft sorties. We deployed the about same number of personnel and volume of matériel as in 1991 in less than half the time taken then. As the NAO recognised in its executive summary, that was "a major achievement"—not only a military achievement, but a logistic achievement. Our logisticians are not always given the praise that they deserve, so I am delighted to be able to take the opportunity once again to congratulate them. They did a magnificent job.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Everyone congratulates our armed forces on the role that they played and the work that they did on behalf of this country. Will my right hon. Friend state what devastation the previous Government caused to the medical services, which had to be rebuilt to ensure that there were real medical services for those who were injured and in need of medical equipment immediately?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not intervene on the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, because I recall that he had some responsibility for that during his period in office. All that I can say is that this Government are taking action to address those difficulties, which were caused by the misguided cutbacks made when the previous Government were responsible for defence. Indeed, there is a catalogue of difficulties that we have had across the board because of the significant financial cuts that were imposed on the armed forces during the long period of the Conservative Government. It does not help the Conservative spokesman to come to the Dispatch Box to complain about the present state of the armed forces, given the significant increases in expenditure that the Government have been able to provide, often to try to deal with problems that we inherited from our predecessors. Defence Medical Services are an extremely good example of that.
  David Winnick: I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend said about the military operations in Iraq—I fully supported the overthrow of one of the most murderous dictatorships in the world—but does he consider it appropriate to make brief reference now to the killings that occurred in Amara over the weekend? I understand that six Iraqis were killed—five by the police and apparently one by British soldiers. We all deplore what has happened, so will he make a comment?
  Mr. Hoon: I understand perfectly well why my hon. Friend raises that issue, because it is a matter of some
  684
  concern. He and other hon. Members will appreciate that there is a continuing investigation into the matter, so it is best that I do not go into detail now save to say that there was serious public disorder and that British forces behaved with the customary expertise with which they handle such problems. The television pictures that I saw over the weekend showing the way in which they dealt with the problem reminded me of some of the training that I have seen in Northern Ireland. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that as soon as the investigation is complete, Ministers will be in a position to provide more information.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State must have seen press reports about my former constituent, Colonel Tim Collins, and the extent to which he and many other officers feel let down by the Ministry's failure to respond quickly to deal with and dismiss the ridiculous allegations that were made against him and one or two of his brother officers. Does he accept that the Government owe a duty to give armed forces personnel who risk their lives for us the benefit of the doubt in such cases?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is best for the Secretary of State not to reply to that question, because we are going far too wide of the matter before us.
  Mr. Hoon Mr. Hoon rose—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly give way.
  Dr. Lewis: Coming back to the substance of the NAO report, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to one simple statement? The report says:
  -7 Armoured Brigade armoured vehicles did not have viable Nuclear Biological and Chemical defence filters fitted throughout the warfighting phase of the Operation."
  What does he think would have happened if there had been a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on those vehicles during the war?
  Mr. Hoon: I should not ask the hon. Gentleman questions, but he is usually fair-minded about these matters. Chemical, biological and nuclear protection is designed to protect not vehicles but people. I was concerned that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex was perhaps unconsciously misleading the House about whether individuals were properly protected. As the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) thinks through the implications of what I am saying to the House and of the NAO report, he must ask himself the vital question of whether individuals were properly protected. The NAO report says that they were.
  Dr. Lewis: With respect, the Secretary of State has not answered my question. If the people in the tanks had been subjected to a chemical or biological attack, the agents would have got into the tanks because of the absence of the correct filters and the individuals would have died. Similarly, there was a 40 per cent. shortage of detection kits. Unless people have detection kits, they do

  685
  not know that attacks—especially biological attacks—are under way until some time after they have begun, so does he agree that individuals were gravely at risk?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman usually reads documents with a great deal more care than that with which he appears to have read the NAO report. I apologise for saying that because, as I said, he is generally a fair-minded man. He needs to look carefully at the report's conclusions. He cannot pick out one detail on vehicles without—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman were to listen while I am speaking rather than making comments, he would find out that the report concluded that the protection given to the armed forces was good in that respect. The answer to his question is that men and women would not have died in such circumstances because they were protected. The report states that fact rather than his suggestion of something to the contrary.
  Mr. James Gray: Surely, the Secretary of State is wriggling. Figure 6 in the NAO report says quite plainly that the vehicles were not fitted with those filters. He is right that it was theoretically possible for individual soldiers in the vehicles to use their personal NBC kits, but that is to ignore the fundamental point that vehicles should be fitted with filters so that the individuals inside do not need to wear their NBC kit in desert conditions. Will he not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) more specifically? Why were operational filters not issued to the vehicles before Telic 1?
  Mr. Hoon: As I have said, the NAO report, which Opposition Members want to debate, concludes that the overall level of protection in relation to NBC equipment was good—[Interruption.] That may not satisfy them, but if they want to debate a report, they need to debate it in its entirety. Its conclusions are clear, and I am disturbed by their inability to read all of the report. Simply picking out a sentence here and there is not satisfactory.
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I am worried that the Secretary of State may have put himself in a ridiculous position by arguing that those filters were not necessary. If they were necessary, they should have been fitted. If they were not, they should not have been ordered. What is the position?
  Mr. Hoon: I am not putting myself in that position at all. I accept entirely that it would have been better for those vehicles to be fitted with filters, but the decision about whether or not forces are ready for battle—the latter was the case in Iraq—is not made in the Ministry of Defence or Whitehall, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience. It is made by force commanders on the ground, who render the military advice about whether their troops are ready for battle. That advice was clearly given.
  We were discussing the question of lessons learned. The procedure adopted by the Ministry of Defence ensures that there is a thorough lessons learned process
  686
  after each operation to identify what could have been done better, and that was true of Operation Telic. The Department's own report, "Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the Future" was the result of gathering extensive evidence from those involved in the operation at all levels. It covered the full range of operational issues, and identified lessons for the future. There is no benefit in a lessons process that is bland or uncritical. I encouraged the production of an honest, unflinching report that focused quite rightly on the future, and outlined areas where there must be improvements. Our hard-hitting report made no attempt to pretend that everything was perfect, and the NAO itself acknowledged that the Ministry of Defence
  "has a comprehensive process for identifying lessons."
  As a consequence of that lessons process, the Department has itself identified areas where improvements can be made, and a number of strands of work are already under way. For example, as a result of the experience of recent operations, including Operation Telic, the MOD has increased, or is increasing, holdings of certain operational stocks, including 32,000 sets of desert combat clothing, 32,000 sets of tropical combat clothing, 32,000 sets of NBC individual protection equipment, and an additional 1.5 million individual operational ration packs. In addition, equipment that proved itself during the operation such as the Minimi light machine gun, which has already been mentioned, is now being purchased in greater numbers to complement the excellent equipment already in service.
  The Ministry of Defence has already recognised the need for a senior logistician to provide a headquarters focus for logistics matters. A total asset visibility system was purchased to help track equipment that is going into theatre during the deployment. Further work is still required, however, on the tracking of supplies and equipment already in theatre. As for planning, the defence White Paper that I presented to the House before Christmas sets the framework within which we will plan for future conflicts. In addition, recently there has been detailed consideration of our planning assumptions, which were reissued in revised form in August last year to take account of the lessons from Iraq. In a wider perspective, we have been working closely with other Government Departments to improve our planning for post-conflict situations. The MOD is fully engaged and contributing to all those groups, and has valuable expertise to offer on the issues of conflict prevention, military intervention, military-civilian transition and post-conflict reconstruction.
  Patrick Mercer: Anybody who has been involved in an operation accepts that there will be deficiencies and shortcomings in equipment. Any superficial study of military history will show that in every campaign there are problems. Soldiers accept that, but there are one or two things that every soldier, airman and sailor must have. How does the Secretary of State explain the fact that soldiers from the South Nottinghamshire Hussars went into battle without any ammunition for their personal weapons?
  Mr. Hoon: I am simply not aware of that. The hon. Gentleman has previously raised this matter with me and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who intends to deal with it in correspondence. I am not

  687
  aware that individuals were placed in that position, but I shall certainly have the matter investigated, and have previously undertaken to ensure that it is brought to the attention of those responsible. If what the hon. Gentleman says proves to be the case, I shall write to him.
  When I gave evidence to the Defence Committee last May I made it clear that our lessons work was still at a relatively early stage, as less than a month had elapsed since serious fighting had stopped. Some press reports alleged that there were various equipment and personal kit shortages early in the operation. I acknowledged even then that
  "in an operation of this size there are bound to be glitches", and I undertook to be
  "rigorous in analysing our performance".
  However, I stressed that shortfalls needed to be seen in the context of a highly successful campaign, in which our equipment proved to be of a very high quality. I stand by that judgement, as indeed does the NAO.
  The extensive work by the Ministry of Defence and the NAO since that evidence session in May has produced a much more detailed picture. It has provided greater detail on shortcomings, but it has also reinforced the overall success of the operation.
  Mr. Keetch: In evidence to the Select Committee hearing on 14 May, the Secretary of State said that the chiefs of staff had assured him
  "at every stage that there were no complaints"
  about kit. He certainly received complaints from me, but can he tell the House whether he received complaints from Conservative Members about deficiencies in kit in the run-up to operations?
  Mr. Hoon: I accept that general points were made about preparations, and I certainly recall individual Members raising those matters with me. Inevitably, in those circumstances, it is necessary to rely on the military advice given at the time, and I shall deal with that more thoroughly in a moment. I am sure that Opposition Members would be the first to complain if they judged that Ministers at a distance in Whitehall were interfering with day-to-day decisions about military capability, which were made, quite properly, by those responsible on the ground.
  Turning to specific concerns about equipment deficiencies, the Ministry of Defence is already aware of the need for some improvements in logistics, but those issues must be viewed in the context of the overwhelming success of the operation. Indeed the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, acknowledged on the day that the NAO report was published that equipment shortfalls
  "should be seen in the wider context of the overall success".
  We now know that the shortfalls experienced in a handful of equipment areas did not affect operational capability. The commanders in theatre made their preparations and declared full operational capability to the Ministry of Defence before operations commenced. They were satisfied that they had all the equipment that they required to conduct the campaign successfully. As the NAO points out,
  688
  "the huge logistic effort was successful and fundamental to the success of the operation. There were many examples of success in the way that the logistics challenge was met."
  There is therefore a challenge for Opposition Members. Are they suggesting that Ministers should second-guess the military advice provided by commanders in theatre? If that were the case, and there was evidence of Ministers second-guessing military advice, they would have been, quite rightly, the first to complain. It is their call—are they saying that Ministers should have overridden the advice of military commanders in theatre? That has never been the case in the past, nor should it be the case in future.
  Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way, but does he not accept that the ethos of the British services has always been to salute, turn to the right and go into battle when instructed to do so by the Secretary of State? None the less, that does not mean that there were not deficiencies in the kit with which they were issued. To argue that the fact that officers on the ground said that they were operationally ready excuses criticism in the NAO report is grossly inadequate.
  Mr. Hoon: I'm sorry—I thought the hon. Gentleman had a much closer knowledge and understanding of individual members of the armed forces than his question displayed. Having spent almost four and a half years working closely with them, I assure him and other hon. Members—there are many present who know better than that—that senior members of the armed forces and many junior ones are very forthright in setting out their views and opinions, and certainly would not respond in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested if they thought they were incapable of carrying through a military operation successfully. When he looks at the record of his observation in Hansard, perhaps tomorrow, I think he will realise that that was not the most sensible thing he has ever said to the House.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex rightly raised the issue of body armour, with particular reference to the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the death of Sergeant Roberts is currently the subject of a Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch investigation, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment in detail or to speculate on what the findings of the SIB investigation might be. I have, however, undertaken to keep Sergeant Roberts's widow, Mrs. Samantha Roberts, informed of progress on a regular basis. She has been provided, in confidence, with a summary of the incident in which her husband died, and a ballistics report. I have also met her personally and I have indicated that I would be willing to do so again. Once the SIB investigation has concluded, an Army board of inquiry will be convened.
  Perhaps I should explain some of the complicating factors relating to the issue and tracking of body armour during Operation Telic. The Ministry of Defence took the decision to improve the protection offered to servicemen and women deployed on Operation Telic by issuing enhanced combat body armour, initially designed for peacekeeping duties in Northern Ireland, to as many troops as possible. To this end, 38,000 sets of enhanced body armour were sent to theatre, which should have been sufficient to equip all who needed it.

  689
  Not all of this equipment reached every unit in theatre before the start of combat operations. However, the equipment that was known to arrive in theatre was prioritised for those whom commanders judged had the greatest need, ensuring that all dismounted infantry units benefited from this additional protection.
  A question has also arisen about 200,000 sets of combat body armour said to have been lost since the Kosovo campaign. Although it is a fact that, once issued, the Defence Logistics Organisation cannot locate each individual set of components that comprise enhanced combat body armour or combat body armour, the body armour components are currently held by individual units and are not, in fact, lost. The defence clothing project team is undertaking an audit with Land Command to establish the basis for future needs and the extent of the Army's holdings, and intends to extend that audit to both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.
  There have also been concerns about the supply of desert boots and desert clothing. The Ministry of Defence's own report acknowledges that, despite a huge effort, a number of soldiers did not receive desert clothing and boots in time. We routinely planned to hold enough desert equipment to support our high readiness forces—some 9,000 personnel. On this occasion we chose to deploy significantly more personnel. To make good the shortfall, an additional 40,000 pairs of desert boots and 80,000 sets of desert clothing were sent to theatre. Not all of this equipment arrived with troops before the start of combat operations. However, front-line forces were equipped as a first priority, and temperatures in the Gulf at that time of year meant that these shortages did not impair our forces' ability to fight.
  There have also been suggestions, as we heard today, that our defences against chemical or biological attack were inadequate. I entirely reject that suggestion and agree with the NAO that overall the protection against chemical agents was good. UK forces were deployed with comprehensive defences against chemical and biological attack. There were in general already sufficient stocks of nuclear, biological and chemical defence equipment in store to mount Operation Telic. Furthermore, strenuous efforts were made to address any shortfalls that were identified in our regular stockholding during the preparation and planning period. Again, that is set out clearly in the NAO's report.
  Patrick Mercer: During exercise Saif Sareea we on the Defence Committee were able to see armoured crews practising for chemical conditions without personal equipment being worn, on the clear understanding that NBC vehicle filters would be in place. I do not need to labour the point about the efficiency of the crew when wearing their masks. The Secretary of State mentioned that such preparation was in place. He mentioned that
  690
  lessons were learned from Saif Sareea. That does not seem to be the case.
  Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. I shall go on to deal with the point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further after that, I shall be delighted to give way to him again.
  In the event, all service personnel had their own personal respirator and at least one NBC suit before the start of combat operations. In addition, a variety of detection systems were deployed to the Gulf to provide early warning of any attack, which thankfully never came. We believe the chemical and biological protection given to our troops is among the very best in the world. We have acknowledged in our own reports that there were deficiencies in the way stocks of some NBC equipment were managed. The Department is working hard to ensure that that does not occur again. However, as the NAO recognises in its report, mitigating action was taken through a combination of purchasing spare parts and rigorous re-testing of equipment. The operational requirement was consequently fully met.
  Despite the difficulties that the NAO report and our own reports have identified, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Ministry of Defence once again performed with distinction, the equipment provided for the armed forces was very effective, its logistic support was most impressive, and the revolution in strategy and doctrine that we instigated in 1998 has again been vindicated.
  Mr. Soames: In my comments at the beginning and end of my speech, I was at pains to dispense rightful praise to all involved in what was a military success. There remain, however, some glaring deficiencies, which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to deal with, or deals with in such a way that everything, apparently, is perfectly okay. May I draw his attention to figure 12 of the NAO report, which summarises the repeated identification of logistics lessons from previous operations and previous exercises? In Saif Sareea, the lessons learned involved poor asset tracking, poor logistic communications, stock shortages, priority deadlines not met and lack of control over the coupling bridge. Exactly the same lessons seem to have to be learned in Telic. Why were the lessons of Saif Sareea not more swiftly put in place?
  Mr. Hoon: The central difficulty under which the hon. Gentleman is labouring, if he will forgive me for saying so, is that the operation was an outstanding success and has been recognised as such by everyone. If he were arguing that it was a significant failure, there might be some force to his criticisms, but again, I refer him and all Opposition Members to the conclusions of the NAO report. That organisation carefully considered all the evidence and made a balanced judgment, reporting to Parliament, and its conclusion is clear. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 9, which states:
  "The logistic effort for the Operation was huge and key to success."
  The start of paragraph 10 states:
  "Overall, the logistic effort was successful".

  691
  He cannot go behind those conclusions, not least having selected the NAO's report to Parliament as the basis for this debate. He either accepts the validity of what the NAO is saying to Parliament, or he rejects the report in its entirety.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hoon: I shall not give way again. I have almost concluded my remarks.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State rightly refers to performance with distinction. I know perfectly well that it is not up to Ministers, and properly so, to have any say whatever in the award of distinguished service orders, military crosses and other honours. That must be done on a military basis. However, I think he knows why I ask the question. Could he confirm that the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards performed with distinction?
  Mr. Hoon: I can, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I have made the same point in relation to a range of our armed forces who were engaged in these operations. Had Opposition Members come to the House today with the benefit of a critical report following a military failure, they might have had some reason for making the kind of criticisms that they are making. Instead, they have come to debate in the House today a report that is supportive of the position taken by the Government, and which says that the effort, logistically in particular, was an outstanding success, and that the military operations were an outstanding success.
  Hugh Robertson: Although I accept what the Secretary of State says, surely he would accept that one of the principal reasons why the operation was such a success was precisely that our armed forces were not subject to the very sort of attack that was his principal casus belli. If they had been subject to such an attack without the correct filters in the tanks that were indeed the battle-winning asset, the outcome might have been very different.
  Mr. Hoon: I accept that all sorts of things could have happened, but even on the specific point that the hon. Gentleman fairly and properly makes—he always makes informed observations in the House on the position of the armed forces—the report's conclusion is clear. It says that the protection available to Britain's armed forces was good. He cannot go behind that clear conclusion of the NAO.
  Ms Dari Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I have listened with great care to all that you have said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and you have, rightly in my view, praised—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must get her terminology right.
  Ms Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I got carried away.
  692
  I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has rightly heaped praise on the British armed forces as they have been deployed, including for the way in which they have worked with communities in Iraq. I would greatly appreciate it if he would widen his praise, because the Territorial Army has been fundamental to the success of the British armed forces. I should be very grateful if he would comment on that aspect.
  Mr. Hoon: If I have been remiss with regard to reservists—I see at least two in front of me who have served with great distinction—I apologise. We have had an indication of just how central the reserves have become in the overall effort of the armed forces. That is a vindication of the policy set out in the 1998 strategic defence review of making our reserve forces usable. They have performed with absolute distinction in this operation.
  In conclusion, our armed forces are continuing to perform a difficult but vital job in Iraq, helping the Iraqi people to establish a functioning infrastructure, providing security and stability and creating the conditions for a viable new Government. British civilians are also working in the region, carrying out our country's commitment to act as a force for good in an uncertain world. I am sure that the House will join me once again in honouring the magnificent work of all our people, who continue to demonstrate their exceptional quality, courage and dedication.
  1.32 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I join the shadow Secretary of State for Defence in congratulating the Secretary of State on his award from the Pentagon. I also back the calls for the Afghan and Iraqi campaign medals to be issued very quickly.
  I, too, welcome this debate. The Secretary of State was right to point out that the National Audit Office report commends the Ministry of Defence on a military success. The staff at the MOD and the military personnel around the world who contributed to that success deserve recognition. However, although Operation Telic may well have been a military success, it is, quite frankly, too early to say whether the war and its aftermath have been a success.
  There are many questions about the operation and I congratulate the Conservatives on raising them in debate today. However, their support for the decision to invade Iraq, on the basis of what many people believe was flawed intelligence and despite the fact that the United Nations inspectors believed that progress could be made, should not be forgotten. Indeed, the Conservative party bears responsibility for supporting the war, just as the Government bear responsibility for taking this country to war.
  The concerns raised about kit in the NAO report were well understood before the war began. They were voiced by the forces and by me and others when we visited the Gulf last January. They were expressed to me by constituents and have also been expressed to other hon. Members. When I raised those concerns with the Secretary of State on numerous occasions, he told me that I had
  "'unreasonably fuelled' the criticism of the logistics arrangements".—[Official Report, 3 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 565.]

  693
  Perhaps I did and perhaps I did not, but I hope that he would not make the same accusation about the families of Steven Roberts and the other people killed in the war. On the subject of Sergeant Steven Roberts, I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). We believe that the way in which Sergeant Roberts's family is treated will be a litmus test for the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State. However, there is no point in just calling for the Secretary of State to resign; Sergeant Roberts's family want explanations, and I am sure that they will come through.
  The Conservatives should have been raising concerns about kit before the build-up to the campaign, rather than simply complaining afterwards. Instead, they blindly supported the drive to war, and the public will eventually come to understand the hypocrisy of their position. The previous Speaker, Speaker Boothroyd, in advising me on voting in this place, advised me simply to read the Order Paper and then read it again. Having read the motion before us today, despite misgivings and although I will do so through gritted teeth, I shall support it later.
  The report highlights many supply and logistics problems that occurred during Operation Telic. Most worryingly, many of those problems, as has already been said, were identified in previous operations and exercises. They include problems relating to spares, asset tracking and supply chain management. I shall give just two quotes from the report. Page 45 states:
  "Some key lessons have been identified before. This appears to be particularly true for those lessons which only have a significant impact during high-intensity warfighting operations."
  In other words, the problems were most acute when we were going into real warfare. On asset tracking, page 24 states:
  "The lack of an effective asset tracking capability has been highlighted repeatedly on previous operations and exercises."
  The report confidently expresses the view that the MOD will learn from the difficulties raised. I hope that it does, but I suspect that we will not know whether that has happened until we see a future operation.
  We are talking not only about technical problems, but about basics—boots, clothes, body armour and nuclear, biological and chemical protection suits.
  Mr. Hoon: Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to the basic matter of boots and so on, I should not want him to leave the House with the impression that an asset tracking system in theatre can somehow be produced off the shelf or purchased at one's local computer store. Even the Pentagon has been frustrated in its efforts to produce an appropriate system that will work in all temperatures and conditions. I do not want him to leave anyone with the idea that we could go out and purchase such a system tomorrow and that there was a failure to produce one in the past. This is an enormously complex and difficult area of expertise on which we still have more work to do.
  Mr. Keetch: The Secretary of State is absolutely right. He was also right to comment in his speech on the fact that the previous Government had not invested in such
  694
  equipment. Poor asset tracking was regarded as a problem in the Bosnia and Herzegovina operation back in 1995–96, and I seem to remember that the Conservatives were then in power.
  To go back to boots, the kind of equipment and body armour that was lacking could have saved Sergeant Roberts's life. Many Members highlighted such problems at the time, based on the complaints that they had received from forces families, but we were told again and again that there was no problem, that the press were exaggerating and that every person was fully equipped. Indeed, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Defence in evidence on 14 May that
  "there might have been the odd person who did not get the right sized pair of boots."
  Clearly, that was not just the odd soldier. As the report rightly said, "few troops" received their full complement of desert clothing and boots. As the Secretary of State has said, members of the armed forces were very quick to respond and to complain. They certainly complained to me. It was because of those problems that, as they told me before the conflict, they were nicknamed "the borrowers" by their US counterparts.
  We also know that the NBC equipment problems were experienced against a background in which weapons of mass destruction might actually have been deployed, despite the comments in the Carnegie report and those of Mr. O'Neill. Before the war, the Government were at times almost hysterical about the possibilities regarding weapons of mass destruction, but the priority given to NBC equipment seems to give the lie to their concern. As we know, and as has already been said, some soldiers returned to the UK to search for their NBC equipment, and just over half the NBC detection equipment and NBC filters for armoured vehicles were not even delivered, let alone fitted. What is more, according to the report, only 10 per cent. of NBC vehicle decontamination systems were in place before the start of combat operations on 19 March.
  In the event, it seems that we should be very thankful that Saddam Hussein either did not have or did not deploy weapons of mass destruction. However, if WMD are to be the greatest threat facing our country in future, the ability to defend our troops against chemical or biological attack simply must be improved.
  Supply problems, especially in relation to AS90 guns and Challenger tanks, meant that many vehicles—indeed, up to 30 per cent. of the fleet at home—were cannibalised for spares. Where does that leave our armoured capability, and how long will it take the Ministry of Defence to get back to its required targets?
  It is not just with kit and equipment that there were problems. We have said before that we believe that the armed forces are experiencing overstretch, and the strain on our armed forces has been exacerbated by Iraq. We do not need an NAO report to tell us that, but its recommendations must be taken seriously. Overstretch is not merely an unfortunate constraint on the ability to deploy: it affects our ability to win battles and to save lives in combat. The Defence Medical Services were rightly highlighted in that context. Key specialisations need to be addressed, and troops should not go into combat uncertain about their capabilities or their support staff. Reservists have been relied on to an

  695
  enormous extent—we owe them a true debt of gratitude—but the conditions and confusions surrounding their terms of service have alienated many. Conditions for those who fill the breach must improve—otherwise, the shortfall that has appeared will not be met, but increased.
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this is probably one of the first times that an NAO report has been discussed in the Chamber without yet having gone to the Public Accounts Committee. Every word that is uttered will be entered into evidence to allow the PAC to grill the Department on the report. Will he try to ensure that those of us on the PAC are given the opportunity to remain non-political in assessing the facts and the surrounding evidence?
  Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is right about the PAC. Although lessons have been learned from the operation, some of its long-term consequences will not be known for many months or years, and we will have to return to them.
  The report is critical of post-war planning. If Operation Telic was a military success, the Government's lack of foresight, given what followed, certainly was not. The report makes plain what we all knew, stating on page 32 that
  "the Government had not fully anticipated the consequences of a total collapse of the Saddam regime and what the United Kingdom's obligations would be once hostilities had ceased."
  Our armed forces performed all their usual tasks in their usual way, but the Government's planning before and in the aftermath of the war was inadequate. How could that be so? If ever there was a war that we could see coming, it was surely this one.
  I commend our armed forces for again demonstrating that they are the best in the world, but I urge the Government to learn not only the operational lessons of Operation Telic, but the political and strategic lessons of going to war without international support. This was not a war of necessity, but a war of choice by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. There were, as we maintained, other ways of dealing with Iraq. As the former Chief of the Defence Staff pointed out, we are currently not in a position to mount a major operation and will not be for some time. The Government must ensure that the lessons set out in the report are learned and, more importantly, put into practice. Our armed forces have again shown their skill and great courage, and the Government must play their part.
  I hope that the Conservatives—Her Majesty's loyal Opposition—will also learn those lessons. I asked the shadow Defence Secretary whether his predecessor and the previous leader of the Conservative party were told of the concerns that I have raised when they visited the Gulf at the beginning of last year. On 13 March last year, the then shadow Defence Secretary told The Daily Telegraph that
  "everything I asked about when I was there, I was absolutely assured would arrive in time".
  Perhaps the shadow Defence Secretary should not be so quick to accept the Government's assurances. I hope that Conservative Members, who were so readily convinced in their blind rush to go to war, will not be so easily appeased in future.
  1.44 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the Opposition spokesman on choosing the subject of the National Audit Office report. That was courageous of him, because nobody can be in any doubt that even a cursory reading illustrates the tremendous military success of Operation Telic and the way in which our forces were protected in an incredibly difficult and dangerous theatre of war.
  The references that have been made to the length of time that was available to prepare for the operation are not entirely accurate. Not only did we make one of the most rapid deployments of British forces in our entire military history—almost 46,000 troops were transported more than 3,000 miles within 10 weeks, which is less than half the time that it took to deploy forces in the first Gulf war—but we had to deploy them at very short notice in a scenario that was not anticipated. It was originally planned that the British support role was to be based, with our allies, the Americans, in northern Iraq and southern Turkey; but, at incredibly short notice, we had to reconfigure all our forces to Kuwait and to approaches from the south. That would have presented an enormous logistical challenge to a relatively small force, let alone a force on that scale. In addition to the massive movements of personnel, thousands of vehicles, hundreds of planes and several warships were deployed. It seems incredible to me, even with my very limited experience of military matters, that we were able to mount such an operation. The criticisms that have been made are meagre in comparison with its military success and the speed with which it was undertaken.
  As for inadequate equipment, one of the most important aspects of an operation of such danger was the limited number of British casualties. If we were ill prepared and ill equipped, had not planned properly, and did not have such excellent military leadership, the number of casualties—not only military, but civilian—would have been far higher. As the report makes clear, the gloom and doom merchants who predicted tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties were proved wrong by the great success of the operation in terms of planning, equipment and support. I am saddened by the comments of Conservative Members, because they know better. In relation to the inadequate supply of boots or clothing, when has it ever been any different? Asset tracking sounds wonderful—we owe it to the taxpayer and to our soldiers in the field to pursue it—but it is simply not true that the problem has only just appeared on the horizon and exposes and threatens our forces. When moving so many items of equipment, the idea that one is in the warehouse of an Asda or some other well known supermarket and can track the destination of every tin of beans, identify how much is being sold and relate back from the till to the men and women in the warehouse is nonsense. You are on a battlefield for goodness sake—under threat with life at stake. The equipment must be managed in the most difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise to the Secretary of State for being absent for his

  697
  contribution this afternoon, when I was at a meeting. The hon. Gentleman makes the interesting point that the boots were not so important and that perhaps the problem has arisen previously. Does he feel the same about the failure to supply ceramic plates for flak jackets and the fact that men and women on active duty had flak jackets without adequate protection to stop a bullet?
  Mr. Smith: I never said that. I said that, when referring to an apparent lack of protective equipment, we should consider the number of fatalities. Every one is a tragedy, but there is sufficient proof that the large-scale military operation was conducted in such a way that the lives and interests of our troops were protected. The bottom line is that whether to put troops into the field and whether they are adequately protected are military decisions. Ministers and politicians—certainly not those present—do not make such decisions.
  Mr. Hancock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is currently an investigation into the death of one of our servicemen who might not have been killed had he been wearing the right protective equipment?
  Mr. Smith: Everyone in the House awaits the outcome with interest. If there are lessons to be learned from that, as well as general lessons, I am sure that we shall take them on board.
  I want to speak about the availability of equipment. References have been made to the full complement of protective equipment and clothing. Anyone who has been in the military realises that there is a huge difference between a full complement and what is needed to do the job. I understand that three sets of military fatigues are considered a full complement—strictly speaking, what is needed to go into an operational area. Of course, that does not happen.
  Decisions about clothing, equipment and munitions are made when it is almost impossible to track what is going on. Let me give an example from my experience. I have been involved in an operation in which vital equipment is flown in and unloaded, and several well meaning, usually young and inexperienced, officers direct where it should go—where it is vital and where it is not so important. Everybody salutes and agrees to carry out the commands, but a couple of experienced non-commissioned officers who have previously been in such situations say, "Don't take too much notice of that. This is where the equipment's going and this is where it's needed." Frankly, that is often what makes British forces so effective. We have not only experienced officers but NCOs who can make key decisions and take leadership roles on the battlefield.
  Of course, stuff goes missing—stacks of it go missing. As a former serviceman, I found one word in the report very interesting. It says that equipment is "misappropriated". That means that military personnel who need it grab it while they can. They want to be able to use it when they need it. I emphasise to hon. Members who do not know it that such decisions are made all the time in the heat of battle and war. The idea that one can introduce a system, whether it is called asset tracking or anything else, which works efficiently in a battle does not
  698
  stand up. We should work towards it, but we shall be lucky if we are in a position in future to locate assets easily in such circumstances.
  The report is interesting, but we must bear in mind the fact that it is written by auditors. Military personnel or people with direct experience of military decision making certainly did not write it. By and large, it reads like an auditors' report. It is about value for money and what has happened to some of the equipment that was put in the field. That is clear from references to our personnel's ability to adapt and modify equipment on the battlefield because they do not get exactly what they want when they want it and for the task for which it is needed.
  Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the fact that our soldiers are good at making do and mending excuses our not providing the proper equipment in the first place?
  Mr. Smith: No, I am not trying to say that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that British soldiers are the best in the world at adapting to circumstances, modifying equipment and recovering vehicles on the battlefield. They lead the rest of the world in their ability to be flexible and adaptable. That is why they are playing such an important—indeed, invaluable—role in the current military operation under the overall control of the United States. Opposition Members have simply provided a catalogue of logistical failures.
  Mr. Gray: That is in the report.
  Mr. Smith: No, it is not. The report's overall conclusion is that the operation was a huge military success conducted in a hostile and austere environment. We achieved our military objectives and we should have nothing but praise for our military forces, the Ministry of Defence and the conduct of our Ministers throughout the military operation.[Interruption.] Hon. Members will not hear me lavishing praise on Ministers unless I believe that it is justly deserved. Today, it is deserved and the report shows the reasons for that. I am therefore pleased that the subject was chosen as the topic for today's debate. We should all be proud of such a huge military success.
  We need to be careful when we draw parallels, but some of the comparisons between the way in which British forces and others conducted themselves in the theatre of operations and post-war show the former's greater experience and professionalism, and better training. Of course, they must have the equipment and the ability to do their job properly. They have done a tremendous job. I am extremely proud—and I am sure that everybody is—to see our armed forces excel.
  However, as the Secretary of State made clear, there are important lessons to be learned from the report. I emphasise that it is an auditors' report, not a military report. We should bear that in mind. I am sure that anyone who was involved in drawing up the report has little military experience. Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned.
  We have made great inroads into the logistical chain in the military. Major new policies have been introduced on smart procurement and streamlining and rationing

  699
  our supplies, equipment and stores, and on just-in-time technology to try to ensure that vital equipment gets to the right place at the right time. I think that we have made great progress in that respect. The Opposition accuse us of not being able to account for some body armour, a relatively small matter. In 1997, the Conservative Government could not account for a fleet of trains owned by the Ministry of Defence. The missing items included rolling stock, track, railway sidings, land, property—and even 600 horses for which the MoD was still responsible.
  That is not so long ago, but in those days there was virtually no asset checking or auditing. It was a great innovation when someone sat down and asked, "What exactly do we own?" We need take no lessons from the Opposition about managing our stocks and assets, but we need to be careful and to take some elements in the report seriously. It states that, in some cases, equipment arrived only hours before it was needed in battle. Our armed forces were working in very difficult circumstances to prepare for dangerous conflict. We need to learn that lesson.
  John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the report's basic conclusion that the military did not receive all the necessary equipment on time? If body armour and filters had been received on time, our military personnel would have been better protected. Moreover, does he agree that that equipment would have arrived before military action took place if the rush to war had not been driven by the American Government?
  Mr. John Smith: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman assumes that war is an exact science, but it is not. The problem is that, in the fog of war and military action, it is hard to know what is going on, and I shall give the House one example of that.
  Mention has been made already of how British soldiers had to borrow equipment from their American counterparts. I know that they were very keen to borrow the Häagen Dazs ice cream available in the air-conditioned American tents in the battlefield. Also available there was food from McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken. However, some of the contractors supplying that food were not covered by war-zone insurance and so left as quickly as they could. As a result, British service personnel—and the RAF in particular—ended up feeding US military forces as well as their own.
  There were many examples of coalition forces working together, often without all the necessary equipment, and often not in the environment in which they would choose to fight. But that is what war is all about. It is not an exact science, although it is crucial that we learn the lessons about support and supply by contractors.
  I turn now to a matter that interests me greatly, the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. That agency is crucial to the recommendations in the report, and especially to the lessons that must be learned. What is clear is that the military cannot be asked to depend and rely on private sector techniques when it comes to the supply of components and essential equipment.
  Having the proper equipment is vital. Enough of it must be held in store so that troops going into battle are adequately protected and supplied. A total reliance on
  700
  private sector providers and on just-in-time supply could end in disaster. The report makes that clear, and it is right for the Government to look at the role of agencies in the Ministry of Defence. They offer all the benefits of a commercial organisation, and operate according to business and commercial imperatives, but remain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Ministry of Defence. They are able to compete with any private sector organisation in respect of component supply, deep repair and maintenance, but they remain integral parts of the MOD.
  Those agencies are able to deliver for the military in the sort of unexpected circumstances that were encountered in the military action in Iraq. It is impossible to predict exactly what is going to happen, but the necessary supplies must be made available. It has been stated that personnel had to fly back to Britain to make sure that they got the equipment that they needed, but the Defence Aviation Repair Agency is an organisation that can meet all the demands of the taxpayer when it comes to value for money. Most importantly, it retains the surge capacity to meet the demands that arise when military action is taken.
  One lesson to be drawn from the report, and from our experience in Iraq, is that the Government would do well to look the role played by such agencies. They are vital in ensuring that military personnel are put into the field, and sustained there. The agencies are not subject to the vagaries suffered by contractors and purely commercial organisations.
  I am delighted that the Defence Aviation Repair Agency has appointed a new chief executive. He used to work for Rolls-Royce, and I hope to meet him very shortly. I am sure that we will discuss some of the lessons to be drawn from this excellent report.
  Our soldiers were not placed at risk. No one should believe that. To say that they were is merely a piece of populist scaremongering. It is unfortunate that the Opposition should have decided to take that approach today. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), rightly began by paying tribute to the military's huge success in Iraq. If he had sat down then, this debate could have allowed us to pay tribute to the outstanding work of our servicemen and women and to have a serious discussion of the recommendations in the NAO report. Instead. the House was treated to a lot of petty and ill informed references to our forces' exposure to alleged risks that simply did not exist.
  Mr. Hancock Mr. Hancock rose—
  Mr. Portillo Mr. Portillo rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Michael Portillo.
  Mr. Smith: I have not finished yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should make his intentions clear. He sat down, and I would have been entitled to conclude that, after 20-odd minutes, he had finished his speech. Mr. Hancock.
  Mr. Hancock: I think the rest of the House is with you on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for

  701
  Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has highlighted the fact that the report does not decry the efforts of the men and women who fought and won this war. However, it does identify a number of respects in which the Government failed to deliver. The Government promised that they would make sure that the men and women fighting on our behalf were properly equipped, and the report makes it clear that that did not happen. The hon. Gentleman has not explained that failure.
  Mr. Smith: I have not explained it because that is not what the report says. If we read the report, we see that it says that the military operation was a success, the support for our troops, especially in relation to chemical and biological weapons, was good, and the logistical operation was an outstanding success overall. That is what the report actually says. I am sure that time will be taken up by hon. Members trying—as the hon. Gentleman is already trying—to cast aspersions on the role of our forces and on the way in which they conducted themselves on the battlefield—
  Mr. Hancock Mr. Hancock indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: Oh yes. And nothing could be further from the truth. Our forces had to move their massive operation from the north of the country to the south of the country, they won the battle within four weeks when some were predicting that it could take months, and they were up against a formidable enemy.
  I have heard it said since the operation was completed that the Iraqi army was not a threat and that its military command was in disarray. That is simply not true. It was preparing for military assault and had probably based its preparation on observing Kosovo, as it clearly expected a long-drawn-out air bombardment followed by a land attack. Nothing could have been further from the truth. We moved in with such speed, agility and flexibility that we were able to win the war relatively quickly. We could not have done that had we not undertaken a strategic defence review and reconfigured our forces to make them agile, flexible and rapid, enabling us to put forward an expeditionary force of that nature in such a hostile environment. That is why I congratulate the Government on their leadership through this difficult period.
  I have finished now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  2.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I have an interest to declare because I am a director of BAE Systems plc. Most of my speech, however, will be about boots, clothing and spares for land vehicles, which are not products for which BAE is particularly noted.
  I must say to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) that among a number of rather foolish things that he said, particularly towards the end of his remarks, he suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) had raised this matter for party political reasons. My hon. Friend's reputation goes before him. His reputation as the Minister for the Armed Forces under the previous Government
  702
  established clearly in the minds of the House and in the minds of the armed forces that he speaks because of his concern for the condition and welfare of our armed forces. For that reason, what he said today carried a great deal of weight. As this is my first opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment, may I say that he makes a most splendid, slender adornment to the Front Bench?
  Without wearying the House too much, I hope, I want to echo the congratulations to the Secretary of State on the distinguished public service order medal that he has received. I repeat that simply because I am a former holder of his office, and I therefore know that that award is not given lightly by the United States Government. In addition, it is the highest award for which he was eligible, and he has every reason to be extremely proud of it.
  This is a most interesting report, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex balanced the weight that he gave to its positive comments about the deployment with the criticisms raised. I want to reflect that balance in my remarks if possible. It is perfectly true that 36,000 personnel were deployed. Interestingly, the report reminds us what the objectives of the exercise were and how quickly they were achieved. The first objective was the removal of Saddam's regime, which was accomplished within four weeks, and the second was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. A number of Labour Members of Parliament might reflect ruefully on how that second challenge turned out to be slightly less steep and difficult than the Government had presented to the House. It was four weeks to victory, however, which was indeed an extraordinary accomplishment.
  The report also reminds us of the particular areas in which praise was due to our armed forces: the successfully accomplished activities of the Amphibious Task Group; the seizure of the city of Basra, which was accomplished with terrific distinction and valour; and the 2,500-plus sorties flown by the Royal Air Force with great distinction, which made a substantial contribution to the air war.
  A number of references have been made during this debate to the glorious period of Conservative Government some time back now. During our period in office, I do not remember a time when we were able to take much satisfaction over the performance of the Challenger tank, or indeed, any tank. I therefore read with enormous pleasure that the Challenger tank had performed well in Iraq. That was a logistical success because substantial adjustments were required. A dust mitigation plan had to be put into effect following the exercise in Oman in 2001. Appliqué armour was added to the tank, and the report records that the appliqué armour withstood all the assaults that were made on the tank by Iraqi forces. That is extremely good news, and all the more welcome because of the long history of problems with that piece of equipment.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman add in his endorsement that those who were in charge of the Challenger tanks, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, performed with distinction?
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised this point earlier and rightly

  703
  received from the Government Front Bench an endorsement of their performance. I am happy to say again that theirs was a most valiant, successful and courageous effort.
  The other thing that I thought worth pointing out on the success side was the achievement of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency. The report records that it went out and secured 50,000 metres linear, as is the expression, of shipping capacity, which enabled the entire force to be lifted in a single movement, which is a terrific success.
  I want to endorse one point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, which is that the report reminds us that this was not the long war that many Members of the House had predicted. We did not fight hand to hand for weeks on end in Baghdad, as many had predicted. There were not an atrocious number of civilian casualties, as many had also predicted. Although the theme of this debate is accountability, I want to point out that those right hon. and hon. Members who make those gloomy predictions, and, by the way, who do so with fantastic monotony—in one campaign after another, we have to put up with what these doomsters predict for us—are never held to account. They never come back to the House to be asked why it is that once again they have got things wrong, and have contributed to lowering national morale at a time when we were about to deploy our forces.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that many in the House were misled by the Government, who said that there were weapons of mass destruction, which has signally not been demonstrated? Members of the House are entitled to make the kind of predictions to which he has referred given the misinformation by the Government?
  Mr. Portillo: I have already alluded, in perhaps a slightly flippant way, to the shortcomings of the information given to us by the Government in that respect, and I shall refer to that again later. Leaving aside for a moment the question of weapons of mass destruction, many of the other predictions made by right hon. and hon. Members were woefully askew of the truth and even of what was likely. We never see those people coming back to the House to talk about why they got things so wrong, however.
  I did not get the impression from the Secretary of State today that his attitude was what one would expect from a man who was willing to learn the lessons. In line with what the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, those in the armed forces will of course understand that things go wrong. What they will expect from him. however, is an attitude of mind that means that he wants to absorb those lessons and make things better for the future. In that respect, if I may say so, the Secretary of State's demeanour this afternoon was unfortunate. To make a general comment, it is not his performance that generally gets him into difficulty but his demeanour.
  Jim Knight: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Secretary of State. Has he read part 7 of the report, which is headed, "The Department has a comprehensive process for identifying lessons"? The report says clearly
  704
  that the Secretary of State's Department is learning the lessons, identifying them, and moving forward as the House would expect.
  Mr. Portillo: if one theme of today's debate is accountability, the other is leadership. The conviction with which the lesson-learning capability is pursued, and the success of the process, will depend crucially on the attitude of the Secretary of State. That is what leadership in the Department is all about. If the feeling runs through the Department that the Secretary of State thinks these matters need not be addressed urgently, and that it was more important to come here and make a political case than to show slightly more humility and say that things needed to be put right, a difficulty will be created.
  Mr. Hoon: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's observations. At the risk of appearing to plead the case for my defence, let me assure him that I commissioned the lesson-learning process undertaken by the Department. I made it clear, as I made it clear to the House today, that I wanted it to be rigorous, and did not want anyone to gloss over any of the difficulties that we face. The clear implication of that is that I want the lessons to be learnt properly. If I gave the right hon. Gentleman or the House the impression that I was not taking criticisms seriously, the right hon. Gentleman should accept that I was responsible for demanding that the Department look hard at the lessons that we had to learn.
  Mr. Portillo: That would have made an outstanding paragraph in the Secretary of State's speech. I am sorry that we have had to drag it out of him now.
  The criticisms relate to serious matters. For instance, 40 per cent. of the necessary uniforms and boots were not available by the time of the conflict. We have already discussed nuclear, biological and chemical suits at length, but I must echo a point made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which is that it is particularly extraordinary that there should have been deficiencies in that regard, given the Government's emphasis on weapons of mass destruction in their original case for the war.
  If politics is about one thing, it is about priorities. If the Secretary of State and his colleagues had made the case for the war on the basis that we must get rid of weapons of mass destruction, what could have been a greater priority for them than to equip the armed forces thoroughly so that they could meet that threat? That was a lacuna in the Secretary of State's speech. At one point there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing across the Chamber over whether filters were necessary for the protection of troops. I did not feel that that did the Secretary of State any credit; it would have been better had he said much earlier that the filters had been necessary, and that he was sorry they had not been provided.
  Some of the deficiencies led to almost farcical situations. The engines and main assemblies for combat vehicles could not be tracked down, although the Defence Logistics Organisation held information about the supplies. Because those in the field could not be sure

  705
  that they would receive the equipment—although it was in the chain of supply—they had to "cannibalise" equipment in Germany to acquire duplicates. The Lynx anti-tank helicopter was available for only 53 per cent. of the time—the entire span of time, that is, not just the combat period.
  The report is too fair to the Government in one respect. It makes the point—repeated by a number of Members today—that deployment took half the time that it took for the first Gulf war, but this war was seen coming much earlier than that one. No one knew at the end of July 1990 that Kuwait would be invaded, but our forces were in action in January the following year. In this case we saw the possibility of action in Iraq at least a year before it happened—some would say as long ago as 9/11, and, according to Paul O'Neill, the former US Treasury Secretary, as long ago as the day on which President Bush came to office.
  Let me remind the Secretary of State that boots and uniforms are small items that could have been stocked without any implication that the Government were disingenuously and dishonestly planning for war. These are the bills for those items: desert boots £742,000, desert trousers £886,800, jackets about £1 million. Those are tiny amounts. Surely the Secretary of State had discretion to spend those amounts during the period before the war in order to ensure that our forces had the necessary equipment, given what was becoming a likelihood of their being deployed in a hot weather area.
  Jim Knight: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall the fevered political atmosphere and intense media scrutiny in the run-up to military action? If the media had been able to report the procurement of those items and their deployment in theatre, that would have demonstrated that military action was inevitable and that the whole United Nations process was a sham. The point at which the UN process collapsed was the point at which the items could go into theatre.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman speaks with appalling frankness. He underlines the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, when the hon. Gentleman was probably not in the Chamber. My hon. Friend's point was that a lack of political will, courage and commitment led to the failure to order the equipment. I am allowing for that, however. Even given a Government who lacked those qualities, I believe that the Secretary of State could have ordered uniforms and boots without upsetting the entire United Nations process—or without anyone being led to think that it was being upset.
  Let me say a little about the post-war position. As has been said, the report refers to a lack of preparation, but our forces have performed a brilliant post-war improvisation for which they deserve congratulations. Their success in Basra, and the way in which they have operated as an occupying force, is most impressive. I concede that Basra is an easier place than Baghdad in which to operate, and I do not think that we should jump to drawing facile comparisons between British and American forces, but I still think that what our forces have achieved is superb.
  706
  I say this to people who are going around spreading gloom. Of course our forces are in great danger from terrorism in Iraq today, but our history—particularly in Northern Ireland—suggests that there are many things we could do to overcome the terrorist threat, which would rapidly improve the situation and our forces' security. One possibility is the establishment of intelligence. Now that we are there and now that the Americans have been in theatre for some time, intelligence assets and the flow of intelligence are much improved. A second option is the disruption of the enemy's leadership. Clearly, the seizure of Saddam Hussein is a signal accomplishment in that regard. Thirdly, operational matters could be reviewed and changed. I am thinking particularly of the flying of helicopters by the United States.
  This, I think, is the charge against the Secretary of State today. While the award he has received from the United States indicates that his strategic leadership was probably of a high order—that is obviously the opinion of the United States—I think that he has been responsible for important failures in his attention to detail. I think there was a lack of political courage at the end of 2002 which prevented the ordering of vital equipment, a failure to establish clear priorities, and a lack of political nous—a lack of understanding of what it was possible to do without matters being made public, or being seen to have broader implications than they actually had.
  Until the Secretary of State intervened a moment ago, I thought that he had brought to the House a rather complacent tone that would not inspire confidence among the armed forces that he would heed the lessons that needed to be learnt. It might be useful if, in responding to the debate, the Minister of State demonstrated a humbler approach on the Government's part.
  Let us hope that our forces will return safely at the appropriate time, so that we and their families can welcome them—just as the House took pleasure in welcoming the safe return of my hon. Friends the Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  2.28 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I do not wish to pre-empt my Committee's hearing on the operation next week. The recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff at the National Audit Office, however, raises important issues on which the Committee will focus when taking evidence from Ministry of Defence officials, including the permanent secretary.
  First, let me join others in paying tribute to the gallantry of the men and women of our armed forces whom we sent to fight in Iraq on our behalf. I congratulate those whose job was to deliver, support and recover them over such great distances. The United Kingdom coalition forces achieved their main military objectives: that must be said for the sake of balance. They removed Saddam Hussein and his regime and gained control of key locations and infrastructure within just four weeks. As the National Audit Office reports, UK forces, amounting to more than 45,000 personnel and 15,000 vehicles, were deployed in half the time taken for the first Gulf war.

  707
  I note the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), but the fact is that those forces were deployed in time. Equipment performed well: production of the Storm Shadow cruise missile was brought forward and it was used to hit targets in Iraq. The troubled SA80 assault rifle, now upgraded, appeared to be a much more reliable performer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and others mentioned the Challenger 2 main battle tank. When my Committee examined the earlier exercise in Oman, it found that the tank suffered from major problems with sand entering its air filters, but, once properly modified for desert conditions, it performed impressively.
  In the interest of balance—I am not here to make party political points—I reiterate that the Secretary of State said that, overall, the logistic effort was successful and key equipment was delivered. The Secretary of State made that point many times, and we accept it, but we are now talking about a National Audit Office report. The National Audit Office is perfectly entitled, within the totality of a successful effort, to draw attention to particular shortcomings. Underlying the overall success, there were some difficulties, where major performance improvements need to be made. My Committee will be asking tough questions of the permanent secretary next week.
  There are two particular aspects of concern: first, the lack of protective kit for troops in the front line; and the failure yet again of logistic systems, leading to confusion about the location of key supplies. The National Audit Office report makes it abundantly clear that our troops at the front line were short of a range of vital equipment when the war began. I find it astonishing that we could send our men and women into action without the right kit. For example, there was a lack of potentially life-saving body armour. Incredibly, as has been said by others, given the rationale for the war, our forces were short of vital biological and chemical warfare protection equipment, and they were again short of the correct desert clothing and boots. What lay behind that unsatisfactory state of affairs?
  The National Audit Office has reported that the Ministry of Defence did not have enough supplies of important items on the shelves, including chemical and biological warfare protection equipment, spares for armoured vehicles and the right desert clothing. We do not need to engage in a party political debate to apportion blame between the parties, but we do need—I look carefully at the Minister as I say this—to talk about mistakes in an honest and open way, and learn from them.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): And objectively.
  Mr. Leigh: I entirely agree with the Minister. Indeed, that is how my Committee will try to act, as it does after and before every conflict.
  Much of the £600 million made available by the Treasury was used to address the shortages, some of which, as we know, the Ministry of Defence had been aware of for several years. Such urgent procurement action carries a number of risks, which became apparent. For example, some equipment or stock
  708
  purchased urgently was not available in time. Only 40 per cent. of the extra desert clothing was delivered by the time that UK forces had taken Basra, and modifications to the AS90 self-propelled gun, to enable it to work properly in the hottest desert conditions, were not fitted until the war-fighting phase was over. The Ministry now has to take cognisance of the point made several times during the debate that the circumstances were different from those of the first Gulf war. In the light of what happened in Operation Saif Sareea, such difficulties were obviously going to arise.
  The last-minute procurement also means limited time to train on new arms. For example, the National Audit Office report tells us that the Minimi light machine gun was issued to battle groups of the 7th Armoured Brigade less than a week before hostilities began, with few spare parts and without the equipment for zeroing the weapons. The failure to have the right stocks was compounded by the Ministry of Defence assuming that there would be time for suppliers to make up the shortages before going to war. In many examples, such as desert clothing, that was not the case.
  I make no comment about what was going on in the political process at the time. It may have had an impact, but surely it was all foreseeable. Surely it was obvious many months earlier that a war in the desert was likely, and the kit could have been purchased in time. In next week's hearing—and, I hope, in our report—we will press the Ministry of Defence on why that was not done. The late delivery of the urgent items meant either that our troops did not have important pieces of equipment, or that, when it arrived at the last minute, they had little opportunity to familiarise themselves with new weapons and equipment.
  Mr. Colin Breed: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the shortages were caused by a reduction in stockholdings, supposedly to reduce costs. When things have to be procured at the last moment, it is easy to be the victim of those who are prepared to sell them at a certain price. The perceived cost saving is often illusory and one can end up paying as much, if not more, than if an item was in stock in the first place.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point, but I do not believe that so far we have discovered any instances of war profiteering, which clearly took place in previous conflicts. Still, as I said, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but is it the best way to send our soldiers into battle—in the wrong clothing, missing vital items and with unfamiliar weapons?
  Another major cause of the shortages is all too familiar to my Committee. The National Audit Office reported that in several cases equipment made it to Kuwait, but the lack of an effective logistics tracking system prevented it from being delivered to the front line. The report paints a picture of muddle and confusion. Troops who should have been preparing themselves for the forthcoming conflict were forced to search containers scattered across Kuwait for supplies that had gone missing.
  I make the point to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—he has unfortunately had to leave after making his comments this afternoon—that

  709
  we all recognise that in the fog of war it is not easy to track assets to and through the front line, but it surely would have been possible, given all the warning that we had and in the light of modern technology, to have had a better asset-tracking system in the rear areas in Kuwait. That is the point. I fully accept what the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said. We realise, given the vast amount of supplies being issued, that it is far more difficult and complicated to get a system that works for the Ministry of Defence than it is to track supplies across a supermarket. Everyone knows that and everyone agrees with the Secretary of State when he says that it is a difficult problem. However, with enough thought and commitment, the problem can be overcome.
  The most disturbing example is probably that the biological and chemical filters for armoured vehicles had disappeared—a point made several times in the debate. When the war started, none of our armed vehicles had the working filters. Indeed, by the time that National Audit Office staff went to Iraq in June 2003, they had still not appeared. We should be thankful that Saddam Hussein's regime did not, in the event, have the dreadful weapons ready for use against our forces, but it is not good enough for the Ministry of Defence to give the impression, as did the Secretary of State in the debate, that the filters were not needed because the troops inside the vehicles would have had the right clothing. How could they perform adequately in those conditions? That point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, so I shall not labour it, and my Committee can return to it.
  Every report that my Committee has produced for major operations—from the first Gulf war onwards—has highlighted the supply tracking issue. Time and again the inability to track supplies has caused significant difficulties. Time and again, the Ministry of Defence has assured us that the problem is being addressed. We will ask the MOD to assure us that implementation of its own lessons and the repeated recommendations from Committees of the House are taken seriously.
  In reply to my predecessor's report on operations in Iraq in 1990–91, we were assured that action had been taken to improve both the management of movements and the tracking of assets, and that the Department had developed for its own use those commercial systems that it considered represented best practice. I emphasise the fact that the Ministry of Defence said that in 1991, which is quite a long time ago—long before the recent conflict. Following my predecessor's report on operations in the former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s, and on operations three years later in Kosovo, the MOD was again promising improvements to its systems. Yet last year, my Committee was still concerned about asset tracking on the exercise in Oman. The House, speaking on behalf of British troops, who will doubtless be sent to war again, has the right to ask what is going on inside the MOD, and whether sufficient commitment is being shown on this issue.
  Mr. Soames: When my hon. Friend looks at these matters in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, will he ensure that an examination is made of the lessons that could have been
  710
  implemented post-Operation Saif Sareea 2, in Oman? They could have made a significant difference to the logistical supply in Operation Telic, and such information is highlighted in figure 12 of the NAO report.
  Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful for that intervention, and I shall myself refer to figure 12, which is a key element of the report. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this issue. We did report on Operation Saif Sareea and we made a number of recommendations. We gave credit to the MOD, particularly with regard to the main battle tank. Of course, there was a lot of publicity about that issue at the time. It was meat and water to the tabloid press that our tanks could not perform properly. But the tabloid press do not necessarily go on about an asset-tracking system, because it is not in the forefront of political debate. Given that the MOD offered absolute assurances in respect of 1990—91 and the mid-1990s, my Committee and others have a right to ask why so little has been done. It is right to point out that our report should highlight that fact, and we should be prepared to return to this issue.
  One or two others have mentioned the post-war part of the operation, but even so, perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on it. It is clear that since the end of major fighting, our forces in southern Iraq have made a fantastic effort to improve security and the quality of life of its people. The NAO report clearly pays tribute to our troops and to the MOD, but it also points out that the armed forces could not be expected to meet the post-war challenge alone, and that, in the early stages, they were not properly supported by either Government Departments or coalition agencies. I am sure that shortly, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is aware of what was going on, will be able to address these points with far more local knowledge than I ever could. However, it is clear that extra planning was needed, and that extra help should have been given to our armed forces. It was clear for some time that the war was likely, yet the Government failed to produce a co-ordinated plan in the aftermath of the conflict.
  I have tried during my brief remarks to give credit where it is due, but also to do my duty and to point to deficiencies where they exist; indeed, that is the role of the NAO and the PAC. What is now important is to ensure that these lessons are not just commented on and are the subject of this important debate, but are learned and followed through. We will not only question the permanent secretary closely next week, I myself shall ask the Comptroller and Auditor General—I cannot order him; I can only ask him—to consider returning to this subject in a year or two, so that we can test the MOD on what lessons have been learned. We owe nothing less to our troops.
  2.44 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Following as I do the outstanding analysis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I am put under a certain amount of pressure. I shall endeavour not to lower the tone of the debate and to maintain the standard that they have set, although to do so will be difficult.

  711
  I want to deal with part 5 of the report, and particularly paragraphs 5.8 to 5.10, which deal with the contribution of the reservists. Before doing so, I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I recall sitting in Nasirya and reading in a rather dated Sunday broadsheet, perhaps some two weeks after it was published, a criticism of our policy of deploying reservists for Operation Telic and Operation Telic 2. It said that that amounted to conscription on a scale not seen since the Korean war and the Suez crisis. I thought, "That is a monstrous travesty that bears no relation at all to the truth." Members of the reserves are not conscripts. Those who sign up to a Territorial or other reservist commitment are made fully aware of their liability. Equally, I do not believe that anyone signs up to the armed forces, be it regular or reserve, without some hope that they will actually see operations. Nobody wants to spend their military career back at the depot, training or counting blankets.
  The reality is that a compulsory call-out notice actually provides liberation for many reservists who perhaps would have liked to serve and to meet an FTRS—full-time reserve service—commitment of some sort, but who were unable, because of the commitments imposed by family or career, suddenly to enjoy the relative financial advantage and job security presented and guaranteed to them by a call-out notice. Such a notice would enable them to do what they always wanted to do, which is serve in the armed forces; indeed, that was certainly the case for me. However, I should point out to Ministers that we should treat that situation with great caution and care. Ministers are right to say that employers have been very tolerant during Operations Granby and Telic—more so than we might have anticipated.
  The armed services themselves have taken great account of employers' needs. For example, the Ministry of Defence has allowed 70 per cent. of appeals against the call-up of key employees, so there has been give and take on both sides. But the difficulty will come if we continue to maintain a high-tempo use of reservists on what have become low-intensity peacekeeping operations on only a medium scale. If we go on at that rate, we will quickly exhaust the reserves.
  I thoroughly enjoyed my commitment, but I have family and I have now come back and have a career to resume. Indeed, that is the case for many individuals, who are quite prepared to put their civilian career and family on the back-burner because their country needs them in an emergency. Those people have done their six months, and it is very difficult to tell them in 12 or 18 months' time, "We need you again." We are entitled to ask them to serve again, because they have signed up to that commitment, but for how long would employers be prepared to wear that, in a situation that could not be described as a national emergency? We would quickly find that being a member of the reserve forces became a badge of unemployment, because only people without proper jobs would be able so to serve. There are those who are serial mobilisers—who always want to go on operations. They are very important and welcome, but they are a minority. The reserve forces would be very much the poorer without the people with proper jobs who make such commitments.
  712
  While out in the Gulf, I read a considerable amount of press comment to the effect that the participation of the reserves had been something of a disaster: no kit and no pay, and the regular Army short-toured and pushed off, leaving the reservists in theatre. It really was not like that at all.
  I shall consider those issues in reverse order. The first is tour length. Given the administrative burden and expense of mobilising reservists—for every Territorial Army soldier mobilised, one and a half must be called out, whereas for regular Army reservists the ratio is eight to one—I can understand the desire to make maximum use of them. However, reservists are volunteers and must feel that they are being treated fairly. The sense of unfairness that arose when regular Army personnel were seen to have short tours and TA personnel were given longer ones was caused not by discrimination but by the lack of a policy. It is now the policy that if a reservist goes out into theatre in service with a formed unit, he will return with that unit. If he goes out as an augmentee, he will serve six months. At least that policy gives reservists an end-of-tour date, which is vital for those with civilian careers.
  On the issue of pay, it should have been predictable that there would be an enormous strain on the Army's administrative structure in delivering pay to those individuals who had been called out. We must not underestimate the anxiety caused to those individuals—fortunately, they were relatively few—who had problems with their pay. It is an enormous strain to be mobilised, sent far from home and have agonised calls from one's wife saying that bills have to be paid but the cheque has not arrived. We have solved that problem at a stroke by allowing the mobilisation structure at Chilwell to set up the pay accounts.
  The reservists' principal grievance arises from the fact that the reserve standard allowance—the element of the pay that compensates them for the loss of their civilian earnings, which can be much higher—has been bound by rank constraints that are inappropriate in civilian life. The decision to abandon that constraint will wipe out that grievance, and I ask the Minister to confirm when that policy will be implemented, if it has not been implemented already.
  The final issue is the lack of kit. When I reached the Gulf in early July, there was no problem with the supply of any of the items that have been mentioned. However, I cannot understand why we make body armour for an army of midgets. Finding a suit of armour that fitted was a problem throughout the theatre of operations. I could not find one to accommodate my girth and I do not usually have a problem in that respect.
  There was no shortage of supply, but I spoke to many people who had been in the Gulf for Telic I and who were very angry about kit shortages. The Secretary of State made considerable amends in his intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, but in his own speech he gave the impression that because the operation was a success, we got away with it and everything was all right. He may not have meant to give that impression, and indeed he confirmed that in the subsequent intervention. However, we have been trying to draw attention to the fact that we have been taught that lesson before. We got away with it then, so we have carried on as before. Our point, in this debate, is that the failings could have been

  713
  catastrophic. The principal reason given for the invasion of Iraq was its possession of WMD, and if they had been utilised we would be talking not about the success of the operation, but about the heavy and avoidable casualties. It was therefore appropriate to deal with the issue in precisely the way my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) did.
  I wish to put down a marker with respect to chapter 6 of the report, which states, in point 6.4:
  "It was a Government wide responsibility to plan for the post-conflict period."
  The report continues with measured and fairly light criticism of the Government's preparations, but that does not do justice to the lack of preparations that prevailed. The Secretary of State says that we must accept the report's conclusions and not cherry-pick, but I do not follow his logic. The report does not do justice to the Government's failure to plan for post-war reconstruction. We did fantastically well, as hon. Members have said. It is incredible that the British Army is able to move so swiftly and seamlessly from a high-intensity war role to a peace support operation requiring the most delicate touch. The Army is magnificent at that. It is also magnificent at improvising and flying by the seat of its pants.
  One of the strengths of the regular Army was identifying the skills of reservists from their civilian careers and using them effectively in the reconstruction efforts. For example, those people whose job it is to build electricity pylons in the UK have been deployed to do just that in Iraq. However, everyone to whom I spoke thought it was obvious that we had no plan for after the war. That is equally true of the US, but it is not good enough to say, "Oh well, the US did not have a plan and it was the principal partner in the enterprise." The Opposition attempted to draw attention to the deficit in at least four debates in this Chamber in the build-up to the war. We were reassured and told that the matter was in hand, but it was not. I do not blame the MOD, because the deficit lies more with the Department for International Development. Therefore I shall not pursue the point any further in this debate, but I put down a marker on this subject because it is one to which I shall definitely return in future.
  2.58
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). He and I are at risk of boring for Britain on the subject of Iraq for many years to come. I suspect that he would agree that by the time that we arrived in theatre, the logistics were good. However, the report deals with the phase before our arrival—the fighting of the war and immediately thereafter—and I shall confine my attention to that.
  I declare an interest, in that I am a reservist and underwent compulsory mobilisation as part of Operation Telic between 15 September and 7 November. I was honoured to serve with 40 Regiment Royal Artillery near Az Zubayr in southern Iraq. I had the pleasure of meeting the Secretary of State for Defence at Saddam's garish palace on the Shatt al-Arab at Basra, when we exchanged a few words. The Minister
  714
  of State will not be aware that he and I narrowly avoided one another at Shaibah, when his Sea King helicopter disappeared in an impressive plume of dust just as I arrived in my battlefield ambulance. I understood from a conversation with colleagues shortly thereafter that the Minister promised them lots of extra money for Defence Medical Services, for which they were most grateful. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) will also be grateful because he was particularly exercised earlier about the plight of the defence medical services.
  Operation Telic was an extraordinary exercise in logistics. In the shock and awe of battle, it is easy to forget that all operations have a long and complex logistics tail that is just as much part of the success of the operation as the biting part. It has become fashionable to identify a scapegoat and there is a risk that the logisticians will win that role. One of them pointed out to me that the fault lies with their political masters—of course it does—in saying that the provisioning of our forces should be just in time, not just in case. That is in marked contrast with the Americans. Those of us who have visited Iraq, including Ministers, will have seen the huge American logistics operation by contrast with our own. Their business is far bigger than ours for sure, but the Americans subscribe to the belief that they need to prepare for all eventualities in a way we do not—contrasting our empty shelves with the Americans' full shelves.
  We have heard about the tragedy of Sergeant Roberts, who lost his life through want of body armour. When I was in Iraq I spoke to a number of servicemen and women who had been involved in the handover of ceramic armour plating to personnel deemed to be at greater risk. Apart from the tragedy that that obviously invites, do Ministers have any idea of the extent to which such an incident can affect the morale of troops? In operations such as Telic, there is no front line or reserve. Everyone is in it together. Have Ministers reflected on how difficult it must be for a field commander to administer such a situation? There is great unhappiness about that particular incident, which to my mind was completely avoidable.
  It is not just having stacks of kit on shelves that matters. Quality is also an issue. A Warminster lady wrote to me during the summer about her Royal Marine grandson who sent her a plaintive letter asking for kit to be bought from Milletts and sent to him, because his standard-issue boots and much else besides had disintegrated. They were not "fit for purpose".
  Before Christmas I asked the Prime Minister why military vehicles were not fitted with the kit necessary to protect them fully from incoming missiles. I questioned why our troops had to put up with pieces of chicken wire strung across windscreens for their protection. I was told that the vehicle protection kits would not be comprehensively fitted until well into the new year— despite the excellent Army repair organisation based in Warminster, which is ready and able to get that job done.
  The Secretary of State has presided over a veritable explosion of small to medium-scale operations since 1997 and had a long lead-in to the Iraq conflict. There was plenty of time to lay in sufficient body armour, ensure that desert boots would not melt in the heat and arrange for vehicle protection kits to be comprehensively fitted. A myriad other deficiencies are

  715
  cited in the NAO report. In our congratulatory mood, it is important to remember that we are not here to congratulate the Government on a successful operation but to suggest ways in which the situation might be improved for the future. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will echo the belated remarks of the Secretary of Secretary of State extracted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
  I refer next to the reserve forces that were so crucial to Operation Telic. I was rather chuffed to receive recently in the post—I suspect in common with thousands of other reservists—a certificate signed in facsimile by the Secretary of State. It thanked me for my service in Iraq and for
  "the valuable contribution you have made to the nation's defence."
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West may have received such a certificate.
  Mr. Swayne: No.
  Dr. Murrison: If not, that is something to which he can look forward. Perhaps the Secretary of State was being ironic, because at the risk of sounding churlish, whatever Operation Telic was about it had little to do with the defence of the nation—as I thought Ministers had by now admitted.
  The reserve forces are now much more than territorials engaged in the defence of the homeland, so the change of designation from Territorial Army to Army Reserve makes a great deal of sense. It will be warmly welcomed by my reservist colleagues as overdue recognition of the fact that they truly stand shoulder to shoulder with their Regular Army counterparts.
  Saying that reservists will be used increasingly as an arm of Government foreign policy but that their strength will be cut by 15 per cent makes little sense. Ministers cannot expect to dip into a contracting pool of reserves at will. If people with day jobs in civilian life are repeatedly put upon, they will vote with their feet. I am staggered by the extent to which the Government are taking reservists and their employers for granted. The National Audit Office report claims that the MOD has recognised that financial assistance is necessary to prevent reservists from being disadvantaged because of mobilisation. I will give the Minister a small example. Reservists returning from theatre can be forgiven for being cynical on discovering that months of operational service will not count in full towards their annual reserve commitment. To discharge that commitment, they will have to tell their families and employers that they will have to spend a couple of weekends square bashing in Aldershot. That seems absolute nonsense. It is a good example of the way in which reservists are disadvantaged and of why they might decide that enough is enough and leave. If reservists do not make that choice, in many cases their families will do so.
  Most employers are sympathetic to releasing staff during the acute phase of a conflict—particularly if they perceive that the conflict has to do with the security of the homeland. Employers become rather less enthusiastic when it seems that their good will is being abused. Last year I asked Ministers which employers they had met to discuss future commitments to Iraq, as
  716
  it seems that Operation Telic is likely to run and run. Apparently the big conversation does not extend to the Ministry of Defence, because we understand that no such meetings have been held. Recent years have seen conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq—all of which means that Ministers have had plenty of practice in the sort of conflict that the Government predict for the future. There can be no excuse for not getting it right next time. I hope that our servicemen and women—regulars and reservists—can look forward to the Government taking on board the learning points that the NAO has kindly offered up in its helpful contribution.
  3.8 pm
  Mr. James Gray: I begin by paying a warm tribute on behalf of Members on both sides of the House, and on behalf of all members of the Territorial Army, to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who spoke so well about several TA issues, and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Both of them spoke with huge knowledge both about what happened during Operation Telic and about what is happening to the TA and the reserves in general. I hope that the Ministry of Defence and others will listen carefully to what they said. Both my hon. Friends made important speeches from the point of view of their colleagues in the TA, who will very much respect the fact that they have spoken so well for them today.
  I shall not try to replicate what other Members have said so well about the detail of the National Audit Office report. Issues were raised about nuclear, biological and chemical protection, in terms of indicators and filters for military vehicles. There have been questions about desert combat kit, which is terribly important and was in extremely short supply, and about body armour. The terrible and worrying case of the sergeant has been mentioned twice, but it may not be the only one to have arisen owing to the shortage of body armour.
  It is interesting that 200,000 sets of body armour were produced at the time of Kosovo. I understand that currently there are about 94,000 soldiers in the British Army, so if my arithmetic is right there are two sets of body armour for each of them, including all those who were left at home. How there could have been a shortage of the stuff in the Gulf and how —as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said—it could have been designed for midgets astonishes me.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others in paying a huge tribute to the logistic operations during Operation Telic. My visit to Iraq as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme confirmed that by and large we put 46,000 troops in broadly speaking the right places, with broadly speaking the right equipment. It is right to pay tribute to the armed services and to the logistics organisations. I pay particular tribute to two organisations in my constituency, the 9 Supply Regiment—one of the two supply regiments responsible for getting all the kit out to the Gulf—based at Lavington, and RAF Lineham, whose Hercules also played a significant part in transporting the kit.
  I have visited the two port and maritime regiments, one of which is regular and the other TA, which, in turn, manned the ports at Southampton and at Umm Qasr.

  717
  The TA unit served for nine months; there is only one such unit and any operation overseas depends on its service. I pay tribute to all those units.
  By and large, it is right to say that the logistics operation was a superb success, but that is not to diminish the criticisms in the NAO report. I was puzzled by the Secretary of State's remarks earlier, as he seemed to be saying that because the overall military operation was successful we should not ask questions about the means whereby that success was achieved. We accept that the operation was successful; there is no question about that. None the less, it is reasonable that we should ask questions about deficiencies in the kit and equipment or about the general conduct of the campaign. It is important to ensure that such deficiencies do not recur in any subsequent similar engagement. It is ridiculous to suggest that because the NAO report concludes that the overall campaign was good and worked well—I am happy to acknowledge that—it is illegitimate to ask questions about equipment deficiencies.
  The Secretary of State also said that if the military commanders on the ground had said that the troops were not ready they would not have gone in, and that proved that they had all the necessary equipment. That argument seems equally fatuous. Of course the military commanders would not have gone to war if they not had the equipment. Indeed, there would have been an historic national and international scandal had that ever occurred. It is impossible to imagine that such a thing could have ever occurred throughout the long history of the British services. Of course, broadly speaking, the forces had the right amount of equipment to go into battle; it would have been bizarre if the military commanders had said that the forces were not operationally capable of saluting, turning to the right and marching off to do their duty. Of course they did, and we respect that fact.
  To say that that was the case is not to dismiss the criticism that the armed forces did not have all the equipment that they should have had. Of course they went into battle. Of course they were operationally ready to go, but it is none the less legitimate for the House to put questions about some of the deficiencies mentioned by the NAO report and for us to try to ensure that the same things do not happen in any subsequent war.
  When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will not try to reiterate the specious argument that because the operation was successful and the military commanders agreed to go into battle it proves that "Everything is all right, Guy". Everything was not all right and the report proves it.
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is making an important point. The decision about when operations should commence was taken in partnership with coalition commanders and, as he suggests, the idea that a British commander would say, "We're not going because we haven't got the right kit," is preposterous. Broadly, the forces had the right equipment. Does he agree, however, that part of the success of our armed forces is their ability to hoist lessons on board and to change? It is puzzling that the important lessons that followed
  718
  consecutive operations and Saif Sareea do not seem to have been learned. To what does my hon. Friend attribute that?
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He is right. Our services have always been very good at making do and mending. They will achieve what they are told to achieve, irrespective of how poor the standard of their equipment may be. But, as he says, we have had a series of conflicts during the past five to 10 years—probably more than since the second world war: Sierra Leone, Kosovo. the Balkans and Gulf War 1. Operation Saif Sareea 2 is especially important in that context, as the exercise was almost identical to what occurred in Telic. Lessons should have been learned and carried through by the time that Operation Telic occurred a year later.
  One of the most salient points in the NAO report is that the lessons of Saif Sareea 2 had not been learned; they were not put in place for Operation Telic. For example, during Saif Sareea 2 great play was made of the fact that the air filters for the Challenger 2 tanks were not of the correct specification, so they clogged up with sand. The tanks were configured for operation in western Europe where conditions are relatively humid, and the large amount of sand in the air intakes clogged up the filters, although a friend who is a tank commander tells me that standard procedure is to stop the tank every now and again, take out the filters and give them a good bang on the ground, which effectively gets rid of the sand. The failure to do that was part of the problem during Saif Sareea, and the lessons do not yet seem to have been learned.
  The NAO report also mentioned the lack of NBC filters in all armoured vehicles. As I understand it, duff filters are used in training and it is standard operating procedure to remove them from the vehicles as soon as an operation is likely and replace them with effective filters. However, no such filters were supplied to the 25,000 vehicles that were carted out to Iraq.
  It is important that the Government reply to our questions about why all that happened. We all very much hope that this does not happen, but if there is to be another such operation, we need guarantees from the Government that such things will not happen again. The purpose of the debate is to call attention to some of those shortfalls, and I hope that the Government will now learn the lessons of the filters, the body armour and the desert combat kit.
  Some soldiers in my constituency tell me that they were issued with two left boots. That is an Army joke; it happens to be the case. The quartermaster sergeant said, "I'm very sorry; I haven't got a pair of boots for you. I'll give you two left boots and if you bring them back later on, I'll try to exchange them." Equally, some soldiers were issued with the wrong size of boot, and they were told, "Never mind that you are size 12, gentlemen, all I've got is size 7. If you take them just now and bring them back later on, I'll try to exchange them for you." That may be silly, but it is not acceptable.
  I discovered one or two other deficiencies in equipment during my visit to Iraq. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and Sir Neil Thorne who runs it so extremely well. I was one of half a dozen hon. Members who were the first

  719
  civilians, apart from Ministers, to visit in Iraq back in the early part of June, and it was superb that we were able to do so. However, one or two things that I picked up there are worth thinking about.
  First, water is absolutely essential in such an operation. One of the biggest changes since the time when I was in the TA is that it is now normal to supply bottled water to troops, but the trouble with bottled water lying around in the sun in a place such as Iraq is that it is almost boiling on the sand. It could not be cooled down, as no water-cooling mechanism was supplied to our troops. It might be worth thinking about that in future.
  It might also be worth thinking about a greater degree of air conditioning, which the Americans have. but we did not have at that stage. Apart from anything else, our computers did not operate because of that lack of air conditioning. There was a significant amount of computer downtime, apparently because of the high temperatures. When I was there, it was 46° C in the shade—120 or 130° F in old terms—and the computer simply seized up in that heat.
  John Robertson John Robertson(Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab) rose—
  Mr. Gray: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was on the same trip.
  John Robertson: Perhaps I can call the hon. Gentleman a friend because, as he rightly suggests, we were in Basra together. Does he agree that the air-conditioned tents that had been promised very early on were also missing and that, in temperatures of 52° C, more of those tents were required, particularly at night, when it did not get much below 45°?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. Air conditioning may sound like a luxury, but in those conditions in the heat of the summer, it becomes a basic necessity, not only for sleeping and eating accommodation, which was sometimes absolutely oven-like, but for offices. I visited a number of logistics offices where computers and other equipment had seized up and was unable to operate simply because of the heat—leaving aside the personal convenience and comfort of the soldiers involved. We need to find ways to supply units that are air-conditioned more easily or, indeed, little air-conditioning units themselves, which can be easily fitted in ordinary tents. We saw that in some places, where air-conditioning equipment was supplied.
  We must not forget about water-cooling systems. I was struck by the fact that a tank driver discovered that, by some curious means—my science is not good enough to explain—putting a bottle of water into a wet sock and driving it through the desert cools down the water. That was the only means that our soldiers had to make their water palatable. Perhaps we ought to find ways to supply water-cooling equipment in the future.
  I also discovered more serious circumstances when I was out there, and the following story is known. The third echelon—in other words, the people who are right at the very back—were issued with two bullets each at the beginning of Telic 1. The argument might be that they were in the third echelon, right at the back, so they were in no danger and did not need bullets. That would
  720
  have been a good argument for not issuing them with weapons either, but it is, quite frankly, absurd to issue a weapon with two bullets.
  I believe that that situation was corrected after a couple of months, but during the peak of Telic I, back on 18 March and thereafter, those soldiers were deployed to Kuwait—quite a long way back from the fighting—with only two bullets. That was silly in itself. One group of people in particular was badly affected: the fuel tanker drivers who were driving from Kuwait to the front line. They, too, had two bullets each, and it was necessary to have a whip-round around the unit and for the boys to chuck their two bullets into a hat so that the tanker drivers who were going up to the front line would have something like a magazine full of bullets. That is just absurd. We were not short of bullets; there was no reason to be quite so sparing with them, but I am told that that story is true.[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head and says that that it is not true, but I went to Iraq and that is what the soldiers told me. I cannot think why they would possibly make it up.
  Mr. Ingram: I was listening to what the hon. Gentleman was saying and commenting to my Front-Bench colleagues. Those stories may well be anecdotal, but we need to get to the bottom of them. Conservative Members have raised similar issues, which we are investigating, but it is interesting that the report never picked up those stories. If there was an institutional failure, I should have thought it would have come to the fore.
  Mr. Gray: I apologise for misinterpreting the shake of the Minister's head. He is right that there was not an institutional failure. The logistical exercise was extremely good overall, given that 46,000 troops found themselves in broadly speaking the right place with broadly speaking the right kit. However, that does not necessarily diminish the importance of highlighting such little instances—although there was probably a perfectly legitimate reason for the situation that I mentioned—to ensure that the same thing does not happen again.
  It is right that all hon. Members are ready to congratulate all aspects of the armed forces on the superb job that they did during Telic 1 and continue to do during Telic 2—and perhaps Telic 3 and 4 and so on—and for us to say that it was a fine operation and that the logistics operation broadly speaking went extremely well. However, it is also entirely legitimate and sensible for Conservative Members to highlight several extremely worrying deficiencies—the problems with nuclear, biological and chemical kit and desert body armour are especially worrying. We do that not to have a pop at the Government, because I broadly congratulate them on what they did, but so that we can ensure that the same deficiencies do not arise in the future.
  I hope that the Minister will not wind up the debate by using a party political self-defence mechanism and asking, "Why are you saying these awful things about us?" I would prefer him to come to the Dispatch Box to say, "I accept very much of what the Opposition have said. I believe that we did our best, but we got some of these things wrong. I thank the Opposition for calling

  721
  this most interesting and useful debate today and make a commitment that I will act without any delay whatever to put the deficiencies right."
  3.26 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: We have had an interesting and good debate in which we have heard six Back-Bench contributions, although I am sorry that only one Government Back Bencher was able to support his Front Bench. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) is what the British Army normally refers to as an area weapon, because he is as much a danger to his own side as the other. However, he spoke with great passion and I am sure that the Secretary of State was grateful to him.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was generous, as usual, and spoke with great authority, balance and fairness from his experiences and as a former Secretary of State. I endorse his view, although the Secretary of State intervened to correct him when he said that the Secretary of State began the debate by giving the impression of complacency. I spoke this weekend to three officers in the armed forces, two of whom had been out in Iraq and one of whom served in the first Gulf war and was responsible for sending equipment and men to Iraq. They think that Ministers will react to the National Audit Office report by saying that measures to deal with lessons learned will be implemented, but fear that although a few will be implemented, many will not. My right hon. Friend hit the nail on the head by picking out the two themes of the debate as accountability and leadership.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, effectively gave the permanent secretary a warning order of the kind of questions that the Committee will ask. He tried to be fair and balanced while pointing out the need for improvements and the fact that we must learn lessons. It is a common theme among Conservative Members that however one looks at the NAO report, it documents the fact that a series of reports over the past decade by the NAO, the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee have highlighted the same lessons again and again. Some measures have been implemented to address those, but box 12 in the NAO report makes grim reading because many have not been introduced for one reason or another.
  If we have done nothing else by calling the debate, we have performed a duty by putting the Government on a warning order, not least because the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box just before Christmas to announce his defence White Paper. He knows that the White Paper is challenging because no resources are attached to it. He talks about the need for radical changes to culture and organisation and for the introduction of new equipment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea and others were fair in asking. if we do not learn the lessons of past campaigns and implement them, what chance do the armed forces have of believing that the defence White Paper will deliver the operational and logistical systems that will be required to meet the new challenges that the Government have rightly faced up to?
  722
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke with great authority both about his experience in the Gulf and about reservists. I think that I have captured the spirit of his remarks in saying that if we continue with an intensive call up of reservists for low-level operations, we will eventually run out of reservists. That major challenge for the Government was also raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who made a thoughtful and balanced contribution about logistics and the need to prepare for all eventualities. He spoke with a great sensitivity about the impact of deaths on our troops, particularly in accidents. Naturally, we are all grateful that in recent conflicts the number of casualties among our own personnel has been limited because on the whole they have been well organised and trained. They have gone in quickly, and have been fortunate to work in a coalition and deal with an enemy who, on the whole, was not capable of a serious challenge. However, we should all accept that the public are demanding that casualty avoidance should be a new principle of war. That applies not just to casualties among our troops hut, ironically. to casualties on the other side and among civilians. If we accept that that has become a public requirement, it puts enormous strain on the Ministry of Defence, Ministers and the defence budget in providing the basic protection that would have amazed my father's and grandfather's generation. Indeed, in a strange way, they would probably have regarded it as rather wimpish. However, those are the stakes for which we are now playing.
  The missing 200,000 sets of body armour are no longer just a quartermaster's nightmare. When preparing to implement proposals in the defence White Paper, the Secretary of State must make certain that, as far as possible, such armour is issued not only to all our combat troops but to troops in the theatre of operations. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) rightly praised the role of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. He has experience of serving with the armed forces but, without wishing to be patronising, I must emphasise that the scheme has educated many Members on both sides of the House who lack such experience but can now speak with authority about the role of the armed forces.
  The NAO report concluded, as many hon. Members have pointed out and as the Secretary of State has been at pains to reiterate, that Operation Telic was a success overall, not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said, because of the hard work, dedication and adaptability of the Defence Logistics Organisation, military and civilian personnel, and members of the defence industry, as well as the great flexibility of our armed forces, which was highlighted by a number of hon. Members. However much the Secretary of State leans on that general conclusion—and I suspect that a number of his hon. Friends back him—Opposition Members believe that glaring deficiencies highlighted in the NAO report are repeat offences, and did not arise for the first time in Operation Telic. The Opposition's main purpose in calling this debate is, following the publication of his defence White Paper, to put him on a warning order and ensure that those lessons are implemented. We must not find ourselves debating them again in a year.

  723
  The lessons are serious.[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that he is thinking of resigning.[Laughter.] [HON. MEMBERS: "You say that."] We may have to wait two or three weeks to find out whether that is true. A number of glaring deficiencies were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and others, in particular the shortage of what can best be described as layered defence in terms of nuclear, biological and chemical protection.
  Mr. Hogg: One way of seeing whether the Ministry of Defence was dealing with the problems would be for the Defence Committee in, say, six months to invite the Secretary of State to appear before it to answer specific questions on these matters.
  Mr. Simpson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that the Chairman of the Defence Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, will take that into account.
  The deficiencies in protection against weapons of mass destruction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and others pointed out, drive a coach and horses through the Government's position. Time and again, at the Dispatch Box and in public, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary stressed that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Most of us were only too conscious, as were the men and women of our armed forces and their families, that at least on the battlefield, they could be faced with that. The National Audit Office report proves beyond all doubt that the kind of effective layered defence that we would have expected to be in place was not in place.
  As we in the Opposition have said before, the Government relied on just-in-time logistical support. The operation was short and sharp, against an enemy who, we can see in retrospect, did not amount to much. But in the defence White Paper, the Secretary of State outlined the kind of major operations that our armed forces may have to conduct over a long period against perhaps more formidable enemies. Under those circumstances, it is right and proper for us to make certain that the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware that it will be totally unacceptable if our armed forces are sent into harm's way without nuclear, biological and chemical protection and without the ability to sustain operations over a period longer than a few weeks—otherwise just in time will become just too late.
  A key condemnation in the NAO report related to the problems of the logistical chain. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan pointed out, in a semi-humorous way, all the logistical problems that can be expected over hundreds of years. We all know that nothing can ever be perfect. One of the most important conclusions in the report highlighted shortages and an apparent breakdown in the logistical chain of command. It stated:
  "This led to shortages, loss of confidence in the supply chain and inefficiency as personnel searched for items they had ordered or ordered duplicates urgently."
  Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division
  "lost confidence in the ability of the logistics system to supply what they required when it was needed."
  724
  Such a loss of confidence is pretty frightening. Ultimately, it probably did not matter, as the campaign lasted only days or weeks. The Secretary of State knows that if his White Paper's strategic vision is correct, it is likely that within the next few months or years, we will put our armed forces into harm's way, where they may face operations for a sustained and lengthy period. Such a collapse of confidence will be hopeless.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex raised a question that the National Audit Office report only touched on—the difficulty in communications. It was bad enough that the satellite link between Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division and the joint headquarters broke down, but at a lower tactical level, many hon. Members will have heard reports from service personnel about problems with radio communications, which are absolutely crucial. I am not saying that the unfortunate incident involving the death of six Royal Military Police personnel could have been avoided, as they were ambushed and elements of the Parachute Regiment were some distance away, but there is no doubt that a breakdown in communications made it extremely difficult for those involved to get the sort of support that they needed. I know that these things happen in war, but unless servicemen can be reassured that their communications are robust and can sustain the sort of incoming fire that they might face in future, the morale of our troops will collapse pretty quickly.
  The Opposition believe that the armed forces carried out a magnificent operation while facing a great deal of difficulty. Some of that difficulty related to the nature of the terrain and some to working in a coalition. Of course, some difficulty also lay in the fact that some of the step orders necessary for deployment and logistics took place just in time because of circumstances beyond constraints purely to do with the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex highlighted our suspicion that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were having to speak to more than one audience, and there was undoubtedly concern that they did not wish to worry some elements on their own Back Benches.
  The National Audit Office report is a crucial document that highlights some telling failures in the system. The Opposition expect Ministers to implement the lessons, and we will return to them when we discuss the defence White Paper.
  3.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I am pleased that the House has had this opportunity to pay tribute to the exceptional achievements of our armed forces on Operation Telic. Although we are debating an analysis of a past campaign, we should not forget that our servicemen and women continue to serve with distinction today.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) asked about medals in respect of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is appropriate for me to give the best information I can. On Afghanistan, the Defence Council instruction has been published and the medal is now being issued to eligible service personnel. With regard to Iraq, the draft criteria are currently with the honours and decorations committee, and once they have been agreed, they will be

  725
  passed to Her Majesty the Queen for final approval. Of course, the House will be notified about the matter in due course.
  I hesitate to respond to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), because at the last Defence questions, in what I saw as a jokey aside—I think that everyone accepted it in that spirit—I said that when members of the armed forces addressed me, they normally called me "Sir". Everyone laughed, but that was not reflected in Hansard. The Mail on Sunday then said that the stroppy Adam Ingram, Minister for the armed forces, had insulted the hon. Gentleman. I only wish that Hansard could have recorded some of the asides. None the less, I wish to set the record straight, as I received a letter about it; I do not know whether it was from a constituent of his, but I shall reply to it to say that I had no intention of being disrespectful. Indeed, I pay sincere tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the role that he played during his service in Iraq, as I do to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman during my visit to Iraq in September. Although I do not necessarily agree with his speech, I can give him the absolute assurance that when I disappeared into my helicopter in the great cloud of dust that he described, it was not because I knew that he was coming closer and was trying to remove myself from the point of contact. Part of the purpose of visiting our forces on the front line is to hear exactly what is on their minds, and all Ministers try to have an open discussion with those with whom we come into contact. That is an important aspect of learning lessons about anything that we may ask our armed forces to do, no matter where they are.
  I welcome the interest that hon. Members have shown in the lessons that are to be drawn from Operation Telic, just as we welcome and applaud the ongoing—and very thorough—inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence that has been taking place over the past eight months or so. We look forward to the publication of its report. It was suggested that the Secretary of State should give evidence to the Committee—of course, he has done so in relation to every important subject, and is held accountable to the House through that mechanism.
  It is important to take into account the Department's own in-depth critical analysis in our report, "Operations in Iraq—Lessons for the Future". That is equally significant, although we did not hear much about it today.
  It is vital for defence and for the country that we should never fall into the trap of taking successful operations for granted. It is also important for the men and women of our armed forces to know that Parliament cherishes their services to the nation and to the world and cares deeply about their welfare and their ability to maintain the staggeringly high standards that they have set. Nor should we forget the indispensable contribution made by our civilian personnel at all levels. I therefore hope that the House will continue to concern itself closely with these matters.
  The shadow Secretary of State is usually fair-minded, but I fear that his concluding comment fell far short of the import and purpose of this debate. It would be wrong to say that it was reflected in a concerted campaign—the Tories are not good at any campaigns at
  726
  the moment, never mind concerted ones—but Conservative Members went on to make repeated comments about the personal attitude and demeanour of the Secretary of State, almost as if they were trying to attribute to him an attitude that will be reported in tomorrow's papers. Of course, that attitude does not exist. My right hon. Friend made clear in his opening comments, and had to repeat to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the basis upon which such reports are examined. On both occasions, he stressed that we seek a robust analysis of all the lessons learned. We are not unusual in that: previous Governments have taken the same approach. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) noted that in 1991, under a Conservative Administration, the Public Accounts Committee made trenchant comments about certain shortcomings at that time. It is always an ongoing process. The central charge made by Opposition Members falls far short of reality, and it has failed.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister says that the Opposition are not good at concerted campaigns. Why, then, have we had to put up speaker after speaker, while only one Government Back Bencher has spoken?
  Mr. Ingram: It is called an Opposition day debate. I spent 10 years in opposition, wishing throughout to be on the other side, either as a member of the Government or on the Back Benches, and I never want to return to the position in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself. I look forward to his continuing in the role of Opposition Back Bencher.
  Let me deal with the main propositions and views that the Opposition have presented today. Some are unsurprising because they reflect the lessons that have been captured through the exhaustive and frank review process that the Ministry conducted. However, the motion
  "deplores the fact that approximately 200,000 sets of enhanced combat body armour issued since 1989 seem to have disappeared".
  Of course, that is factually wrong. The Opposition get their motions as well as the charges against us wrong.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: It is a typing error.
  Mr. Ingram: Okay—I simply point it out to Opposition Members in the hope that they will be more accurate in preparing their attack. They should check their facts more thoroughly.
  Mr. Soames: I apologise for the typing error in our motion but will the Minister now tell the House whether 200,000 sets have disappeared since 1999?
  Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that in interventions and his earlier contribution. There is nothing further to add. I could use the same words but there is nothing new to say. If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with the answer, doubtless he will pursue the matter. As my right hon. Friend said, we will try to get the proper answer. We have not got to the bottom of some of the background, which remains subject to investigation. That will be further considered when the PAC examines the matter.

  727
  Let me deal with the criticisms and views that have been expressed. Some have been adduced from highly selective use of a positive, well-constructed and helpful NAO report. However, I regret that a few fell into a category that I can describe only as exhibiting a wilful determination to elude the facts.
  Let us consider the report's conclusions. When Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General, presented the report on 11 December, he said:
  "The scale of the operation and the speed with which it was carried out are both extremely impressive. There were problems but these should be seen in the wider context of the overall success."
  The report states:
  "Operation TELIC was a significant military success."
  That has been acknowledged. It also states:
  "The huge logistic effort was successful and fundamental to the success of the operation. There were many examples of success in the way that the logistics challenge was met.
  It states:
  "Overall, UK equipment performed impressively. The Department's major equipments contributed significantly to overall military capability and the success of the operation, and were also supported effectively."
  It also says:
  "The high calibre of our armed forces personnel and the quality of their training was again demonstrated. Reservist personnel made a valuable contribution to the overall success of the operation."
  It further states:
  "The Department has a comprehensive process for identifying and capturing lessons emerging from operations and exercises, and has identified lessons that could reduce the risks associated with future operations."
  Those comments are hardly a withering condemnation that would cause Ministers and others involved in decision making to hang their heads in shame. It is thin gruel on which to mount an attack on the competence of Ministers, chiefs of staff or the Secretary of State.
  However, that is not say that there were no problems. There were problems, as there have been in every conflict, whether major, medium or small-scale, in recent decades.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervened, he quoted the following passage:
  "That is not to say that there are not deficiencies. There will always be deficiencies; there are always things that the services need to do their job better."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115]
  Who does the House think said that? I can tell hon. Members that it was the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. That problems exist has been recognised; what we must do is to address the deficiencies identified in the report, as the Opposition motion states. That is precisely what we are doing. If we want to maintain the outstanding capabilities of our armed forces, we must be self-critical and learn from the difficulties as well as from the successes.
  The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea asked for an indication from me that the Government would be humble in their response to the report. I think that we are taking a humble approach to the matter.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that the Public Accounts Committee, of which he is Chairman, has a role to play in these matters. We look forward to
  728
  that interrogation, and to the PAC's analysis. We want to ensure that any such study displays objectivity—a word that the hon. Gentleman did not use. The PAC must not be used for party political purposes.
  The NAO has acknowledged the work that the MOD already has under way to improve performance still further. Indeed, some changes are already being implemented, such as strengthening the focus on logistic planning at MOD headquarters.
  Other lessons have no quick solution, but will form the basis of work in the MOD over the coming months. I head the end-to-end review, which is an important analysis of what is delivered on land and in the air. That intensive interrogation and analysis of our systems is aimed at determining where improvements must be made. However, our examination has led to us receiving representations from hon. Members who want us to turn our gaze away from their areas of the country. They do not want us to examine what we are doing in their constituencies, and they want to prevent us from recommending closures or change of any kind. I hear the slogan "No change!" all the time, yet the Government are subject to constant criticism for failing to address the subject of change.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister will have seen in last week's edition of The Sunday Telegraph a report about General Fulton's evidence to the Defence Select Committee on the subject of urgent operational requirements. The cost of those requirements comes to about £500 million. The minutes of the meeting have not been published, but the report suggests that much of the equipment will not be retained by our armed forces and that it will be returned. Will the Minister say what he is doing to review the matter of urgent operational requirements, which of course reflects the lack of stocks on the shelves? Is it right that much of that equipment will be sold hack at a loss?
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. A balance must be struck between the amount of stocks held and the needs of urgent operational requirements. We will never get the balance perfect. That has never been achieved, but we must get as close as possible to the best solution. However, if all the necessary material had been bought in advance and yet the conflict had not taken place as a result of the intensive efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to secure a resolution through the UN and not through conflict, Ministers would have been criticised in the House today for spending tens or hundreds of millions of pounds on equipment that was not needed.
  There is a fine line to walk in these matters. As the NAO report suggests, we have to find the approach that offers the best balance. That is what is important, rather than acting in haste in response to the most recent media headline.
  That said, I do not recognise the picture that some are trying to paint. The fact is that Operation Telic worked. It was a success. We should be careful not to turn that success into failure.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that this was an overwhelming success. The NAO has identified many factors behind the success in achieving our main military

  729
  objectives so rapidly: our outstanding personnel; the impressive standard of the equipment that we procured; the effectiveness of equipment support; the quality of training for the armed forces; notable successes in logistics; and the speed and flexibility of our operational planning. That must always be taken into account—yes, as we learn the lessons, yes, as we seek answers, and yes, as we implement those progressively.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 330.

  Division No. 27]

  [4:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Allan, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Flight Howard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Flook, Adrian

  Bacon, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Baker, Norman

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Baldry, Tony

  Francois, Mark

  Barker, Gregory

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Garnier, Edward

  Barrett, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Goodman, Paul

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Greenway, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Breed, Colin

  Gummer, rh John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hague, rh William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hancock, Mike

  Burns, Simon

  Harvey, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burt. Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Heath, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Cameron, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hermon, Lady

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Cash, William

  Holmes, Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Chidgey, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, rh Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Collins, Tim

  Keetch, Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Cotter, Brian

  Curry, rh David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lamb, Norman

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Doughty, Sue

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  730

  Lidington, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Simmonds, Mark

  Loughton, Tim

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

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

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Maclean, rh David

  Soames, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maples, John

  Spring, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Maude, rh Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mercer, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy,

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Teather. Sarah

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thurso, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tonge. Dr. Jenny

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Paice, James

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Walter, Robert

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Weir, Michael

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Whittingdale, John

  Randall, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Rendel, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  (Macclesfield)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Ruffley, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Salmond, Alex

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Selous, Andrew

  Mr. Hugo Swire and Mr. Mark Field

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Berry, Roger

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Best, Harold

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Alexander, Douglas

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Austin, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Baird, Vera

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Browne, Desmond

  Battle, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Bayley, Hugh

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beard, Nigel

  Burgon, Colin

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Burnham, Andy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Bennett, Andrew

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cairns, David

  731

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  David, Wayne

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, rh John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Denham, rh John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jamieson, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jenkins, Brian

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Doran, Frank

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminister)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lammy, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lepper, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Leslie, Christopher

  Godsiff, Roger

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  732

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Annieland)

  Linton, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, rh Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith. rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Merron, Gillian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miliband, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moran, Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Julie

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Trickett, Jon

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Organ, Diana

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Owen, Albert

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Palmer. Dr. Nick

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Perham, Linda

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Picking, Anne

  Ward, Claire

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Pound, Stephen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wills, Michael

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Winnick, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Woodward, Shaun

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woolas, Phil

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Worthington, Tony

  733

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Derek Twigg and Paul Clark

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Armed Forces on their outstanding contribution to the success of the Coalition campaign in Iraq and welcomes the report of the National Audit Office "Operation TELIC—United Kingdom Military Operations in Iraq", which is consistent with the main conclusions of the Ministry of Defence's own report "Operations in Iraq—Lessons for the Future".

  Future of the Post Office Network
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the programme to close 3,000 urban post offices because closure decisions are being made without taking adequately into account the needs of post office customers; believes that honourable Members are insufficiently consulted when proposed closures are announced; regrets the lack of time available to provide for a full consultation period and the failure of the consultation process to influence the closure programme; condemns the Government as the sole shareholder of Royal Mail plc's wholly-owned subsidiary, The Post Office Ltd., for its failure to intervene in order to rectify the way in which the Urban Reinvention Programme is being implemented; expresses its great concern about the programme to implement Post Office card accounts, which is failing to reflect the needs of customers, especially for the most vulnerable, including elderly and disabled people; calls on the Government to give a firm indication that an Exceptions Service will be introduced and to provide the House with the details of how such a system will operate after 2005; and further calls on the Government to make a statement on the sustainability of the funding of rural post offices beyond 2006.
  I was a little surprised to receive a message on my pager a moment or two ago, saying that the Secretary of State is unable to be with us today. I certainly hope that an early explanation will be given as to why she has not deigned to give her attention to this very serious issue.
  It is a stark and undeniable measure of this Government's having failed communities throughout the country that since 1997, under Labour, there have been 66 debates in Westminster on the crisis in our post office network, compared with only 15 such debates in the five years to 1997. under the previous, Conservative Administration. Indeed, as we begin this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is beginning another on just this subject in Westminster Hall, on his constituents' behalf. Surely this Government's arrogance and disdainful complacency, as revealed by the Prime Minister's and the Secretary of State's nauseatingly self-congratulatory amendment to the motion, is proof, if any were needed, of their lack of genuine concern about the relentless post office closure programme being inflicted on almost every rural, suburban and inner-city community in the country.
  As Members know only too well, this situation is causing anxiety and sheer hassle in each constituency, particularly for the elderly, the disabled and the most vulnerable in our communities. The Government's high-handed approach to this cavalier closure programme leaves all those people sick at heart every time another post office is rushed to closure.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that for all their crocodile tears, it is the Government's fault that post offices are closing, because they have deliberately reduced the footfall in post offices through their changes to the benefit system?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and as I hope to demonstrate as I develop my argument, he is absolutely right. Indeed, he rightly

  735
  deserves his reputation for standing up for his constituents' interests at all times, not least in their communities.
  Jim Knight: I, too, attempted to secure a debate in Westminster Hall on this subject. The hon. Gentleman offers a spurious statistic on the number of debates initiated on this issue by the Opposition during this Parliament compared with the number initiated before 1997. Westminster Hall debates did not exist at that time, so the comparison is, if nothing else, disingenuous.
  Mr. O'Brien: To any rational person, 66 debates versus 15 is a pretty stark contrast, even without Westminster Hall. Furthermore, such a contrast is a sign of the depth of anxiety about this issue throughout the House and in each constituency. It is not simply to do with the statistical opportunities to debate.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the discourtesy shown to the House by the Secretary of State's not turning up to respond to this debate will be deeply resented in Mid-Sussex? We did hope to be able to hold her to account for proposals that will bring grave inconvenience to many elderly people and mothers with young children. The Government have imposed appalling house-building targets on Mid-Sussex, and the proposed closure of several very valuable post offices will cause extreme inconvenience to many people.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He, too, is known for the tremendous work that he does on his constituents' behalf, and I can assure him that their disappointment is matched by my own, in that I am unable to debate this issue with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for supervising the Post Office.
  Let us look at the record of the post office network under Labour. I assure the House that my party and I mean no hint of criticism of the thousands of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and all those who work diligently and tirelessly to provide a good service in our surviving post offices throughout the country. On the contrary, despite their valiant efforts, their dedication and their commitment to serve their communities and earn an honest and respected living, the Government's actions and omissions in using the genuine power and influence that they have at their disposal as the sole shareholder in Royal Mail plc, which wholly owns Post Office Ltd., to recognise the strategic community value of our post office network, remain an indictment of their record in government.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have campaigned to keep open post offices such as Mytchett in my constituency. I need to ensure that Post Office management and the Government are responding to the legitimate concerns raised by Members, especially on this side of the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only have the Government reduced the footfall by their changes to the benefit system, but they have signally failed to support individual sub-postmasters? They have been boxed in by the ridiculous and misnamed network reinvention
  736
  programme. The Post Office claims that the programme operates only in urban areas, but it is hitting villages in constituencies such as mine.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hope that my hon. Friend will find that my comments resonate fully with him and that he is able to report to his constituents that our feelings entirely accord with the campaign that he has run so diligently on their behalf.
  It is not my intention to undermine confidence in Britain's postal services. The post office network is a vital part of the social fabric, as all right hon. and hon. Members know. My argument is that the manner in which the Government have discharged their responsibilities for the post office network is undermining the future of that vital service. We want to hold the Government and the Secretary of State, who is not present for the debate, to account for what is happening under their watch and with their connivance.
  The network, which consists of more than 17,000 outlets, is the largest retail network in Europe. There are 45 million visits a week to UK post offices. After staggering losses, Royal Mail plc posted a marginal £3 million profit on the back of a 1p increase in the price of stamps, with another 1p increase on second class mail coming in April and proposals now in train to increase prices for size rather than for weight of posted items in future.
  Apart from some 600 Crown post offices, which are run directly by the Post Office, the rest are sub-post offices, run by private business people—subpostmasters and mistresses. Most of them run their post office business under the same roof as another retail business. In urban areas that is often a newsagent or stationery business. In rural areas it is typically a village shop. The post office business represents essential footfall—as my hon. Friends have pointed out—cash flow and reward for those combined enterprises. Those sub-post offices and their staff play a vital role in the life of their communities. They know and understand their customers and they know how to help to support the most vulnerable by alerting neighbours to potential concerns about the welfare of others through their regular contact.
  Over recent years, however, there has been a continual decline in the number of sub-post offices operating in this country. Figures for the financial year 2000–01 show that 547 sub-post offices closed. That is the highest figure on record and it happened under Labour. Since then, closures have continued. In 2001–02, 262 post offices closed and in the most recent year for which figures are available, 2002–03, net closures totalled 345—another increase.
  The rapid escalation of sub-post office closures under this Government had become a serious political problem by April 2000, when a petition bearing the signatures of 3 million protestors was handed in to Downing street to protest against the changes announced in respect of compulsory automated credit transfer. The sheer scale of that protest reflected, and continues to reflect, the importance of sub-post offices in their communities, especially in rural areas and suburban communities that depend on them. To throw a claimed £2 billion at the issue and to preside over stamp price inflation to produce none the less the

  737
  continuing demise of sub-post offices is a matter of great concern to all in the House. Ensuring that that valuable service is adequately maintained needs to become a priority for the Government.
  There are currently 9,000 urban post offices in the UK but the number has been falling steadily in recent years. There were 106 urban post office closures in 2000–01; 68 in 2001–02; and 230 in 2002–03—including 102 under what is known as the urban post office reinvention programme, which stemmed from a report published in June 2000 by the performance and innovation unit. That report suggested that local knowledge and consultation should help decide which offices should be protected from closure.
  Gregory Barker: Consultation in my constituency has proved to be an utter sham. Despite our taking up closures with Allan Leighton and his staff, the responses that my constituents and I received were standard letters—none of which addressed specific points that we tried to get across to the Post Office, which often included inaccuracies in its assessments. Is my hon. Friend aware of a single case in which local consultation has resulted in the reprieve of a post office?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall pose that very question during the course of my speech. My hon. Friend quite rightly pre-empted me but I shall look forward to reinforcing his point.
  Tim Loughton: The headquarters of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters is in my constituency, but not even that has saved nine urban sub-offices there which are to close. The Post Office's response to the representations made in respect of one office even spelled its name wrongly and the bus times given in relation to alternative post offices were for buses that do not exist. Does my hon. Friend agree—given that out of more than 1,000 proposed closures only four sub-offices will be reprieved—that the consultation exercise is an absolute sham and an insult to right hon. and hon. Members?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that further example of how the exercise appears to be consultation only in name, not in practice. We are most grateful also to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and its general secretary, Colin Baker, for all the assistance and information that they continue to give us in highlighting that scandal.
  Peter Bottomley: We ought to acknowledge that Post Office consultation and decision making are about the fastest in the country. In West Worthing, seven sub-offices were up for consultation that ended on 23 December. Decisions were published on 8 January. So while other people were wondering what to do with their time over Christmas and the new year, the Post Office was deciding to close offices. One out of those seven offices has been given a temporary reprieve. I hope that my hon. Friend will invite the Minister to make sure that that becomes
  738
  permanent, so that the Pier post office in Bath place is saved and does not go—unlike those in South Ferring, Rustington and other parts of Worthing.
  Mr. O'Brien: I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister will have plenty of opportunities to give such assurances and we all look forward to hearing them. I am somewhat surprised that the consultation process was that short. I have an example from Stoke-on-Trent where the period allowed extended to 20 January from a similar starting point, which seems more generous.
  The report also suggested that financial assistance from central Government or local authorities might be needed to support uneconomic offices in deprived urban areas. The programme was formally announced in April 2002 and there was a debate in the House on 15 October, to give consent to a £210 million compensation package for the necessary restructuring. The programme is aimed at ensuring that 95 per cent of the population in urban areas live within one mile of a post office, while closing one third of the 9,000 offices. That programme began in November 2002 and by the end of June 2003, 351 post offices had been closed. Post Office Ltd has announced that by December, it intends to close 3,000 of the 9,000 urban branches. Right hon. and hon. Members will be alarmed to learn that to achieve that objective, Post Office Ltd will have to impose at least 140 closures a month—some say 250 a month—throughout this calendar year. That is not alarmist, it is alarming.
  Sadly, the effect of the accelerated rate of post office closures on the overall strategic incoherence of the programme, as well as on the credibility of the consultation process, cannot be overstated.
  Let us consider the one-mile test—not a difficult concept, surely? But the number of examples is legion where one mile, in order to pass the test under the closure programme, is measured as the crow flies, thus apparently satisfying the Post Office. However, as people cannot fly, that is not the actual distance between where they live and their local community post office; they have to negotiate walking routes, bridges over roads, railways, canals and so forth. Even if we were to accept the knowledge of Post Office Ltd. rather than that of local people on that point, and I do not, in the evidence hearings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 June 2003—I am glad to see that the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) rightly pressed that the distance from where people work be measured, too.
  Mr. David Miller, chief operating officer of Post Office Counters, said:
  "I think that is fair comment and one of the things that we are doing at the moment is reviewing how we are going to conduct the programme. I think that, in the initial stages, we have tended to look at individual offices but, much more now, we are going to look at areas and to get a proper integrated view. So I think you will see as we go forward over the next few months a wider range in terms of where we are looking and we will look at all the things you have talked about. It is very early days."
  We have seen little evidence of change, however. The combined frustration of the whole programme is that its flaws are compounded by the consultation time being short and the fact that the process is apparently not genuine.

  739
  As my party's spokesman in South Dorset, Ed Matts, has so ably highlighted on behalf of all the people in Weymouth who are faced, despite their support for Mr Matts's tireless campaign on their behalf, with seven closures at Southhill, Lanehouse, Kings Street, Lennox Street, Radipole Spa, Westham and Wyke, the basis of selection is flawed and the consultation process is both truncated and a sham. I have given notice to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) that I would be referring to his constituency.
  On 26 August 2003, the Post Office proposed closing its branch at 69–71 City way, Rochester, Kent and began to consult the affected community. Again, I have given notice of this point to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). Two months later, the Post Office distributed a final leaflet confirming that the branch would close on 25 November 2003. That leaflet was marked "Printed March 2003" As my party's spokesman in Medway, Mark Reckless, has rightly said:
  "How can we have any trust in the consultation if that's the sort of game they're playing?"
  I have another example close to my own area in Chester. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) has said on the record that she shares the concerns of Chester city councilors—as I do; I represent a large swathe of the Chester city council area. However, she does not think that the three proposed closures of Cliveden Road, Kingsway and Green Lane post offices
  "represent any kind of sensible rationalisation",
  as they
  "are all sited in local shopping centres and act as focal points for the local community".
  She has highlighted the flaws in the process: those three branches
  "have been singled out for closure"
  because
  "all have sub-postmasters and sub-post mistresses who are willing to close down their businesses and accept the compensation package on offer.
  I really find it hard to believe that these three particular post offices are the least profitable in Chester. Unfortunately, the Post Office is not willing to make the financial information available, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality/data protection, to support their arguments for closure."
  I agree, and hope that the hon. Lady will take the opportunity to support our motion and not troop through the Government Lobby. I look forward to seeing her in the Opposition Lobby later.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am sure that all Members on the Opposition Benches look forward to welcoming Ed Matts and Mark Reckless as the Members for South Dorset and Medway respectively after the next general election. In the interim, can my hon. Friend tell the House what assessment he has made of the number of elderly people, of those who suffer from disabilities and of those who lack access to private transport who will be grievously affected as a result of the mass closure programme presided over by the current Administration?
  Mr. O'Brien: I look forward to dealing with that point and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it, not
  740
  least because the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has tabled an early-day motion to highlight the problem. I shall consider it shortly.
  We should also consider Stoke-on-Trent where a report in the local paper,The Sentinel, only last Saturday, was coupled with a picture of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) receiving a petition to save Rookery post office in Kidsgrove. The hon. Lady and I spoke earlier today and she is in the House today. Her neighbours, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)—I have indirectly or directly given notice to all of them—have vowed to continue their campaign to keep open 21 city post offices threatened by closure, following a heated meeting with the local Post Office boss. In all four constituencies the consultation period started on 10 December and finishes on 20 January, conveniently coinciding with the Christmas and new year break to minimize the effective time for marshalling local opinion to influence—vainly no doubt—the consultation. I look forward to seeing those hon. Members demonstrating their concern as much in Westminster as in their local press, by supporting our motion today and not throwing a comfort blanket over the Government by voting for the Secretary of State's amendment.
  The so-called consultation exercise is truly an exercise in window-dressing. I hope that, when the Secretary of State gets up to speak, she will give a precise answer—[Interuption.] I realise that the right hon. Lady cannot do that now, so the Minister will have to do it. That shows the danger of having written a speech; I was reading and got carried away. I thought the Secretary of State might have been excited enough by the subject to discharge her responsibility, but I hope that when the Minister speaks on her behalf, he will be able to give precise answers to my questions. How many closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme have been reversed following the so-called consultation—the very point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)?
  I wonder whether the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Ochil, who is here—has received a satisfactory answer to his Committee's perfectly valid and important recommendation at paragraph 94 of its report on post offices, published in July last year:
  "We commend Post Office Ltd's assurance that it will make decisions about the future of individual post offices by reference to strategies for communities and areas rather than in isolation from each other. We urge that decisions are not made in a way which pre-empts a review of the procedure which relates the proposal for closure against a 'best fit' model, and that the Post Office makes its model publicly available".
  Has it? Has the Secretary of State required the Post Office to do just that? Let us hear an answer today. Yet again, it is plain that the Government have a duty, as sole shareholder—let alone given the crying need on behalf of all affected local communities—to intervene to arrest the consequences of that flawed process and that apology of a consultation exercise. I hope that the Minister will now step in and get a grip on the process.
  Owing to the vastly accelerated rate of closures, the consultation process has become confirmed as a rubber-stamping public relations exercise rather than a genuine

  741
  dialogue to influence selection that involves the wider community. That decision-making process is not genuinely shared with the affected communities, as it was purported to be by the Government, and as is contemplated in the performance and innovation unit report.
  Given the pressure to complete the closures in such a drastically reduced time scale, it is hardly surprising that there is no time for consultation involving hon. Members and customers at the strategic stage. Instead, the new area plans now being developed, rather than those produced on the previous even more haphazard case-by-case basis, are drawn up by the Post Office in consultation only with sub-postmasters and mistresses. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned in an Adjournment debate on 11 December last year, MPs and customers are excluded from the process and are consulted only once the plans have been drawn up.
  It is clear that post office closures are determined not by their overall profitability or strategic importance but according to which sub-postmasters or mistresses are prepared to close down their business or, most commonly, are the first to put up their hands to accept the compensation offer. Given that the reinvention programme was intended to introduce coherence into the restructuring of the urban post office network, that random approach is unacceptable.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office claims that the area plan system is an improvement on piecemeal closures, but that the truth, certainly in my area, is that other sub-postmasters would like to have been offered the same packages and that there is no guarantee whatever that other post offices will not close in due course, even after the area plans have been implemented?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right, not least because of the sharp reduction in income that many post offices will suffer as the new card accounts and proposed banking arrangements take hold. That is a very serious concern.
  The Government must take this opportunity to commit themselves today to using their position to insist on a strategic approach focused on future customer service and convenience, particularly for the most vulnerable. Those people depend on the network, geographically as well as socially, as a fundamental part of the community, and we all wish to see them have the access that they deserve.
  Furthermore, the whole process of closures has created enormous uncertainty, and it falls to the Government to account for that, not because the Opposition propose a motion to hold them to account, but because that uncertainty is truly undermining confidence in Britain's postal services.
  Postcomm reports that some sub-postmasters have told it that they do not see why they should invest in their post offices when it is not clear what their future levels of business will be. That brings me on to another area of great anxiety: the introduction of the new system for the direct payment of benefits, which has had a serious impact on the profitability and sustainability of local post offices.
  742
  In August 2000, the then Secretary of State for Social Security set out the Government's plan to move to automated credit transfer for benefit payments from April 2003. That change affects 14 million people who previously collected such benefits in cash from their post office. As of September 2003, nearly a third of customers who had responded to being contacted had chosen the Post Office card account, despite the fact that the application process and the Government's information campaign were designed to ensure that as few people as possible chose that account. Indeed, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters says:
  "It is very clear that the Government prefers people to access their benefit payments through a bank account than via the Post Office Card Account. Government publicity makes this evident, and ministers have confirmed this on many occasions."
  Internal memos from the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that customers are intentionally steered toward other forms of direct payment because of the excessive cost of the Post Office card account. That is in stark contrast to the Government's promise to
  "be even-handed, open and honest, and…promote all kinds of account".
  Mr. Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. In August, I drove 150 miles around my constituency and visited 28 post offices. Postmasters told me again and again that the system is deliberately made as complicated as possible to discourage customers from taking up the card. I held a meeting with the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services about the matter—he is busy talking to the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee—and I have also spoken to the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). The Government are in complete denial. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters says that 22 steps are required before people receive a card, but the Government insist that there are only three. It is quite obvious that they do not want customers to take up cards and are thus making the process as difficult as possible.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that fact. He is my neighbouring Member of Parliament and I know from first-hand experience how assiduous he is on behalf of all his constituents. He is concerned not least about the combined pressure on his constituents' lives caused by the Government's total disregard for the interests of those who need to access post office services coupled with their relentless attack on motorists from rural communities who need to connect with services. The same situation is true in my constituency because our areas share many characteristics, such as sparse rural villages. I am grateful to him for his continuing campaign.
  Most significantly, there is widespread concern that vulnerable pensioners and disabled people will not be able to use the new electronic card and personal identification number system. The PIN pad has been poorly designed, which means that disabled and blind people will have problems accessing their money. The Government have failed to explain how people who cannot use the new system will receive their money.
  In response to those concerns, the Conservative party called a special debate in the Chamber on 11 June 2003 to highlight how the Government's drive was failing to

  743
  meet the needs of customers, especially the most vulnerable. The motion that was debated had previously been supported by nearly 400 Members from all parties. However, after the Government ordered all Labour Members to vote the motion down, it was defeated by 314 votes to 187. One hundred and twenty-eight of the 175 Labour Members who had supported the motion prior to the debate actually voted against it. Such breathtaking double standards do nothing to inspire the confidence of those threatened by the changes throughout the country, especially those Labour Members' constituents.
  Furthermore, if the Government agree, as they claim, that there is a need for an exceptions service for the often vulnerable people who cannot cope with their new direct payment options, will the Minister today at last commit to that and spell out details of how such a service will operate after 2005? Early-day motion 375, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon and which my party and I support, calls for such action.
  In addition to customers' concerns about the introduction of the system, we are equally concerned about the impact that the switch to ACT will have on the post office network itself.
  Jim Knight: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has three children and that he will thus be in receipt of child benefit. Has he, like me, opted to open a card account at his local post office to ensure that he supports it?
  Mr. O'Brien: If I am being completely honest, I have no idea, because that matter is dealt with entirely by my wife. It is far better for the wife to be able to access the money because she takes prime responsibility for ensuring that the children are fed and clothed. My wife is proud of the fact that she is a full-time working mother.
  Before the automated credit transfer system was introduced, benefit payments accounted for about 40 per cent. of a post office's business, so the switch to ACT will lead to a considerable loss of revenue. Indeed, the Royal Mail has estimated that the move to ACT could reduce revenues across the post office network by as much as £400 million per year. However, that is only part of the danger. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses depend, as we have said, on footfall generated by people collecting benefits to create a market for selling other goods such as groceries or stationery. Much of that business will be lost. Consequently, I share Postcomm's concern that
  "the reduction in income to Post Office Ltd from the Department for Work and Pensions as direct payment is introduced, and general trends towards decrease in use of post offices and neighbourhood shops, are together bound to have an effect on customer numbers and on the economic viability of post offices".
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall, but I am conscious that as a result of accepting interventions I have spoken for longer than planned. I hope to conclude shortly.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend mentioned other products sold by post offices. Does he accept that they need
  744
  footfall to make a profit on items on which they make a gain of only 4 or 5 per cent.? Unless they achieve a certain turnover they will not get the cash income that they need.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least because he is one of those unusual Members of Parliament with genuine business experience. It is rarely understood by Ministers making decisions on behalf of business people, whatever the size of their business, that the trade-off between volume and price is critical in the case of commodity products. A substantial volume must be shifted if people are to stock them at all and give customers a choice.
  The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters commissioned the independent research company MORI to undertake a detailed comparison of sub-postmaster income before and after the introduction of direct payment. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will act in the light of MORI's findings?
  Rural post offices are supposedly protected, yet over the past two years nearly 80 per cent. of all closures have been in rural areas. All of us who represent rural areas know the immensely valuable role that those post offices play in the lives of their communities. Closures are therefore of primary concern to rural areas. In response to a consultation document by Postcomm on the preservation of the rural post office network, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters concluded that some funding should be channelled to help sub-postmasters and sub-postmistress buy their post offices and receive sufficient income, good working conditions and adequate support. It also suggested that if those conditions are not met, sub-postmasters and mistresses would continue to leave, suitable replacements would become increasingly hard to find and many more rural post offices would close.
  The Government announced a £450 million aid package on 2 December 2002, but the NFSP is concerned that none of that money will go directly to sub-postmasters and mistresses, even though many rural sub-post offices are barely viable. If a rural network is to develop modern sustainable services, post offices need to do more than simply struggle to survive, but we do not know whether funds will be available after 2006 to protect them. I urge the Minister to clarify the Government's intentions. Will there be funding for the rural postal network after 2006, and can he tell hon. Members on both sides of this House how the Government plan to sustain the rural post office network in the long term?
  The post office network must adapt to accommodate changes in 21st-century lifestyles and consumer practices. It remains fundamentally the case, however, that the local post office plays a vital role in contributing to the social cohesion of localities small and large, rural and urban. The rushed and scattergun nature of the closures so far under the urban reinvention programme and the lack of guarantees to protect rural post offices in future are detrimental to the community in general, and are particularly damaging for its more vulnerable members—the elderly, the disabled and people on benefit. In that context, it is not the restructuring itself but the manner in which it is taking place that has given cause for complaint and created desperate anxiety about the Government's hurried and arbitrary approach.

  745
  In conclusion, while celebrating and paying tribute to the tireless service and dedication of sub-postmasters, sub-postmistresses and everyone who works on the front line in communities up and down the country in what survives of the post office network, I urge the Government to think again and for once avoid the knee-jerk reaction of amending our motion just because it was tabled by Her Majesty's Opposition.
  Now is the time for the Secretary of State, and her Minister who will be replying today, to listen to the people in our communities who want the Government to heed what we and hon. Members in all parts of the House are saying on behalf of all our constituents, and for once to accept criticism and act. That is what will have to happen if the Minister and his Secretary of State are to have any hope of not going down in political history as the Ministers who presided over a record number of closures of the nation's community post offices on their watch, decimating the service and causing endless inconvenience and distress to people throughout the country, urban, suburban and rural alike, particularly the most vulnerable in those communities. Clearly, that reveals the true meaning of the words in Labour's 2001 manifesto, which says that Labour is
  "committed to…a dynamic Post Office"—
  clearly, a dynamic in the wrong, negative direction.
  I urge my colleagues, the Liberal Democrats and all other parties to join me in the Lobby. In particular, I invite Labour Members to put their vote this evening where their assorted early-day motions, petitions, photo-opportunities and crocodile tear-drenched press releases in their constituencies are, and support our fair and reasonable motion, rejecting the Government's self-serving congratulatory amendment. I commend the motion to the House, especially to Labour Members, who have more than two hours and 20 minutes to reflect carefully how to vote tonight.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.50 pm
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government for its commitment to modernise and invest in the national network of post offices while keeping them easily accessible to all customers; notes that the choice of account for customers into which they wish their benefits paid is entirely a matter for the customer concerned and congratulates the Government on ensuring that all the necessary information is available to customers to make an informed choice; applauds the Government's £2 billion investment in the Post Office network and its success in reducing the rate of rural post office closures; notes the Post Office's commitment to ensuring that 95 per cent. of the urban population live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile, and that honourable Members are consulted on proposed closures as part of an agreed process between the Post Office and Postwatch; further notes that 3,500 post offices closed under the previous administration; and condemns those who seek to undermine confidence in Britain's postal services."
  746
  As the Minister for Postal Services, which is the reason that I am responding to the debate, I echo some of the points the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made right at the end of his speech, and affirm how much importance I attach to the network of local post offices as a focal point for their communities in urban areas as well as in rural areas, particularly for those who are elderly and less mobile.
  The starting point for the policy that we have adopted for the post office network is the performance and innovation unit 2000 report, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and was widely welcomed in the House, not just on the Government Benches, as squaring up honestly to the big challenges that the post office network faces, having been utterly neglected by the previous Government. The report made 24 recommendations, all of which we accepted for the future.
  Malcolm Bruce: I am slightly surprised that the Minister explained his presence at the Dispatch Box in terms of the fact that he is Minister for Postal Services. I have no disrespect for that job or his role, but surely this is such an important subject that one would expect the Secretary of State to be present. Is there no good reason for her not being here, other than the fact that she has delegated to the Minister?
  Mr. Timms: I am the Minister responsible for policy on the postal services. That is why I am responding, entirely appropriately, to the debate. It certainly is an important issue, and one that the Secretary of State and I are closely engaged in. I notice, by the way, that the Conservative party does not have a member of the shadow Cabinet present for trade and industry business at all now. There is some puzzlement among my colleagues about that. However, it is quite appropriate that I am the Minister responding to the debate.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Having known the Minister since our university days, I have come to respect the fact that he is a genuinely intelligent person, so I am surprised at his comments. With a shadow Chancellor and shadow Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, we are showing in opposition how joined-up Government is possible for the whole of business and economic affairs. That is how we organise our team.
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mr. Timms: Indeed. I should be delighted if the shadow Secretary of State for Economic Affairs were present, but he is not. Given that the hon. Member for Eddisbury queried the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to draw attention to the fact that his right hon. Friend is not present. It is also a mystery to the director general of the CBI, who had a rather embarrassing exchange with the leader of the Conservative party on that very point.
  Let us return to the matter in hand. The PIU report pointed out, rightly, that our network of post offices has not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers, that too often in all our constituencies post offices have become rather dingy, particularly through a chronic lack of investment under the previous Government, and that the organisation had not taken advantage of its

  747
  highly trusted status as a provider of financial services. It was losing business. It faces an enormous challenge. In the last financial year, Post Office Ltd., which is the part of the organisation dealing with the network, lost £194 million. The year before, it lost £163 million, and it has reported a loss of £91 million for this first half-year. With declining profitability in the network as a whole, the ability of sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses—the way in which sub-postmasters have been able to move on in the past—has also taken a severe knock. Decisive action is needed to ensure that we maintain a sustainable countrywide network for the future. That is the reason for our action.
  Llew Smith: My constituency has some of the lowest incomes, highest unemployment levels, worst health problems and highest disability levels in the country, as well as poor public transport, a low level of private car ownership and an ageing population. My constituents are just the type of people who depend on their post office. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have criticised the consultation process that is taking place in respect of the closures in Blaenau Gwent and have argued that our case to withdraw the closure programme there is unanswerable. Does the Minister support them in that?
  Mr. Timms: I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made some remarks on that process and I understand that the Post Office is responding. As I shall describe in a moment, there are features of the process that the Post Office has introduced that reflect the particular needs of disadvantaged areas such as those that my hon. Friend and I represent.
  The network has been contracting since the 1960s. The previous Government presided over 3,500 post office closures—a statistic that was strangely absent from the speech of the hon. Member for Eddisbury—in rural and urban areas. There have been reductions in post office usage for all sorts of reasons, and the complete absence of investment in the Post Office on the part of the previous Government was very significant. However, there have also been other reasons. Dramatic improvements in technology, greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits all mean that people have simply not been using the post office as they used to, and custom has been sharply reduced.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister not accept that many of the changes that he has mentioned are not appropriate to describe what has been happening in rural areas? Rural life has remained much the same. Rural people depend very much on post offices, but they see that service disappearing for reasons entirely outside their control.
  Mr. Timms: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not the case that life in rural areas is not changing. There have been changes during the past 20 years. For example, car usage has increased and people have become more willing to travel further to the shops in the past couple of decades. Those changes and many others have had a direct impact on the post office network.
  Jim Knight: I support those comments about changes in rural life. My constituency has a very high level of
  748
  second home ownership, and in some rural communities, 50 per cent. of the population does not live in the local area much of the time. That has contributed to the closure of rural services such as post offices. I welcome the Government's commitment to keeping those services open—saving post offices on Portland, for example—while some in Weymouth are closing, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury has described.
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance that we have attached to maintaining rural post offices. I shall mention our action on that issue in a moment.
  I need to draw the House's attention to a couple of facts. Before the switch to making benefit payments by direct credit started last year, more than 50 per cent. of benefit recipients were already receiving their cash directly into their bank accounts rather than by order books, compared with only 26 per cent. in 1996. In that short period, the proportion had doubled. Some 62 per cent. of all new child benefit recipients and 59 per cent. of all new pensioners already received their benefits directly into their bank accounts before any of the changes of the past eight or nine months. There are far fewer recipients of jobseeker's allowance now than in the past. All those changes pose big challenges to the post office network, which must be addressed, not ducked.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Does the Minister agree that many problems arise in relation to the definition of what is an urban and what is a rural post office? For example, many of the old mining communities, which have been defined as urban although they are rural villages, need the support and help that rural post offices are promised.
  Mr. Timms: There has been some controversy on that point. Under the Post Office's definition, a contiguous population of more than 10,000 should be classed as urban, while one of fewer than 10,000 should be classed as rural, and that has been applied consistently throughout the network. I am aware that it has given rise to concern in some areas, but it is right to have a clear definition.
  Mrs. Patsy Calton Mrs. Patsy Calton(Cheadle)(LD) rose—
  Mr. Timms: I need to make a little more progress before I give way again.
  In recent research, Postcomm pointed out that people in other countries, too, are increasingly accessing services electronically over the telephone or even through the internet. Most countries have been remodelling their post office networks, usually by closing the smallest or least profitable offices, converting directly run offices to agency offices, or relocating or opening new urban offices to take account of changes in urban population and customer flows. In Germany, the number of post offices was reduced from 30,000 to 13,000—a much more drastic change than is contemplated here—and other countries have embarked on a similar process. In the UK, other networks, such as those of the banks, have also been

  749
  scaled back. Like them, the post office network needs to adapt, in both rural and urban areas, to changes in people's preferences and to new ways of doing business.
  David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree with the early-day motion tabled by a Scottish Member that condemns the three main Scottish banks—the Royal Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale bank and the Bank of Scotland—for not co-operating with the Post Office to allow such facilities to be put in place? They are trying to bring people into their own banks, which militates against people in rural post offices.
  Mr. Timms: I would welcome additional banks opening up their accounts to Post Office access, as have Lloyds TSB, Barclays, and Alliance and Leicester, and I am aware that the banks with much the biggest market share in Scotland are not in that group. I would welcome such changes—indeed, I have had discussions with one of those banks. I hope that their customers will demand that they should have the same opportunity as those of the other banks in being able to access their account at their local post office. I look forward to the day, which I think is not far off, when the post office will be the best place to do one's banking—to get cash, pay bills and do the other things for which people currently have to go to the bank—because, in many urban and rural areas, the post office is the best located place in which to do so.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not helpful to shut down the post office savings account, given that we need to maximise people's saving opportunities? Would it not be a good idea to link the continuation of the post office savings account to the opening up of post office card accounts instead of closing it to new recipients, which sets a dreadfully bad example?
  Mr. Timms: As my hon. Friend will know, the Post Office has announced a joint venture with the Bank of Ireland to offer a whole range of new financial services products precisely in order to increase the amount of financial services business, including savings, that goes across post office counters. I believe that those products will prove attractive to many of our constituents and that they will enable them to deal with financial matters at their local post office, which is what many of them wish to do.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I need to make a little headway.
  One of the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report was that if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing funding to compensate affected sub-postmasters adequately for the loss of their business. Those men and women have worked hard, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, and it is right that they should be treated fairly even though the current level of business cannot support a post office network as dense as that of the past.
  750
  In November 2002, following parliamentary approval of the funding, Post Office Ltd. began its urban network reinvention programme. It was a dense network. Before the process began, more than 1,000 urban sub-post offices had more than 10 other branches within a mile. There is no longer enough business to sustain such a dense network in urban areas. Sub-postmasters have found it increasingly difficult to earn a reasonable income; too many have simply shut up shop and left. We therefore need the rationalisation that is under way. Without it, there would be unmanaged decline as many sub-postmasters shut down and leave. That would lead to unplanned big gaps in the network. The current programme can avoid that.
  Tim Loughton: By reinvention, the Minister means "between a rock a hard place". Some postmasters or postmistresses have worked all their lives and now approach retirement. A choice between taking a compensation package now and getting at least something out of it—although the Government took away retirement tax relief—and holding on for a few more years, because they want to keep the post office open, but without a compensation package if, through declining business, they then wish to shut the post office, is no choice. They are being bullied and blackmailed to take the money and run, whether they want to or not.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The compensation payments are broadly based on what a sub-postmaster might have expected if the business had been sold two or three years ago, before the recent changes. They have been negotiated with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and based on longstanding views of the value of a business. It is appropriate for somebody who shuts down a business to contribute to establishing a network that is sustainable in the long term to receive a fair amount in compensation. The arrangements provide for that. Of course, if people stay in the network, as many sub-postmasters will, we can look forward to those businesses having a much more buoyant value in the future because of the reductions in the urban network. That is why the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has been so supportive of the exercise.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend agree that popular support for a local post office is an important factor that should be taken into account? Will he pay tribute to the campaign by Levenshulme branch Labour party in my constituency to keep open the Albert Road post office? It has obtained 3,000 signatures. Will he draw the attention of the chief operating officer of the Post Office to those local wishes and the determination to keep the post office?
  Mr. Timms: I agree that local support for a post office branch is an important factor. I am happy to congratulate the members of the branch Labour party that my right hon. Friend mentioned on their demonstration of that support. I shall be glad to ensure that the information is passed on.

  751
  It is right for hon. Members to engage in the process, draw attention to especially valuable post offices that should be retained and perhaps suggest others that should be closed instead so that the exercise can be completed successfully.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Timms: I shall give way shortly.
  The key to the exercise is that the largest possible number of customers from each closing branch should remain Post Office customers and move to branches nearby. The initial planning assumption was that perhaps 80 per cent. of customers from closing branches would do that. However, many more transfer to other branches. That is excellent news for the Post Office. It is important, however, that the right decisions are made about identifying the urban branches that should close.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Does the Minister understand that although the strategy that he describes may exist in his head, it is not happening in practice? The Post Office is inviting sub-postmasters to apply for the scheme, but in Stoke-on-Trent—and, I suspect, many more areas—people accept the invitations but neither propose nor oppose closures. There is no plan; the process is led by the applications. There is no strategy and therefore a great deal of what the Minister says falls by the wayside.
  Mr. Timms: I am aware of that criticism but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is untrue. Initially, 3,500 sub-postmasters expressed an interest in leaving the network under the programme, but something like 1,000 of those will not be doing so: 500 have been told already that their branches cannot close, and another 500 will be told the same thing.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Timms: I need to make a little more progress before I give way again, but then I shall do so gladly.
  Initially, closure proposals under the programme were focused on single offices known to be most at risk of closure because of poor viability. The aim was to minimise the possibility of damaging and unco-ordinated closures. It was in part in response to feedback from hon. Members and others that the Post Office moved, in September last year, to producing its proposals area by area, using each parliamentary constituency as the basis.
  The House will acknowledge that a plan that tells us the ultimate shape of an area's urban network at the end of the process helps to provide a clear view of the level and configuration of provision that will be in place at the end of the programme. It also helps to put in context discussions about each individual post office.
  The plan also helps to give sub-postmasters confidence about their prospects, as they know where they are going. Moreover, it helps to guard against unplanned closures, and it has also made a significant contribution to reducing uncertainty. Under the programme the aim is to complete all the public consultation by December this year, somewhat earlier than was originally intended.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Three sub-post offices are earmarked for closure in my
  752
  constituency, and one of them serves the most disadvantaged community in the area. People feel real anger and concern about the proposals, and oppose them massively. They are angry about the way that post offices have been identified for closure, and about the consultation process. One sub-postmaster in my constituency was told even before the consultation process had ended that the decision had been taken and that closure would go ahead. Finally, people are angry at the Post Office's failure to think about providing proper services as it embarks on its reinvention programme. That has caused real distress for many people, among them those who are most disadvantaged.
  Mr. Timms: If my hon. Friend were to tell the Post Office that, in her view, a particular post office should not be closed, but that she knew of another office for which closure would be appropriate, then I would hope that the Post Office would be open to engaging in a discussion with her.
  I want to speak about the consultation process, as the very important role played by Postwatch has not yet been mentioned. Postwatch is consulted on every proposal, and it monitors the programme as a whole. After discussions with Postwatch about how to take forward consultation on the new area plans, it was agreed that the consultation period should be extended to six weeks. In addition, Postwatch is to receive two weeks' notice of closure proposals.
  A question was asked about how many changes there have been as a result of the consultation exercise. I can tell the House that, by the end of December, there had been just over 1,400 closure proposals in the programme notified to Postwatch. Of those, 46 were withdrawn or delayed for more detailed consideration as a result of the advanced process—under which Postwatch considers proposals in advance of the public consultation. A further 66 proposals were withdrawn or delayed for reworking as a result of the public consultation.
  Those withdrawals therefore account for more than 100 of the 1,400 closure proposals. I think that there have been about 650 closures so far. That shows that there has been a significant degree of change as a result of the consultation process, and it is quite right that there should be. However, I am concerned that the process must be effective. I am very keen to know from hon. Members about any difficulties that may arise. When a particular post office is the cause for concern, the key is that the view of Postwatch should be taken very seriously indeed by Post Office Ltd.
  Simon Hughes: The Minister will know, both as the Minister with responsibility for post offices and as a London MP, that we are five months through the 11-month consultation process across the whole of Greater London. It started with a letter from the regional head of external relations that said that about half of the urban post offices were not profitable. Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what percentage of the current London post office network it will be acceptable to close? Is one of the criteria that a post office is not profitable? If that is the case, about 50 per cent. of our post offices, in his borough and mine, are scheduled for closure.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman will know from the plans that have been published in London that the

  753
  proportion suggested for closure is significantly less than his estimate. I do not have the figure, and at this stage we do not know precisely what the final number will be, nationally, in London, or in any region. I am confident, however, that as a result of this process we will end up with a viable network, which will continue to serve every part of London, as well as the whole country. That would not be the case if we simply allowed post offices to carry on declining.
  An important additional element of the programme is the £30 million that we have provided for modernising and adapting the post offices that remain in operation. The key to improving those offices will be the increased volume of business that they can expect, especially given the high levels of migration that I have mentioned and the grants of up to £10,000 for each office that expects to take on a significant number of additional customers—in some circumstances, grants of —20,000 will be available—to be matched by the same sum from the proprietor. Those grants will be an important boost.
  It is worth pointing out that that is the first ever programme of Government investment in urban sub-post offices; in the past they have never spent money on those offices, and that investment is an additional measure on top of those recommended in the PIU report. That is a clear instance of us addressing past chronic under-investment, which has led to so many post offices becoming unattractive places to visit, particularly in urban areas, and it reflects the importance of making the post offices of the future far more attractive.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Timms: Given the time, I need to make a little more progress. I will gladly give way in a few minutes, if I can.
  I want to say a little about the arrangements in deprived areas. We have required Post Office Ltd. to ensure that, after the programme, 95 per cent. of the urban population will still be within a mile of their nearest post office. In addition, we have asked the company to make sure that, other than in exceptional circumstances, its proposals do not include closure of offices within the most disadvantaged 10 per cent. of urban wards where there is no other post office within half a mile. In accordance with another of the recommendations in the performance and innovation unit report, we have made available support for post offices at risk of closure in the most disadvantaged areas.
  What we are doing in urban areas will allow us to make the transition to a successful urban network that can meet the needs of our constituents in the future and be commercially viable. The network of post offices serving rural communities is also vital to maintaining local access to essential services, particularly for vulnerable groups. As recommended by the PIU report, we have already asked Post Office Ltd. to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures, in the first instance, to 2006. Post Office Ltd. has underpinned its commitment to achieving that aim by appointing 31 rural transfer advisers around the country who often become closely involved with community efforts to
  754
  reopen or save rural post offices. They have had considerable success in finding alternative sub-postmasters to replace those who have left, in locating suitable replacement premises where necessary, and in giving encouragement to community efforts to provide post office services. The House and rural communities up and down the country owe those individuals a great debt of gratitude for their success in preventing otherwise inevitable rural post office closures, and in identifying new people to run sub-post offices when the old personnel wanted to leave.
  Ms Joan Walley: Can my hon. Friend tell us the difference between the closure of a rural post office that will disadvantage many people, and that of a post office in a deprived inner-city area? Rural areas often contain former mining communities, and the devastation caused to people who cannot afford the transport costs involved will be just as great. Can we look again at the definition of urban areas?
  Mr. Timms: As I have said, the scheme includes arrangements for the most disadvantaged 10 per cent. of urban areas, because we recognise the importance of post offices in those communities. If distances of more than half a mile are involved, closures should not occur.
  Liz Blackman: I have written to Postwatch because I am unhappy about the consultation process in my constituency. I fully accept many of my hon. Friend's arguments about the need for change, but what discussions has he had with Postwatch about consultation, and what major themes of concern has it raised with him?
  Mr. Timms: I am in regular contact with Postwatch about that. We have given it substantial extra resources to ensure that it can do a thorough job. I consider effective consultation on all the proposals to be vital to the success of the exercise as a whole.
  It has been settled that when Postwatch and the local post office management disagree on a proposal and the disagreement escalates and reaches higher levels in both organisations, there will if necessary be discussions between the chairman of Postwatch and David Mills, who runs Post Office Ltd. So far Postwatch has told me that it is happy with the way in which the arrangements are operating, but I want to keep an eye on that because, as I have said, I think it is key to the success of the whole exercise.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Timms: I want to say a little more about rural post offices, because the hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned them a number of times. What we have done has had a significant impact. There were 115 net closures of rural post offices in the financial year 2002–03, compared with 194 in the previous year. That is the smallest number of rural closures since 1994—95, and it reflects the effectiveness of our measures to prevent avoidable closures. Our funding package for the rural network more than meets the PIU's recommendations. We are making a major investment in the network, and providing additional funds for the piloting of new ways of delivering services in rural areas.

  755
  We are investing substantial sums to support the transformation of the entire post office network—a total of some £2 billion. We have established a strong management team at the Post Office, and have given it the task of turning the business around. It is continuing, crucially, to develop and introduce new products and services to build a commercially successful network for the future. There has been half a billion pounds of Government support for what has proved to be one of the UK's biggest information technology products, resulting in the computerisation of every post office in the country. That means that the Post Office can continue to pay benefits and pensions in cash, but it also gives the Post Office a vital opportunity to widen its customer base by increasing its offer of banking products and providing access to bank current accounts at local post offices.
  At the heart of the problems of the post office network is the fact that in the past it has been locked into a shrinking customer base. Now its task is to go on servicing those customers well, but also to attract new customers. It needs access to expanding banking markets, not just to dwindling markets as in the past. I mentioned the recent announcement of a joint venture with the Bank of England to provide a range of financial products. The Post Office already provides electronic access to their accounts for all holders of current accounts with Lloyds TSB, Barclays and the TSB, and I hope that other banks will be involved before too long. Access is now possible to basic accounts with every major high street bank and building society at every post office in the country, and a major advertising campaign for travel insurance and bureau de change services is also helping to make customers want to use post offices.
  Mr. Michael Weir: I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say about financial services. He will be aware that none of the major Scottish banks is offering such services. Will he join others in the House in calling for the major Scottish banks to join in, which could be very useful for rural post offices?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman may have been absent when that point was dealt with earlier.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I take my hon. Friend back to his definition of a deprived area? Being a London MP, as I am, he will know of pockets of deprivation that are smaller than those he mentioned, but none the less areas of extreme deprivation. In that context, can he look into the closure of Grahame Park post office in my constituency? Grahame Park serves the most deprived part of my constituency where many people are on benefit, many have disabilities and there are many lone parents. There is a day centre that caters particularly for people with disabilities. Public transport links are poor and car ownership is low. At the same time, the estate is about to be regenerated and there will be a significant increase in the population over the next few years. It seems completely daft to close the post office when there is no alternative facility nearby and it is a deprived area. Something should be done about it.
  Mr. Timms: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make that case to the Post Office and to Postwatch, which would both be interested and keen to hear his views.
  756
  A couple of years ago, many people were seriously concerned about financial inclusion, and I believe that that is still a major issue in the present discussion. I therefore particularly welcome the recognition made in a recent citizens advice publication on financial inclusion:
  "The Government, the banking industry and the Post Office should be commended for the progress they have made in establishing universal banking services. The ambition to enable all people to own the most basic and financial services—a bank account—is one we share."
  That is absolutely right, and the recent changes have taken us many vital steps forward.
  Mr. Brian Jenkins Mr. Brian Jenkins(Tamworth)(Lab)rose—
  Mr. Timms: I shall give way one last time, to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jenkins: The Minister must be aware that in my. constituency. the two most vulnerable areas are having their post offices shut. What causes us most concern is the fact that in the south-east of Tamworth, all the post offices are proposed for closure. The new proposed post office does not accord with the Minister's criterion of the majority of the local population living within half a mile of it. In fact, just 20 per cent. are within half a mile. Is that the majority? We have had a commitment from the Post Office and the Minister saying that the majority of the population will live within a certain distance of post offices. Is that a commitment, a guarantee, a wish, or is it merely a platitude?
  Mr. Timms: The commitment is that, nationally, 95 per cent. of the urban population will be within a mile of their post office—most within half a mile. That will certainly be the consequence of the programme that applies to the country. My hon. Friend has written to me about particular issues in Tamworth. I know that my officials have been in discussion with the Post Office about them, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has been in discussion with the Post Office and Postwatch as well.
  Mr. Mark Francois Mr. Mark Francois(Rayleigh)(Con)rose—
  Mr. Timms: I shall not give way again.
  The Post Office faces a wide range of challenges in making sure that the network can remain viable and sustainable. I share the concern of hon. Members about ensuring the network's future. We need to ensure that it can prosper on the basis of today's and future needs, not those of 20 or 30 years ago. That is where our policies are leading, and I commend them to the House.
  5.28 pm
  Malcolm Bruce: I commend the Minister for his brave defence of the Government's policies and I acknowledge that he is a thoughtful, intelligent and assiduous Minister, but he must know that he is in a big hole and that his Secretary of State has abandoned him in it. The explanation that she is not here because he is here is totally inadequate. The Post Office is, after all, the only significant business that the Government still own, and the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) is the Secretary of State

  757
  responsible for it. The fact that she is not here is reprehensible, and I hope that she will take note that the House is less than pleased about her absence.
  Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House last debated these issues on 11 December 2003. That was also a heated debate. Today's Minister was not present then, and deputising for him was the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). Hon. Members raised important constituency points that night, and that Minister undertook to respond to our points in writing. Most of us are still waiting for those letters, myself included. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Ministers agree to write to Members, they should keep their word, or does he think that the letters are lost in the post?
  Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department of Trade and Industry is struggling—it has only 10,000 civil servants, so obviously it does not have the staff. [Hon. MEMBERS: "One for each post office."] So far—and falling. The figures will probably cross over in about six months.
  The Government maintain that they are investing £2 billion in the post office network, but I would like clarification of at least some of that figure. The reality is that it includes, for example, £450 million over three years for maintaining the rural post office network. We recognise and welcome that investment, but the idea was that that would happen while a solution was created to the problem of providing income for those post offices. If we have not done that at the end of three years, such money will be not an investment but simply a maintained expenditure, which will not change the situation at all.
  Of course, we are also using such money to pay postmasters and postmistresses to leave the Post Office. And according to the Library, approximately £800 million is not specified at all, and is believed to be debt write-off and dividends forgone. Most of us do not really regard that as real money. It certainly does not constitute investment—it simply covers the losses. Indeed, if £2 billion were really being invested in the post office network in this short period, the Government ought to be commended, and we would expect as a result a super-modern, efficient and streamlined Post Office with a dynamic range of services, run by confident people with high morale. This debate clearly shows that no one except the Minister believes that that is the outcome we are currently heading for.
  We all acknowledge that change is necessary, and indeed, it was taking place. No one denies that the process of transferring payments to bank accounts, for example, which was ongoing and undertaken out of choice, would have led to a decline in income for post offices. But the point is that the Department for Work and Pensions has accelerated that process, thereby creating a problem for the DTI. It has been wrestling to find solutions, but so far it has come up with no convincing answers. The small but significant—and by no means cheap—experiment of "Your Guide" enjoyed fairly widespread support, but it has been abandoned, presumably because the Government are not prepared
  758
  to make the investment. On the one hand the Government claim to be investing, but when such an opportunity presents itself, the resources needed to make the project work are not available. In that climate, it is hardly surprising that when those who run sub-post offices are given the chance, they are taking the money and running, especially as it is better than the figure they could realise on the market.
  A high proportion of closures are taking place in rural areas, even though the policy there is not to close. In fact, the situation in such areas is almost worse. Although income is guaranteed, people can see business dwindling week by week, and they can envisage that in three years' time, income will stop and the business will have no value. So when somebody wants to retire, it is almost impossible to tempt a member of the community to take over the service. I can quote constituency examples, as can all other Members. A post office at Pitcaple—it serves my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith)—with more than 100 customers closed two years ago. The Post Office said that it was more than happy for it to continue, but two years later it said that the premises were unsuitable, despite the fact that a local shop offered to take it over. It subsequently said that it could find nobody else to run it. That post office still has not reopened.
  In respect of the one town in my constituency that qualifies for urban renewal, it was a case of, "Hands up who wants to close their post office? Here's the money: go." Of course, the other two post offices were very happy to vote for that, because the business was shared among them. That is part of the problem.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what the Minister said on this issue is totally unrealistic? He said that if a post office in our constituency is under threat and we want to save it, we must choose another post office to close instead. That would be like being a judge at a good-looking baby contest, where the MP has to choose the good-looking baby, thereby disappointing the many others. It is just not credible.
  Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is of course right. The Minister is saying, "Please join me in my dirty work and share the blame."
  I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who could not answer the question about child benefit payments to his own household. I assure hon. Members that my wife was the first—and as far as I know only—person to register for a card account at the local post office. The evidence shows that the connection between the availability of a post office and the choice of where to collect child benefit has been lost on many child benefit claimants. Mothers I have spoken to say that payment through bank accounts is more convenient and that they were asked for their bank details, so they supplied them. When it is pointed out to them that the consequence of opting for that form of payment means that post offices are unable to provide other services, because of the loss of income, many say that they would have preferred to retain payment through the post office. The original letter to

  759
  child benefit claimants simply invited them to provide their bank account details and gave no indication that any other option existed.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Malcolm Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make progress because several other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The spokesman for the Conservatives and some Back Benchers have articulated examples of the management of closures. Just before Christmas, my party's candidate for Mid-Sussex contacted me to say that she had chaired public meetings in the constituency to campaign against a proposed closure. She was told that the final date for closure was 23 December, with confirmation to come early in the new year, and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to those problems earlier in the debate. It is a disgraceful way to treat people who are trying to obtain the views of the public. The Post Office's effective message is, "We are not interested." It is offensive that Postwatch—I mean no sweeping criticism of that organisation—is given advance information on closure proposals in confidence, on condition that it does not disclose the details to anybody, especially elected representatives of the public. There is no justification for a consumer watchdog having an advantage over elected representatives.
  The failure to consult local authorities in their capacity as planning authorities means that possible future patterns of trade, which could be relevant to closure, are not taken into consideration. That is a failure to use the resources that are available.
  Sarah Teather: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the nature of the consultation in my constituency? Despite a vigorous campaign to save the Brondesbury and Gladstone Parade post offices, they both closed in the summer. I found it extraordinary and outrageous that hundreds of signatures on petitions of protest were recorded as one objection. When we asked the general area manager what we would have to do to change his mind about a closure, he said that he had complete confidence in the decision-making process and it would be difficult to change his mind. What a sham.
  Malcolm Bruce: As my hon. Friend points out, it does not matter whether there is one objection or a thousand, because no one will take any notice of them anyway. It is nonsense to suggest that a genuine process of consultation occurs.
  Given the Minister's dealings with the Post Office, I wish to make a serious point about its middle management staff, who treat their power as a means to patronise Members of Parliament and representatives of the public. The attitude of middle management is that they have the power and nothing we do or say will change that because our views are irrelevant. That is an outrageous attitude for a public service. On many other occasions, we fight on behalf of the management to try to secure a future for the business. It should recognise that we need a partnership, not an arrogant dismissal of the legitimate role of Members of Parliament.
  760
  I have received representations from our candidates for Mid-Sussex, Newcastle, Essex and Leeds, all complaining about the same problems as have been articulated here tonight. Under the urban renewal programme, the Government have put up £30 million for reinvestment for those post offices that have been retained in the network. However, it has already been proved that post offices are closed, not according to the needs of the community but on the basis of self-selection by postmasters and mistresses, and nobody can blame them for that.
  In addition, theoretically there is money available for offices that are continuing within the network, to improve their premises to meet growing business. I am told that scheme is supposed to be completed in three months. So far, of the £30 million made available, less than £1 million has been taken up. That is hardly surprising. If one is in the middle of an extremely controversial process where morale is low, one would be unwilling to put up 50 per cent of the money to secure the other 50 per cent of match funding to invest in one's business before having the chance to establish what the new pattern of business was likely to be in the future.
  Will the Minister explain the time scale? Should it not be extended? Does he recognise that if less than £1 million of the £30 million has been drawn down, reinvention in the sense of investment in the remaining network is empty and meaningless?
  Where will the new business for post offices come from, given that "Your Guide" has been rejected. There is clearly demand by many Government agencies to use the Post Office network to distribute information, forms and so on—for which service those agencies presumably pay, yet there seems to be no suggestion that arrangement should be reviewed and reconsidered. If there is to be reinvention, presumably it ought to be possible for additional post offices to be registered for vehicle licensing, passport applications and so on. Instead, one tends to find that the whole deal is rigid and restricted. The Post Office has a network but buyers have no idea what it is—and individual changes are almost impossible. When a Member of Parliament is approached by a post office that wants to issue vehicle licence, driving licence or passport forms, there is no mechanism by which such requests can be processed. That should be part and parcel of a genuine review of the future role of the Post Office.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: In the town of Berwick the Post Office was unable to maintain its former Crown office, which has been closed for many months. Anyone who wants to obtain a vehicle motor licence must either go to Scotland or to a post office 16 miles away in England. Does that not indicate that even in an area in which the Post Office is supposed to be maintaining traditional central offices, it is not doing so?
  Malcolm Bruce: My right hon. Friend has anticipated my next point. The role of the Crown office has become extremely unclear. When the large number of Crown offices that used to exist were effectively privatised or abolished by the previous Government some 10 years ago, it was said that that would make no difference to services. The right hon. Gentleman confirms that the loss of a Crown office means the loss of a service.

  761
  The town of Keith in my constituency has a population of 4,000 or 5,000, so it is comparable to several others in the area. For historical reasons, Keith has never had a Crown office so the office there is not allowed to issue passport forms—even though it is owned by a postmaster with another post office that has the capacity to do that work. That kind of bureaucratic nonsense does not address the needs of the community but is a historical hangover. It is one reason why many of us are less than convinced that the proposals really are a reinvention or renewal but believe that they represent systematic closure, rationalisation and a rundown of the service. While the focus currently is on urban post offices, we are waiting for the money to run out for rural offices and for the roof to fall in on them.
  Progress with the card account is also unclear. The figures that are regularly published tell us that so far, 7 million of the 30 million accounts have been approached. Of the 7.25 million account holders who have been invited to convert, 2.25 million have not even replied. One third of those who did reply said, "Take a running jump" or applied for a card account. In other words, they were not interested. The future requirements of millions of people and their implications are unknown to the Government and the Post Office. That is particularly true of child benefit.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of thoughtful points, but I want to clarify that applying for a Post Office card account does not amount to saying "Take a running jump." It is an entirely proper outcome of the process. Something like 2 million people have so far indicated their preference. That is their right and that is what they will get.
  Malcolm Bruce: I am slightly rebuked by the Minister. Of course, we are keen for people to take out card accounts. The fact that sufficient numbers have struggled through the system to get an account is welcome. Perhaps the 2.25 million who have not replied are, in effect, telling the Government to take a running jump.
  Mr. Flook: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a pensioner in Winsford, a village in my Taunton constituency, who has a bank account tried to get a post office card account? After considerable effort, the pensioner obtained an account number but it turned out to be a dummy. The Post Office had no intention of giving her a card account because she already had a bank account.
  Malcolm Bruce: I am of course well informed about the situation in Taunton. I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's point; every Member could give a similar example. Every time we debate this subject, the Minister must be aware how much anger and frustration there is on both sides of the House. If he does not tell the Secretary of State that there is a problem—as she did not have the courtesy to attend the debate—he will not be doing his job. There is a problem and the Government had better realise it, or they will find out about the consequences in a painful way.
  762
  The exceptions service has already been mentioned, and I have tabled an early-day motion about it. A significant number of people are likely to be affected—the Government estimate that it could be 3 million. For various reasons, some short-term and some long-term, those people will be unable to use any of the techniques currently on offer. They may not be able to make use of a card account, as they cannot cope with pin numbers, or they may not have a bank account. They may be ill for a couple of weeks or there may be a long-term problem. At present, they can sign their book and hand it over at the post office, or they can ask a proxy—an agent—to do that for them and bring them the money.
  Under the new arrangements, we do not know what people will do. When we pressed the Government, we were given suggestions such as, "They will be given a cheque", but those people need cash so a cheque is not really the answer. It has even been suggested that they could receive cash from the Department for Work and Pensions by special courier. I have a vision of special couriers touring the country, trying to deliver cash to people in remote rural areas, to ensure that they are not excluded from the system. I suspect that it will cost substantially more than £400 million or £500 million a year to do that.
  Another suggestion is that people would be given a special payment form that they or their agent could take to the post office to receive cash. It is even proposed that for convenience, so that a new form does not have to be issued each week, people could be given several forms stapled together to make a little book—[Laughter.] People could then take the book to the post office. Does that sound familiar? If that were to happen, several million other people would say, "What about us, why should we miss out?" That may be why several million people have cottoned on to the fact that the best thing to do when they receive letters from the DWP is not to reply and to keep the Government guessing until they come up with an answer.
  Almost everything that matters in this situation is unknown. We still do not know how many people will apply for a card account or for payment by direct debit through the bank, or indeed how many people will not apply. We do not know how much the DWP will save through the new operation, especially as we know neither the mechanism for the exceptions service nor its cost. We do not know what the loss to sub-post offices will be, so we do not know how much business they can win back or from where; the scale of business that they need to find to cover the gap is unknown.
  The Government are hell-bent on taking the process to a conclusion by a defined date, although almost every significant variable is unknown and they do not know what the outcome of any of the major parameters will be. The Government are heading for a serious fall. I suggest that until our questions are clearly answered, they should listen to Members, slow down the consultation process and recognise that the communities affected have a right to be consulted. The Government must explain the real long-term future for the Post Office, not merely the outcome of their current closure programme.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to contribute briefly.

  763
  The Minister is right to say that post office closures have been taking place for 15 years. Moreover, probably for the 20 years that I have been a Member, there has been a process of slow erosion. So, in many ways, a major programme should be welcome in that it would allow for planning and coherence, instead of the drip, drip that we have had for the past 20 years. The Minister has been listening to the debate and looking at his postbag, so he must understand that—whatever his brief says and whatever Postwatch and the Post Office tell him—there is no strategy in practice. There is no coherence. If there were a strategy, the Post Office would look at each community, and its needs, scale and geography would be considered and an assessment made about how many post offices were needed to serve that community. That is not taking place, and it is no good the Minister closing his ears to that.
  I had had a very unpleasant and heated meeting with the regional management in my constituency last Friday, and it is clear that all that they have done is wait and see. They have put out the notice saying, "Please apply for closure," and have accepted every application that has come in. They have not varied that at all. They have had no view of their own. They have not varied; they have not opposed. They have simply taken whatever has been offered to them, because that is the cheapest and easiest way to meet their targets—dread words for this Government and most other Governments, but there it is.
  There has been no strategy whatever, and the result in my constituency is not a closure programme; it is butchery. There are 21 closures in the city of Stoke-on-Trent and seven in my constituency, most of them down one side of the constituency, where two and half large wards, with more than 20,000 people, are now left without a single post office. That is not a planned, strategic closure programme; it is a complete cop-out and a waste, and it is destroying the services that should be there.
  Mr. Weir: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but are not things slightly worse than he says? The Post Office is giving the impression that there is a planned programme. Did he, like me, receive a letter from the Post Office saying that it will now consider constituencies as a whole? The original letter said that the Post Office would look at my constituency in the spring of this year—that was in November last year—but two weeks later, I received a letter saying that one of the post offices in a borough in my area would close. The Post Office told me one thing one week and the complete opposite two weeks later. There is no strategy, just as the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is extremely lucky; he has been consulted by the Post Office. Most of us have not been consulted at all. If there is no strategy, there is virtually no consultation. The shadow Minister tried to suggest in opening the debate that Stoke-on-Trent was being favoured by having a six-week closure consultation programme. Almost all that time was over the Christmas period, so we effectively had about 12 working days.
  In the past 20 years, hon. Members have had a great deal of experience of library and primary school closures, as well as of the closure of chemists and other
  764
  local facilities. We are eroding our communities, and what we are doing with this closure programme is a continuation of that. We ought to understand what we are doing. It may make commercial sense, but it makes absolutely no social or community sense. That ought to be considered if we are to have public services.
  The Minister should understand that there is no consultation at all. It is simply not taking place. We have all had experience of closures, but when a closure programme involves a local school, we have proper consultation, not 12 days. We have public meetings, and the local education authority and Ministers, if the issue goes to them, listen to and are lobbied by those putting the community case. None of that is happening.
  I suggested that the regional management should hold meetings in my constituency. If the regional management believe that they have a good case for closing post offices, they should put it to the public. When I put it to them that they should do so, they just laughed. They thought it was a ludicrous idea. They said, "There is no time for that," but there is no enormous time pressure; we have to get this right. The Post Office and the Government will not get it right unless they first have a strategy, and secondly, listen to the people who will be affected. At the moment, there is no strategy or consultation and, as a result, there is a great deal of anger on all sides about the incoherent butchering of the service. We are seeing the end of the service as such, which will have an effect on communities. If the Minister is serious when he says that he wants an effective process, will he undertake, even at this late stage, to examine the individual cases that hon. Members of all parties have put to him?
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fisher: I am about to conclude, because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Will the Minister recognise that the position on the ground is such that there is no strategy or consultation? If necessary, he could lengthen the consultation process and use the Government's position in relation to the Post Office to require it to have a coherent strategy. Such a strategy would start with assessing populations, needs and geography before planning a network, rather than simply saying, "Who wants to close, because you all can?"
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: This is far from the first time that I have raised post office closures in Eastbourne. I have raised the matter in several debates—the most recent debate that I secured was held on 14 October 2003—and even during Prime Minister's questions. I hate to seem a little like the ghost of Christmas yet to come. However, I was one of the lucky ones whose constituency was among the very first to be blessed with the area plan procedure, so I am here to give a warning, I hope not in too ghoulish a way, of what is to come for hon. Members whose lives have not yet been touched by the process; they should know what lies in store.

  765
  My constituency was singled out for the area plan approach in early August last year. While almost everyone was on holiday or thinking about other things, a letter suddenly arrived about post office closures. There were two separate consultation processes. One process related to three, and subsequently four, sub-post offices in my constituency, and the other proposed the closure of the Upperton Road post office, which most people in Eastbourne regard as the main post office in my constituency. We eventually persuaded the Post Office to hold both consultations together and to extend the overall consultation period. I personally asked the Post Office to send senior people to attend a public meeting in Eastbourne town hall, which took place toward the end of last year, in addition to participating in the ordinary consultation exercise.
  My perhaps naive belief, which was shared by Postwatch, was that because our area was one of the first to be involved in the process, all procedures would be followed to the letter and taken seriously by the Post Office. I could have not have been more wrong. Four sub-post offices—Whitley Road, Avard Crescent, Compton Street and Church Street—have closed, and the main post office on Upperton road is due to close on 7 February.
  I pay tribute in passing to Postwatch—as did the Minister—and especially to Mr. David Bland, for being extremely co-operative and helpful throughout the process. However, Postwatch has no teeth or power. It is true that the dispute was escalated—to use the jargon—and that Peter Carr, the national chairman of Postwatch, personally raised the Upperton Road closure with no less a figure than Mr. David Mills, the chief executive officer of the Post Office. However, as I have explained, the post office is to close in a few weeks' time. Postwatch was so disturbed by the way in which its views were disregarded that it made more global representations to ensure consideration
  "of better integrating Branch closures into Urban Reinvention Network Area Plans"
  so that both sub-post offices and Crown post offices would be taken into account with as much equality as possible throughout the process.
  There is a real issue, and I have three brief observations to make from my experience. First, the Post Office is adept at ignoring even the business case for keeping a post office open. Leaks from the staff of the Upperton Road post office showed that, far from suffering the losses that were alleged, it was doing rather well. Indeed, the staff have subsequently received substantial bonuses for their efforts. It makes little sense for the Post Office to enter into a deal worth £100 million-plus for financial services with the Bank of Ireland, as we have heard, given that in Eastbourne it is shutting more than a quarter of our post offices, with the closure of five of the 19 post offices in the town.
  As I pointed out to the Minister in an intervention, there is no guarantee that the area plan system will work. It was proposed as a better alternative to piecemeal closures, but in my constituency sub-postmasters who would have liked a deal were not offered one, and their businesses, largely as a result of Government policy, are now extremely marginal and
  766
  may well close in due course. There will therefore be closures under the plan, but there will also be other piecemeal closures.
  Finally, I turn to the consultation, which in retrospect I regard as flawed and entirely bogus. There was a vast expression of local opinion, in petitions, letters and e-mails and at a public meeting, all of which was disregarded by the Post Office. It was as plain as a pikestaff from its attitude in correspondence and at the public meeting that it was not interested in taking note of those strong feelings or the massive disadvantages, particularly for elderly people in my constituency, of the closures.
  I shall close by talking about two other interesting straws in the wind. I was approached by a constituent who was prepared to take on a business that the Post Office proposed to close and continue to run it as a sub-post office. The Post Office was not in the least interested in accepting his proposal. The other straw in the wind concerns the staff at the main post office on Upperton road, who were told well before the consultation that it would close on 5 February. That is now the official closure date, and they must migrate, presumably along with a lot of customers, to the other end of the town centre to another branch that is already extremely busy, overused and short of space. In a nutshell, the consultation was a travesty, and any hon. Member who faces even the suggestion of consultation should question very carefully indeed whether they are simply being led up the garden path by the Post Office.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: When I read the motion on the Order Paper, I agreed with almost all of it, apart—given that my regional Whip, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), is on the Front Bench—from the phrase "condemns the Government", which I could never do. However, I am afraid to disappoint Opposition Members, but I shall not join them in the Lobby. Although I agree with the wording of the motion, it is born of the Opposition's cynicism and opportunism. After 18 years in government, when they closed 3,500 post offices, they have the cheek to talk about breathtaking double standards and crocodile tears, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) put it.
  I object to the number of closures in my Tyne Bridge constituency. Under the programme, no fewer than nine of our 21 post offices are scheduled for closure, three in Newcastle and six in Gateshead. All the indicators show that my constituency is one of the most deprived in the country, and the least worthy of such a blow. I am not suggesting that the service should not be rationalised by any means. Some people are voting with their feet and have found alternative ways of collecting pensions, welfare benefits and so on. That trend will continue. More and more pensioners, for example, will choose to have their pensions paid into their bank accounts because their wages and salaries were paid in that way. I therefore accept the need for rationalisation in some instances, but the closure of nine of the 21 sub-post offices in Tyne Bridge is excessive, and does not take sufficient account of the terrain.
  The Post Office has told me that its staff walk the areas around post offices before making a decision about closure. If they did so in Tyne Bridge, they would have

  767
  to be pretty fit. One post office is the aptly named Deckham Hill—whatever direction people walk in they go up and down very steep inclines indeed. The people who rely on post office services are generally elderly or infirm, or are mothers pushing prams, and will find access very difficult indeed.
  In the case of another post office, the Dun Cow, which serves the Dunston Hill area of my constituency, 1,200 local residents signed a petition against its closure. I pay tribute to the Labour councillors in the area who kept the people so well informed and gathered the names on the petition. Similarly, in Newcastle, another 1,200 people signed petitions against recently announced post office closures, which will be a devastating blow to local people and raise concerns about more closures in the future.
  It appears that not enough account is taken of future development. The Low Teams post office in my constituency is scheduled for closure on the basis that there has been some demolition in the area. However, new development is taking place to replace the demolition. New houses are being built on the riverside in the former garden festival site and around the post office itself. That does not seem to be taken into account by the Post Office. A similar argument applies to the Armstrong Road and West Benwell post offices in Newcastle, in an area known as the "going for growth" area of Newcastle, where substantial redevelopment is planned.
  Mrs. Calton: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I have a letter from the chief executive of the Post Office, who tells me clearly that he believes that
  "extensive modelling and analysis of an area including what published plans the local authority might have for the area"
  are included in the consultation process. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience and as I know from mine, that does not seem to be happening. Does he think that the top levels of the Post Office may not know what the intermediate levels of the Post Office are doing?
  Mr. Clelland: That may well be the case. My experience would bear that out. I do not believe that the Post Office could have investigated in the way that it says it has and come to the conclusion that it reached.
  There is a rule that sub-post offices in the most deprived areas should not be closed if there is not an alternative within half a mile. However, in the case of the Armstrong Road and West Benwell post offices, which I mentioned earlier, the Post Office argued that if both are closed at once, that rule does not apply. I have taken the matter up with the Minister, who I am pleased to say supports me. I understand that the matter will be re-examined. I had a letter from the Minister in December. in which he writes that
  "there would still be four alternative offices within one mile of West Benwell and three within one mile of Armstrong Road, all with good public transport access and concessionary fares."
  Concessionary fares are just that: they are not free. People still have to pay, and concessionary fares do not apply to all those who use the post office services. Moreover, one mile is an awfully long way to walk in the terrain that I described earlier.
  768
  The Minister told me, and he repeated today, that some postmasters are leaving the system owing to a lack of business. That may be true in some cases, but not in all. Some retirements are taking place, but in many cases, such as that of the Dun Cow post office in Dunston, there is no lack of business, with 1,200 people in the immediate vicinity asking for it to be kept open. Some postmasters are retiring, but many are being bought out by the sweeteners being offered by Post Office Ltd.
  Despite the changes that are undoubtedly taking place—I accept that changes are taking place—the sub-post offices in Tyne Bridge remain an important and necessary service for thousands of my constituents. The proposed closure of almost half the total outlets in Tyne Bridge is excessive and will cause hardship. It should be reconsidered by the Post Office, whose duty to run an efficient business should not undermine the very services that it exists to provide.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: The subject was last debated on the Floor of the House on 11 December, when the House considered the Trade and Industry Committee report and the Government's response to it. Replying to that debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) said:
  "A viable post office network is important to all hon. Members."—[Official Report, 11 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1288.]
  He was right. That was a two-hour debate, during which there were 21 contributions—10 from Labour Members of Parliament, seven from Conservative Members, and four from minority party Members. Every single contributor to that debate was hostile to the Government and to the post office programme. So far in today's debate, every contributor on both sides of the House has been hostile. If there is an hon. Member present who is prepared to stand up and say, "I support entirely what the Government and the Post Office are doing", I will willingly give way to them. However, I do not detect anyone coming forward to say that, as making such a remark would be electoral suicide in one's constituency. As the Under-Secretary rightly said, this matter is vital to every hon. Member.
  The thrust of the debate on 11 December was the availability, or lack of availability, of Post Office card accounts. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), said that the Department for Work and Pensions had
  "made applying for the account more difficult and complicated and has been able to load the choice system with active discouragement."—[Official Report, 11 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1259.]
  Postwatch has said:
  "The Post Office Card Account application process requires the customer to retain and assimilate documents that they receive at different stages in the process. The duration between receiving these documents is often quite long. It can be confusing and is potentially off-putting."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) reminded the House in Westminster Hall on 7 January 2004 and has said again in the House this

  769
  afternoon, there are 22 steps in the process of obtaining a Post Office card account. That is effectively a deliberate attempt to dissuade post office customers, including sub-post office customers and the business customers of the sub-postmasters, from obtaining Post Office card accounts.
  In replying to the 7 January debate in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), said:
  "The move to direct payment and the introduction of universal banking services has resulted in a number of benefits, including an increase in customer choice".
  He also said:
  "The Government believe in choice, and in giving our customers the dignity of the financial inclusion that the rest of us enjoy."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 107–8WH.]
  That is rubbish. It is what is now called, in prime ministerial parlance, a whopping great totality. My constituents, the elderly who live in Herne Bay and Margate, are not interested in what the denizens of Islington regard as inclusion. They are not queuing up for new mortgages, they do not want to do share dealing and they are not even trying to apply for passports. They want to be able to take their post office book down to the post office to get their cash and to buy the things that they want from the little shop that is attached to it. If they cannot do that, they want a Post Office card account, and they would like to get one easily, please, and because of age and probably physical capability, they do not want to have to jump through 22 hoops to do so.
  That footfall, which was mentioned earlier, is vital to these small businesses. It is not surprising that small business people, which is what sub-postmasters are, are taking the money and running, because the alternative would be bankruptcy. Businesses on which they were relying for their retirement, which they now cannot sell, would be destroyed by Government action and the post office programme.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South, said in this Chamber on 11 December:
  "We want people to use post offices because they want to, not because they are forced to do so"—[Official Report, 11 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1289.]
  The Government amendment to the motion before us refers to a
  "commitment to modernise and invest in the national network of post offices while keeping them easily accessible to all customers"
  and
  "notes the Post Office's commitment to ensuring that 95 per cent. of the urban population live within a mile of a post office".
  That is a mile by a straight line, but I have news for the Minister; my constituents, particularly the elderly, do not walk in straight lines through buildings. They follow the roads. Neither do they particularly want to have to climb up hill and down dale, which is often the shortest route as measured by the Post Office, but not the most reasonable one.
  The so-called consultation process is a total charade. It is absolutely meaningless. I am sure that there is not a single Member in this Chamber who has not tried to
  770
  protect a post office, and I should be very surprised if anyone had succeeded in doing so. Yes, Postwatch has stayed some executions, but, mark my words, those post offices will close. The Post Office's failure to do its homework and the lip service that the Minister pays to that is disgraceful.
  The Post Office tells me that it is possible to drive from the former Studd Hill post office in my constituency to the Sea Street sub-post office—assuming, of course, that one has a car—in three minutes. Michael Schumacher could not do it in that time: it is simply unrealistic. At the other end of my constituency, the Post Office has done its homework so well—I have mentioned this in the Chamber before—that I am told that the rail service and the underground are the alternatives to the non-existent bus. I have represented Margate for 20 years, but I have not yet found the metro station—unless the Post Office means that everybody will have to travel to London to use the post office. It is ridiculous.
  The Minister says that local people have to demonstrate local support. In my constituency, and I suspect in every constituency represented in this Chamber, people have been queuing up to demonstrate local support to try to keep open the services that they want for themselves and their families. However, the petitions and the letters from Members of Parliament and local councillors of all political persuasions are not worth the paper that they are written on. It is a charade, and the Minister should be ashamed of it.
  Sadly, it will be a little while yet—possibly until the end of this year—before this Government are reinvented and closed. In the meantime, post office closures are continuing. For me, the sadness is that the people who are responsible will be long gone by the time it is left to the rest of us to try to clear up the wreckage.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Iain Luke: I rise not only to speak specifically about my constituency, as many hon. Members have done, but as someone who has watched the financial troubles of the Royal Mail and Consignia, to make the point that we should remember that many of the problems that we face today date back to the 1980s and 1990s, when the Post Office was cash-strapped and the then Government, who are now in opposition, were unsure about whether to privatise it.
  I have received briefings from the Post Office locally and nationally. I have heard Allan Leighton—who changed Consignia's name back to the Royal Mail in his efforts to create what he sees as a first-class, world-class postal service—speak about reinventing the Post Office. I accept that some sort of change is necessary. I am saddened by the tenor of the motion tabled by the Opposition, who seem to deny that there is any need for reinvention and put forward no positive response to the Government's suggestions. However, although their motion contains some negative terms, I have some sympathy with some of their arguments.
  When the consultation began, I wondered how it would work. Unfortunately, it is now evident that six weeks was too short a period, and the process seemed inflexible. In the case of three of my local post offices, the consultation process on their closure was due to finish on 6 January. As the two weeks over Christmas are dead

  771
  time, I wrote to the Post Office to ask if it would be possible to extend the process for another two weeks to allow for problems with the mail. I put in that request well before Christmas and got my reply on 5 January, the day before the consultation ended. That gave me a little time to mount a representation, which I did. The inflexible and short-term nature of the process suggests that this is a done deal and that in the end the consultation will have made no difference.
  The basis of some of the decisions must be flawed. I know that from my local community and one of the post offices, which is proposed for closure and based in Barnhill in Dundee. It is centred in a vibrant and busy shopping centre but the alternative was somewhere isolated and out of the way. It has subsequently been found that the alternative post office is for sale and may close. That means that Barnhill, which is fairly populous, would be without postal services.
  A Conservative councillor has taken up the matter on behalf of constituents. I have worked with Postwatch to try to put the case. My case was that, given the presence of two large supermarkets, if the post office had to close, why not try to locate it in one of them. I believed that the Post Office would consider that in the run-up to the consultation and present that option rather than the smaller, isolated, less used post office that may close.
  The Minister made the point that some reviews have taken place. I learned something today and I was chasing it up as late as 2.30 pm before the debate. I was led to believe that, on the basis of my representations, those of Councillor Mackie, who is Conservative councillor for Barnhill, and those of Postwatch, a hold will be put on the decision until my alternative can be examined. Lack of alternatives damns many hon. Members' cases.
  The option was easy to devise because in Dundee, West, where a large Tesco is located, the same thing happened. A post office was to close in Lochee but it was successfully relocated in the Tesco superstore. However, it takes time to work out the options and it is obvious that time was at a premium in the process. Given the importance of ensuring that we have a first-class, world-class postal service, we need to take more time to consider the matter.
  I have a dilemma with the current partial success—I cannot say that the process will ultimately be successful because there is a long way to go. I know from my work in writing and making phone calls to get some sort of feedback that the dilemma is mirrored throughout the country. Only four post offices are proposed for closure in my constituency. Other hon. Members have mentioned statistics such as 29 post offices. The problem in Dundee is therefore not on the same scale as those in some areas, but the services are all vital to their communities.
  I made the point to the Minister at the beginning of the process that I believed that the Government were brave to tackle the problem. We have heard Allan Leighton speak about the Post Office losing millions of pounds; something had to be done. The Minister and the Government now have to be brave and say that there needs to be time out, to use a basketball term, to tease out some matters. When good cases have been made, there should be a review. The Government should be able to tell the Post Office that there should be a review
  772
  process as a backstop. Postwatch has played a role but it needs to be beefed up to ascertain whether, given more time for thought about what the process would entail, there could have been more detailed work on the economic, social and community basis for closures and for keeping post offices open.
  I want briefly to consider two further vital issues. I accept the need for exceptional services. Some people need to go to post offices to get their pensions and benefits over the counter. That should continue. I have been sufficiently lucky to ensure that several pensioners—one a sprightly 94-year-old—managed to keep their Post Office pension books. It is not well known that the exceptional circumstances can continue. Like many people, I am worried that after 2005, they will disappear. The Government must make a commitment to continuing them.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better if the Government made it easier for people to get the cards and keep their pension books?
  Mr. Luke: The system has to be simplified and publicised more widely. There has to be a commitment that it will still be all right after 2005 for pensioners and people unable to get to a bank to obtain a Post Office benefits book. That commitment should be made public as soon as possible.
  Lastly, 90 per cent. of people in Scotland use the three major Scottish banks. They have moved away from post offices because the major banks will not locate facilities there. That is one major element in ensuring that post offices in Scotland continue to be viable. I have made that point to Allan Leighton, and the Government should be pressing it home with the banks.
  6.25 pm
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: If the speech by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) amounted to support for the Government, I think that they face some difficulty. At best, it could be described as tentative, but the hon. Gentleman did as well as he could.
  This is a very important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on bringing this subject forward. Today's debate has come in our second week back after Christmas, but the theme will recur throughout the year. I am an officer of the all-party group on sub-post offices and we will be convening meetings in the very near future to try to keep track of events. The level of concern demonstrated by hon. Members of all parties is palpable and obvious. We need to watch this matter carefully.
  In passing, I want to commend the work of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which keeps all of us objectively informed about what is happening in our constituencies, and about the wider issues. The federation's general secretary, Colin Baker, is a particular expert on these matters.
  I want to say a word about context of the issue. The problem has been evident for nearly a decade. I first became aware of it when I watched the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) wave a magnetic swipe card at the 1995 Conservative party conference. He claimed that it would be the answer to

  773
  everything, but the project was cancelled after £800 million of taxpayers' money had been spent. That shows the extent to which policy on the matter has been mishandled, and the huge sums of money that have been spent and lost. That money will be needed in the long term to put matters right.
  The year 2002 was an important one. I was present at Westminster's central Methodist hall when a massive rally involving nearly 1,600 people—ordinary people—was held. Those people wanted to demonstrate their support for continuing back-up and provision for their post offices. That level of public interest and willingness to demonstrate has been maintained, as the Government will find out if they are not careful to ensure that the proposed system is better organised.
  I was delighted when, in 2000, the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit produced a report that I consider to be both enlightened and sensible. It provided a basis for taking matters forward, but its 24 recommendations have been more or less discarded.
  When the PIU report was published, we were talking about making available a Government general practitioner service on an electronic basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) mentioned the "Your Guide" pilot schemes, which were discarded before they had been properly evaluated. Those pilots were an integral part of the PIU report. We were talking about all sorts of ways of generating a modern platform, and sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the UK were pleased with the template for the future that the report provided. They are now totally disillusioned about what has happened since the report was published. I shall return to that matter a little later in my remarks.
  The other point in terms of context is that the Government could make a potential saving, according to their estimates—I agree with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon that those estimates are inexact—of £400 million each year, every year, starting in 2003 and continuing until 2005 when the current policy is implemented properly and fully. That huge amount of money is a resource that intelligent policymakers at a strategic level would use sensibly to put in place a transition process and underpin the network, but we have seen no evidence of such investment.
  Let us bear in mind that post offices had 16 million to 17 million customers weekly in 2002 when we started looking at the issue of providing magnetic swipe cards, although the footfall of people going to post offices has started to collapse, for obvious reasons. Important issues and big amounts of money are at stake. We are dealing with domestic households that are financially disadvantaged, that work with cash week to week, that have had no experience of credit facilities, banking services and the rest, and that feel uncomfortable about the future. Clearly, even if 2 million people use the Post Office card account, there is a huge gap between 2 million and 16 million. That context needs to be recognised.
  As I said earlier, the federation is increasingly disillusioned. It was a willing partner, and was enthusiastic about the PIU report, but it has been let down. In spite of all the evidence that has come from
  774
  debates such as this, from parliamentary questions, from pressure groups, consumer groups and others, it feels that its arguments have been ignored, and, for the first time, it now has real concerns for the future of the post office network. It has been a willing partner and eager to make this project work, but now there is evidence of its concern about the good faith that the Government are bringing to bear on the matter.
  Of course, the federation recognised the need for re-organisation and it, more than anyone, had an interest in making sure that that worked. It recognised that there was a need for a brighter and better network of post offices, more modern and high-tech, which offered beneficial services for customers—indeed, an ever greater range of services. It accepted that some post offices would have to close, which was part of the package in the PIU report.
  The practice since 2000, however, has been different. The federation never anticipated 3,000 closures—I certainly did not anticipate that—and the programme, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) rightly said, no longer represents a strategy but a campaign of closures. Little evidence exists of bigger, brighter and more modern post offices, certainly in urban areas. The £450 million that has reputedly been put into trying to support rural post offices has never reached the local sub-post office network. Were it do so, it would merely keep an ailing network on its knees, and would not change anything in the long term. Since 2000 and the PIU report, the Government have given with one hand and taken away with the other. The remuneration for the new services being brought on-stream—I subscribe to the view that the Government need to put pressure on Scottish banks in the Scottish context—does not make up for the money previously received from direct payment.
  The federation is astounded that the Department for Work and Pensions claims that there is an unbiased choice in the selection of the best future option for customers. As Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, I know that ample evidence exists of an active and aggressive campaign to prevent people from getting Post Office card accounts. That is a disgrace, and it should change. It should not just be a question of improving the forms—there should be a positive promotion campaign to increase take-up and access to the Post Office card account.
  The federation is not afraid of the future. With the activities of the Department for Work and Pensions to which I have just referred, the problems surrounding the network reinvention, and the reluctance of the banks to get involved, however, it is nervous and concerned.
  In his foreword to the PIU report in June 2000, the Prime Minister said he was
  "confident that by working together with subpostmasters and the private sector we can deliver a network of post offices fit for the 21st century…a network that continues to occupy the special place it has in Britain in all our lives".
  Instead, we have been left with confusion, uncertainty and a feeling of being cut adrift.
  Like every other area, the biggest town in my constituency is experiencing a calamity. The largest post office there has just closed. It was part of Safeways in Hawick, but apparently it was notified about two years ago that the supermarket had decided it could make

  775
  more money by selling baked beans than by providing a service for its customers. During that time there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in an attempt to renegotiate the lease. Now the Post Office has decided that this is part of the reinvention programme. Consultation is in progress on the closure of the biggest, most modern and most service-rich post office in the biggest town of my constituency. Come April that will happen, and I shall be left with two branches.
  Both those branches are run well. Indeed, the one in Sandbed wins prizes, and is managed by an enthusiastic, energetic man who knows a lot about the business. But there was no plan, no strategy, and no possibility of the six-figure investment that is needed to get retail premises kitted out properly and to inspire confidence that a future income stream will repay capital. Who in his right mind would go to a bank manager and say "I want to buy a couple of shops, knock them together and provide a service that is really needed by a town containing 16,000 people"? No one is going to do that.
  I promise the Minister that this is the first of many debates. He will be brought back here time and again, for a Liberal Democrat if not a Conservative Supply day. He will return here, and to Westminster Hall, day after day and week after week until the penny drops and he realises that he must promote the Post Office card account and establish sensible capital investment programmes to ensure that urban networks are properly financed once the reinvention programme takes hold. He must also realise that the rural programme needs proper support; otherwise the service will dwindle, postmasters will go bankrupt and go out of business, and the people who suffer most will be our constituents.
  The Government have a duty to act, and they have no more than the next few months in which to get the programme right for the long term.
  6.37 pm
  Chris Bryant: As my time is limited to two and a half minutes, I shall move swiftly to the matter in hand for my constituents, which is the Cwmparc post office. I do not know whether any Members have seen the film "Very Annie Mary". In the opening scene, Jonathan Pryce goes down from the Bwlch into the beautiful Bwlch valley, sweeping past a glorious rural area—an idyll which, unfortunately, the Post Office describes as urban because, apparently, it is contiguous with a community of 10,000. It is in Treorchy ward, a large ward with three members on the local council which includes some wealthier areas. It does not count as a deprived area, although many of the houses in Cwmparc are among the poorest accommodation in Wales. It is all private accommodation, owned by former miners and their families.
  I believe that Cwmparc post office should stay open, for the simple reason that it falls between two stools. It counts as neither "rural" nor "urban deprived". In some cases statistics do not help us, and we should make it possible for post offices to stay open.
  I am delighted that the Government established Postwatch. I was consulted from the start. It was not difficult to consult with people of Cwmparc on whether they wanted their post office to remain open: they said yes very firmly and very swiftly, within 24 hours. A
  776
  petition with some 2,000 names was gathered and Postwatch supports us in wanting to keep the one post office out of 29 in the Rhondda that might be closing. I hope that in the coming months we will find that the Cwmparc post office will be staying open. If we ever reach a point at which the postmaster, who also has the post offices in Treorchy, Abergorky and Treherbert and therefore has a local monopoly, decides of his own volition that he wants to close the post office in Cwmparc, come what may, I hope that the Post Office will look closely into finding other means of ensuring that the services that the people in Cwmparc desperately need are available to them.
  Finally, what sometimes happens when a post office closes is that the post box closes as well. That can be disastrous for a local community, so I greatly hope that neither of those things will happen to the people of Cwmparc.
  6.41 pm
  Michael Fabricant: Well, the Prime Minister wanted a big conversation and, boy, he certainly got that this evening. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been highly critical of changes in the post office network, so I hope that the Prime Minister was listening. I have to say that it is a great shame that the Secretary of State was not here to listen. It is clear from the debate why she has left the poor old Minister hanging out to dry. That is obvious from the nature of the interventions that the Minister has taken from his own side. The poor Minister has had to face it now, and he will have to face it later on, too.
  Two points have been made clear by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening. The post office network is an absolutely vital part of our social fabric, and it must be preserved. However, we have heard that the pattern of closures is no pattern at all. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said to the Minister that the closure strategy might exist in his head, but was not happening on the ground. There is no closure strategy; there is no coherence. That was the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) in opening the debate.
  My neighbour, the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), spoke about deprivation in south-east Tamworth. He spoke about the commitment to keeping post offices in such areas open and asked the Minister whether it was a commitment or a "mere platitude". We all look forward to hearing the answer to that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) paid tribute to Postwatch, but pointed out—sadly, quite rightly—that it had neither teeth, nor any powers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us this evening how he intends to give Postwatch the necessary teeth and powers. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) agreed with the whole motion, except for the tiny bit that condemned the Government.
  I have to say that in the whole debate today, not to mention that of 11 December, not one of all the hon. Members who have taken part—not even my old friend, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—congratulated the Government on their handling of this particular issue. That is the whole problem. The programme to close urban post offices is piecemeal, with insufficient consultation.

  777
  The future of our rural post offices hangs in the balance and the new system for the direct payment of pensions and benefits is causing widespread difficulty to pensioners and other vulnerable people. The closure programme has been brought forward by a year to the end of December 2004, which, according to Postcomm, has resulted in a closure rate of up to 150 a month.
  The pace of that closure had led to several concerns being expressed today. There has been a lack of consultation with local communities and with MPs in drawing up plans for future local provision of post office services. Instead, plans have been drawn up in secret, with consultation only on individual closure proposals arising from the plan on a branch-by-branch basis.
  I have a letter from David Mills, the chief executive of the Post Office, in which he says:
  "We walk the ground, and we talk to the subpostmasters to understand whether they can make investments in their branches."
  Well, all I can say is, "You could have fooled me." Indeed, the same can be said of everyone present for this debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) sent me an e-mail in which he talked about the closure programme in his constituency, which is quite typical. He said that the Post Office
  "were given money for the network reinvention scheme on the basis that they would have a plan for the network. It appears that they are merely spending it where sub-Post Masters want to retire, leaving for example 2 post offices within a quarter of a mile in Cowes but none in Gurnard over 1 mile from the nearest post office."
  He continues by saying that that is
  "not an economic use of public money."
  I agree.
  In addition to the consultation programme, we are particularly concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has pointed out, about the impact of the new system for the direct payment of benefits: the automated credit transfer scheme, which has been heavily criticised for failing to reflect customers' needs. First, the Post Office card account application process is tortuous. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and others have pointed out, one has to go through some 22 stages in order to obtain such an account—and it would seem to everyone that the Government's information campaign has been designed to ensure that as few people as possible choose this account. Secondly, the campaign to switch to ACT started too late and has been poorly executed. Thirdly, there is widespread concern that vulnerable pensioners and disabled people will be unable to use the electronic card and PIN system. I look forward to the results of the MORI survey mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, which will involve a comparison of sub-postmaster income before and after the introduction of direct payment, as reported by Postcomm.
  Aside from the closure of urban post offices under the reinvention programme, we are also concerned about the rural post office network. Funds are being made available, but what will happen after 2006?
  778
  This morning, the Prime Minister presented a radio show on LBC. When asked, his official Downing street spokesman told journalists that the Prime Minister would now consider doing weddings and bar mitzvahs, too. Somewhere in that busy schedule, I hope that he will also ponder the future of the Post Office, for yes, he has a responsibility for post offices too. As they continue to close around the country at breakneck speed, the needs of our local communities and of vulnerable people within them are not being properly met. The Government are ultimately responsible for a closure process that is running at breakneck speed, without showing due regard for the way it is being operated. Local characteristics are being ignored and local communities are not being properly consulted. There is inadequate long-term planning and a lack of a co-ordinated framework. Let us be clear: although the Post Office is a public corporation, it is the Secretary of State—she is not in her place today—who appoints its board, and the Government wholly own its shares. They cannot duck responsibility for the Post Office's future, and for their oversight.
  The Minister must now answer these questions. What will the future of the 9,000 rural post offices after 2006 be? Will funding continue, or does Labour plan to abandon rural post offices after the next election? Why have the Government not intervened over the manner in which urban post offices are being closed; or, despite what the Minister has heard today, does he still believe that all is going well? What steps will he take to ensure that future closures are properly consulted on, in order to meet local needs? And when will he intervene to ensure that the direct payments system works properly? Will he change the procedure to make applications for card accounts simpler and quicker? Will he ensure that the 22-stage questionnaire is abolished? Will he insist that the PIN pad be changed to enable disabled and blind people to use it more readily? And will he meet his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions—his ministerial colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), has strolled in and sat down on the Front Bench at the last moment—to ensure that Post Office card accounts become an equally attractive alternative to bank accounts? Now is the time for the Minister to answer. Now is the time for this Government finally, perhaps, to deliver.
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your role as guardian of the rights of Members of Parliament, can you provide your guidance on the fact that the Secretary of State has failed to attend the debate, despite the fact that the shadow Secretary of State moved the motion at the beginning? Is it right that Secretaries of State can evade accountability in that way, just as the Prime Minister refuses to say whether he will open for the Government in the debate on the Hutton report? Will you defend the rights of the House in this important matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I can do many things to a Secretary of State, but I cannot compel one to come to the House in these circumstances.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate. On the point of order, I remind the House that we did not know the subject for the debate

  779
  today until last Thursday. What is striking about such debates—today's has been no exception—is how strongly people feel about the future of the post office network. I make no bones about the degree of difficulty inherent in deciding that future and we have rightly been reminded of that in the debate. However, we have the worthwhile objective of a viable, countrywide network of post offices that is able to prosper in today's conditions and those of tomorrow, not just stuck in the conditions of the past. That objective needs to be pursued with vigour and determination. We are doing that, but the necessity of doing so has been powerfully underscored in our debate this afternoon.
  If I may make a personal point, I recall using a post office—I suspect that many other hon. Members have similar memories—when I first started working, after I had concluded my studies with the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). I used to obtain cash regularly from my local post office. Indeed, the other day I dug out my old post office book, which showed the last transaction occurring in 1983. By then, we were all in the new world of cash point machines and bank cards and I no longer needed to go to the post office for cash. However, since July, I have been able to access my bank current account with my bank card at any post office in the country. There is a post office on the high street around the corner from where I live in East Ham, so I have started to pop in on a Saturday morning to obtain some cash and to buy a newspaper. Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of footfall and that is right, but some 20 million current accounts are now accessible through every post office in the country, thanks to the investment that we have made. That is part of developing a viable future for the post office network, without the need to try to cling on to business that is ebbing away. Instead, post offices need to win new business in an expanding market that can be the basis for a commercially successful future.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: No, I need to respond to some of the points that were made in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made a thoughtful contribution, to which I listened with interest. He asked where the investment went: some £500 million went into the technology that has computerised every post office. That investment will provide a viable future for the network, because it will be able to offer banking and other financial services much more widely and effectively.
  Mr. Heald: Where is the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman was not present for the debate, but we aired that issue fully. I wish to respond to the issues raised in connection with the subject of the debate and the resolutions that are proposed.
  The hon. Member for Gordon asked about "Your Guide". Interestingly, since that exercise concluded, three wholly commercial projects to provide kiosks in post offices have been developed, and they may be best
  780
  placed to contribute to the future success of the Post Office. I know that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has been in close discussion on one of the projects.
  The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the speed at which the £30 million is being invested. Ideally, that investment will be undertaken within three months but that is not a requirement. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which we need to examine. I was particularly concerned by his suggestion that right hon. and hon. Members feel patronised by Post Office middle managers. That is of great concern to me and to Post Office senior management, who will have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) but do not agree with his characterisation of the process. There will be the opportunity next week in an Adjournment debate to examine the issues in Stoke-on-Trent. We have heard about a number of changes made as a result of the consultation process. I gave figures for sub-postmasters who indicated that they were willing to go but were told that they will not be able to go. However, I will of course listen to my hon. Friend and others, to make sure that we get it absolutely right.
  I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that there should be effective consultation. I was pleased by the examples given by my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), and by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), about changes made as a result of consultation.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman did not participate in the debate. I want to respond to important points made in the debate by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others.
  I have kept closely in touch with Postwatch and met Peter Carr, its chairman, not long before Christmas. He told me—I summarise—so far, so good, but we do need to keep a close eye on how the process develops.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Dundee, East for recognising the need for rationalisation. I completely agree that if two post offices less than half a mile apart were closed at the same time, that would get around the requirement not to shut down post offices in disadvantaged areas. Such an approach is clearly unacceptable and I know that the Post Office has taken that on board. However, I make the point that it is not possible to take through a programme of this kind without causing some inconvenience.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said that it is extremely difficult to get a Post Office card account, but 62 per cent of pensioners are requesting and getting card accounts, so the evidence on the ground is that the impossible hurdles that the hon. Gentleman described do not exist. Interestingly, much smaller proportions of those receiving incapacity benefit, jobseeker's allowance and carers' benefits have opted for Post Office card accounts—which illustrates that the Post Office has been locked into a reducing number of customers. It needs in future to attract and serve a much

  781
  larger number of customers—including many like me, who did not use post offices in the past. Thanks to the half billion pounds of investment in computerisation in particular, that is the prospect ahead.
  The contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was helpful in many ways. I am glad that the Post Office is considering the alternatives that he proposed. He was right to note that the policy of the previous Government, of simply neglecting the Post Office—worse, using it as a cash cow—is at the heart of many of the problems that the network faces.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) referred to the difficulties experienced with Safeway. I am grateful to him for drawing that point to my attention. I understood that Safeway decided that it did not want to have a post office in the store, but that confusion arose because signatures for a petition against the closure of the post office were collected in the store, even though the closure was Safeway's idea.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 326.

  Division No. 28]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chidgey, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bacon, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Collins, Tim

  Barker, Gregory

  Conway, Derek

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Barrett, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Curry, rh David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stampford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brady, Graham

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Brazier, Julian

  Doughty, Sue

  Breed, Colin

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burstow, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fallon, Michael

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Flight, Howard

  Cameron, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Campell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  782

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Page, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, rh Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Goodman, Paul

  Randall, John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Redwood, rh John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gummer, rh John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Hague, rh William

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hammond, Philip

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hancock, Mike

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heath, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hendry, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

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

  Holmes, Paul

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Keetch, Paul

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lamb, Norman

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Teather, Sarah

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Leigh, Edward,

  Thurso, John

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Trend, Michael

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maples, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Mates, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Willis, Phil

  Mercer, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Norman, Archie

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Angela Watkinson and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Mark Field

  783

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  David, Wayne

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Austin, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Baird, Vera

  Denham, rh John

  Banks, Tony

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barnes, Harry

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Battle, John

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beard, Nigel

  Doran, Frank

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Best, Harold

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Browne, Desmond

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bryant, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burnham, Andy

  Goggins, Paul

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, rh Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heyes, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Noon, rh Geoffrey

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  784

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miliband, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Illsley, Eric

  Mole, Chris

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Moran, Margaret

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jamieson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Olner, Bill

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Organ, Diana

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Owen, Albert

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kidney, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Perham, Linda

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Picking, Anne

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prescott, rh John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Lepper, David

  Purnell, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Linton, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Short, rh Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Southworth, Helen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Straw, rh Jack

  785

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Watts, David

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wills, Michael

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Woodward, Shaun

  Truswell, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kempton)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  Ward, Claire

  Charlotte Atkins

  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 322, Noes 203.

  Division No. 29]

  [7:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Burden, Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Burgon, Colin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Burnham, Andy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Cairns, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Casale, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caton, Martin

  Austin, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chaytor, David

  Baird, Vera

  Clapham, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coleman, Iain

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Colman, Tony

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Best, Harold

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blackman, Liz

  Corston, Jean

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cruddas, Jon

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cummings, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  David, Wayne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davidson, Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  786

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, rh John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Etherington, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Flint, Caroline

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gardiner, Barry

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDougall, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Healey, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hendrick, Mark

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heyes, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miliband, David

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hutton, rh John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mole, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Moran, Margaret

  787

  Morgan, Julie

  Southworth, Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Straw, rh Jack

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Organ, Diana

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Perham, Linda

  Tipping, Paddy

  Picking, Anne

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, rh John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Purnell, James

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Ward, Claire

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sawford, Phil

  Woolas, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Short, rh Clare

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Soley, Clive

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Brady, Graham

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Breed, Colin

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Bacon, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Barker, Gregory

  Burstow, Paul

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cameron, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Bercow, John

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cash, William

  788

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lamb, Norman

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Collins, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cotter, Brian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Curry, rh David

  Loughton, Tim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maples, John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Doughty, Sue

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Moore, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Forth, rh Eric

  Osborne, George (Tattoon)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Page, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Redwood, rh John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'biy)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Gummer, rh John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hague, rh William

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hammond, Philip

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Ruffley, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  Selous, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hermon, Lady

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

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

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Holmes, Paul

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Keetch, Paul

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Teather, Sarah

  789

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Willetts, David

  Thurso, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Trend, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Wilshire, David

  Tyre, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Weir, Michael

  Young, rh Sir GeorgeYeo

  Whittingdale, John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Bill

  Angela Watkinson and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Mark Field

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government for its commitment to modernise and invest in the national network of post offices while keeping them easily accessible to all customers; notes that the choice of account for customers into which they wish their benefits paid is entirely a matter for the customer concerned and congratulates the Government on ensuring that all the necessary information is available to customers to make an informed choice; applauds the Government's £2 billion investment in the Post Office network and its success in reducing the rate of rural post office closures; notes the Post Office's commitment to ensuring that 95 per cent. of the urban population live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile, and that honourable Members are consulted on proposed closures as part of an agreed process between the Post Office and Postwatch; further notes that 3,500 post offices closed under the previous administration; and condemns those who seek to undermine confidence in Britain's postal services.

  PETITION

    Council Tax (Hastings and Rye)
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Following a 20 per cent. increase in this year's council tax bill, some 10,000 of my constituents in Hastings and Rye consider that enough is enough and have signed a petition, which I fully support, bringing attention to the need to restrict future such unaffordable rises.
    The petition states:
    The petition of Bob Harris and others
    Declares that repeated inflationary rises in council tax in Hastings, a town considered one of the most deprived in the country, have caused a great deal of misery not only to pensioners but young marrieds too.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to reduce increases in future years at least in line with inflation and incomes.
    And the petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Anti-malarial Treatments
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: Research and development into anti-malarial treatment could he thought esoteric. However, malaria kills more than 1 million people each year, and with global warming its reach will soon cover Europe and the United Kingdom. The Select Committee on Science and Technology has just commenced a major piece of work on science and UK international development policy. At its first hearing yesterday, the Department for International Development helpfully tabled a memorandum that I used for this speech.
  In my Putney constituency is Ronald Ross primary school—an excellent school that is doing very good work. I particularly praise the head teacher, Gillian Baker, and Mr. Fred Shaub, who has been a teacher there for 30 years and who in May 2003 won a lifetime teaching award in London. The school is named after Sir Ronald Ross, who lived in Putney and in 1896 demonstrated the life cycle of the parasite of malaria in mosquitoes. He was awarded a Nobel prize in 1902 and his groundbreaking work is still an inspiration to the children of Putney. The Ross Institute of Tropical Diseases, where he did his work, was for many years situated at the corner of West Hill and Putney heath. He discovered that the malaria disease cycle is dependent on transmission between people by mosquitoes. A single bite from an infected mosquito can lead to malaria. Following the bite, the parasite travels to the liver within 30 minutes and starts to reproduce rapidly. The process can take five to 16 days, but some parasites lie dormant in the liver and may only become active years later. The symptoms of malaria may include fever, shivering, headaches, repeated vomiting, diarrhoea, generalised convulsions, pain of the joints and backache.
  With regard to the epidemiology of malaria, approximately 40 per cent. of the world's population, mostly those living in the world's poorest countries, are at risk of the disease. High-risk areas include large parts of central and south America, Africa, the Indian sub-continent, south-east Asia, the middle east and Oceania. Worldwide, the World Health Organisation has estimated that there are between 300 million and 500 million malaria cases annually, directly causing more than 1 million deaths and contributing to a further 1.7 million. Malaria kills one child every 30 seconds, and many children who survive malaria suffer from learning impairments or brain damage. Approximately 30,000 European and north American travellers contract malaria annually. On average, for every 2,500 travellers staying in west Africa, 60 contract malaria and one person dies of the disease.
  In Africa alone, malaria represents 10 per cent. of the continent's overall disease burden. When I worked in west Africa in the 1960s, I was expected to retire at 29—so ill did almost all "coasters", as those who worked on the west coast of Africa were called, become. Hundreds of millions of African children and adults are chronically infected with malaria. Between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of in-patient admissions and 50 per cent. of out-patient visits are attributed to malaria each year. The vast majority of malaria deaths occur in Africa, south of the Sahara.

  791
  In Africa today, malaria is understood to be both a disease of poverty and a cause of poverty. Annual economic growth in countries with high malaria transmission has historically been lower than in countries without malaria. Economists believe that malaria is responsible for a growth penalty of up to 1.3 per cent. per year in many African countries. When compounded over the years, that penalty leads to substantial differences in gross domestic product—amounting to a total of $12 billion a year—between countries with or without malaria, and it severely restrains the economic growth of the entire region. Malaria also has a direct impact on Africa's human resources. It not only results in lost life, and lost productivity as a result of illness and premature death, but hampers children's schooling and social development through absenteeism and permanent neurological and other damage associated with severe episodes of the disease.
  This problem requires treatment, but at the moment the treatment of malaria in Africa is an unmet need. In many areas of the world, the recommended first-line therapy for oral treatment is chloroquine. Resistance to chloroquine is now common across most of sub-Saharan Africa. Sulfadoxine-pyramethamine, the commonly-used alternative to chloroquine, now does not work in the east and central areas of the continent. There is no vaccine for malaria and none is likely in the near future. That is why drugs are so important.
  I shall mention a specific success in research and development before going on to discuss the wider situation. Since 1999, GlaxoSmithKline, DFID and other partners have developed the drug, Lapdap, which will be a valuable addition to the armamentarium of anti-malarial drugs used in sub-Saharan Africa. Lapdap was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on 6 August last year—an excellent example of public-private partnership for the benefit of the world. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on progress in the production and distribution of Lapdap.
  The new big development is the Medicines for Malaria Venture, which was created in 1999 by the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, bilateral donor Governments and leading foundations to replenish and sustain the global pipeline of new anti-malarial drugs. After four years, MMV has established more than 20 individual pharmaceutical discovery and development projects, now comprising the largest coordinated and managed anti-malarial research and development portfolio in history. Contractual partners in MMV's projects include 42 leading-edge research entities across the globe. In 2002, WHO described MMV as
  "the premier public-private partnership for developing new malaria drugs."
  Since its inception, MMV has received pledges of more than $97 million in funding from nine philanthropic and public sector donors, conditional on performance against an agreed business plan. However, the most recent business plan for MMV predicts that an additional $80 million is needed by 2007 and if the portfolio continues to expand, even more funds will be needed. Conversely, lower funding will slow progress significantly. I pay particular tribute to the Gates Foundation, among others, which provided the largest proportion of MMV funds to date.
  792
  Although the Governments of Switzerland, the Netherlands and, I am glad to say, the United Kingdom contributed to MMV from the outset, the resurgence of malaria requires effective engagement by other bilateral agencies from significant donor nations. Will the Minister update hon. Members about the level of support from the Department for International Development and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to MMV?
  MMV practises "virtual" research and development; it funds and manages its portfolio, but academic and pharmaceutical partners, located throughout the world, conduct the physical research and development. Current examples of success are nine projects in the pre-clinical phase that create a solid basis for at least one new drug registration for 2010. Unless there are unforeseen technical difficulties, paediatric Coartem could be registered before 2007 and the next generation of artemesinin-like peroxides could be registered before 2009. Four projects are based on combination drugs and a further nine projects involve completely new therapeutic targets. They should result in drugs with no initial selected resistance to the parasite. Perhaps the Minister can provide updated information.
  Treatment costs are a major hurdle, which often inhibits prompt access to anti-malarials. MMV has therefore made developing drugs with the lowest possible intrinsic costs a priority, partly by focusing manufacture in low-cost regions such as India and China. MMV is keen for the Department for International Development to join discussions on the way forward.
  That brings me to the Department's memorandum to the Select Committee on Science on Technology yesterday. It is not specific to anti-malarial research and development and I should welcome a breakdown of the figures to show the Department's efforts in that field. Members of the Select Committee expressed anxiety that untying the Department's research and development budget disadvantaged UK research foundations. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. Of course, I welcome the Medical Research Council-DFID concordat, with a DFID contribution of £4 million.
  I note that DFID has 474 professional staff acquiring and using science. How many specialise in research and development on anti-malarials? The Cochrane collaboration, which reviews existing research, has had success. Is DFID widening its scope to ensure that researchers are not reinventing the wheel?
  My eminent and hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), in his role as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, is arranging meetings with DFID and MMV next week. I look forward to hearing from him and the Minister about major new initiatives.
  However, any research and development initiatives must be owned by the countries that face the scourge. Growing political commitment by African leaders to action on malaria was given a boost by the funding of the global Roll Back Malaria Partnership in 1998. Considerable progress has been made. Almost 20 African countries have reduced or eliminated taxes and tariffs on insecticide-treated nets to make them more affordable. More than half the malaria-endemic African

  793
  countries, representing almost half the population at risk, have established country strategy plans to achieve the Roll Back Malaria goal and the targets that have been set.
  However, given the projected resources needed by 2010, only 20 per cent. of the necessary funds will be available locally and help is needed. Is DFID planning to help?
  The work is going forward under the MMV, but what is needed to ensure that proper levels of research and development are devoted to anti-malarials? The excellent work of Médecins sans Frontières, "Fatal Imbalance: the Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for Neglected Diseases",makes the following recommendations for moving forward.
  First, it states that the World Health Organisation should lead the process. A critical next step is for Governments and international organisations to establish carefully how they can contribute to dislodging the bottlenecks that currently restrict the development of new treatments.
  Secondly, there is the question of legal obligations. Governments can—and do—mandate industry spending in a wide range of areas. One example of a potential mandate would be an essential research obligation. Companies would be required to reinvest a percentage of pharmaceutical sales into research and development for neglected diseases, either directly or through public R and D.
  Thirdly, existing estimates about the costs of drug R and D vary widely, and remain highly controversial. To address the R and D imbalance effectively and make informed funding decisions, policy makers need objective and accurate figures on the true cost of developing drugs.
  Fourthly, equitable access to medicines in developing countries should be a basic principle that guides policy initiatives from the start. If public funds are to be invested in correcting market failures in drug development, there must be guarantees that the new medicines developed can be afforded by those who need them. I welcome the Minister's comments on all those recommendations.
  I started this speech by making a link with the work of Sir Ronald Ross and the Ross institute in Putney. I want to return to south-west London, as St. George's medical school is situated in Tooting, on the border of my constituency. Ross's work is continued there by Professor Sanjeev Khrishna, professor of molecular parasitology and medicine, and his colleagues. Their work on artemisinins is ground-breaking in establishing the next drugs round. I am told that we are now in the position to start anticipating how parasites will try to change to become resistant to drugs. Now that we know what to look for, this is a very exciting discovery.
  I have one last concern. Putney is one of the three constituencies forming the London borough of Wandsworth. Research by Williams and others, published in "Archives of Disease in Childhood 2002", investigated all cases of childhood malaria reported at St George's hospital in Tooting. All families were interviewed, and details of the illness, and of reasons for travel, risk factors and prophylaxis, were recorded using a questionnaire.
  794
  Between 1975 and 1999, 249 children were diagnosed as having malaria. Only 41 per cent. of the children resident in the UK had taken anti-malarials and, worryingly, the overall number of symptomatic children taking no prophylaxis has increased over the past 25 years. The researchers stated:
  "It is our experience that families"
  that originate from endemic areas
  "regard their children as being 'immune' to malaria, despite them being brought up in the UK. The increasing number of cases remains of great concern."
  St George's hospital in Tooting—that is, just one hospital in the UK—now deals with about 100 cases of malaria a year, some of which are severe. Thus there is a worrying trend, as the research conducted over a 25-year period shows. Yet anti-malarial drugs are not paid for by the NHS. They are therefore not free at time of need to my constituents.
  All too often, travellers to malaria-endemic areas take either the cheapest drugs, or none at all. They are also not as aware as they should be of the dangers. The net result is that NHS costs go up, with more cases each year that are expensive to treat. Surely not providing anti-malarials on the NHS is in the end a false economy? At the very least, a cost-benefit analysis should be done.
  I believe that early diagnosis is the key. There is a need to raise awareness among the following groups of people. The first group comprises travellers, both as individuals and as travel-industry consumers. Airlines are getting better at promoting the issues, but I suspect that the travel industry in general is shy of pushing the issue, as to do so might put people off travelling to and taking holidays in malaria-endemic areas.
  The second group among whom awareness should be raised is general practitioners. They should begin by providing publicity in their surgeries about malaria and its prevalence, and also pick up cases quickly from UK citizens returning from abroad. To that end, GPs must be trained recognise the symptoms.
  I have ranged from Putney, gone around the world, and returned to Putney in an attempt to persuade the Minister to invest more in research and development in anti-malarials. Ultimately it is an equality issue. Infectious and parasitic diseases such as malaria account for 25 per cent. of the disease burden in low-and middle-income countries, compared to only 3 per cent. in high-income countries. According to the World Bank, eliminating communicable diseases would almost completely level the mortality gap between the richest 20 per cent. of the world's population and the poorest 20 per cent. We must close that gap, and do it permanently. We must not lose this opportunity.
  7.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous member of the International Development Committee and is also assiduous in promoting the interests of his constituents and of those who serve his constituents. In that sense, I, too, want to congratulate Professor Khrishna of St. George's hospital, and the team who work with him, on their recent success in identifying how artemisinin works.

  795
  Scientists have been trying to understand that since the 1970s, so the breakthrough of Professor Khrishna's team is particularly significant. As my hon. Friend mentioned, following their breakthrough, the team are now looking at how they can take forward their research to improve the treatment of malaria, to look at other drugs, and to anticipate how resistance to malaria develops.
  My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that, despite more than 50 years of malaria control programmes, millions of people, particularly children, still die from it. It kills more than 3,000 children per day—more than 1 million per year—and 90 per cent. of those dying are in Africa. The millennium development goals represent a shared global ambition to address such challenges and to improve the well-being and life chances of the world's poorest citizens. My hon. Friend will know that the sixth of those millennium development goals is that by 2015 we should have halted and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and the incidence of malaria and other major diseases. He will also know that the fourth goal contains a target to reduce the under-five mortality rate by two thirds between 1990 and 2015. Alongside the target to reduce maternal mortality, that is the one that is proving hardest to achieve.
  On current trends, sub-Saharan Africa will not meet its poverty or its health millennium development goal targets, with deaths from malaria playing a huge part in that. With up to 80 per cent. resistance in some parts of Africa to chloroquine, the most widely available cheap anti-malarial drug, new approaches are needed, and they are needed fast. In addition to the wider use of insecticide-treated bed nets, new approaches to preventing death from malaria may have the single biggest impact in preventing unnecessary deaths. Other big improvements would come from routine immunisation and the introduction of new vaccines, but as my hon. Friend said, a new vaccine for malaria is still many years away. Therefore, new, good quality medicines are needed, which are accessible by poor people at affordable prices.
  The Government take that challenge particularly seriously. Following the May 2001 performance and innovation unit report on tackling diseases of poverty, the Prime Minister convened a high-level working group on increasing access to essential medicines in the developing world, which was chaired by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). Reporting in November 2002, the group recommended that the Government should consider policies to increase the level of UK research and development on essential medicines for poor people in the developing world.
  To take that work further forward, my Department has established a dedicated team of officials to work on access to medicines. It is also a key priority for other staff in my Department, not least our international policy department, and crucially, given the focus of my hon. Friend's debate, our research department. Given the obvious interest of other Departments across Whitehall, we work closely on this issue with the Treasury, the Department of Health, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Patent Office.
  At a global level, there have been some recent international successes—for example, at the G8 summit in Evian in 2003. As with many diseases that primarily
  796
  affect poor people in developing countries, however, research and development on malaria suffers from more structural problems, as an insufficiently valuable market exists to attract private sector companies to undertake research. Although there is a so-called travellers market for anti-malarials, it is too small to offset the larger investments that are needed to bring a new drug to market: typically, we estimate that an investment of $200 million to $300 million is required to bring new drugs to market.
  Clearly, that leaves a variety of public policy options for the Government to adopt to speed up the process of developing new anti-malarial treatments. They range across advocacy on the need for new and better medicines, strongly co-ordinated international strategy and policy on the need for pro-poor research investments, direct investment in research and development, and effective measures to create greater demand for the new drugs so that an incentive is created for the private sector to invest.
  My Department already has a portfolio of work supporting malaria research and development. We are prioritising our research efforts as we review our strategy to address the millennium development goals in our new central research strategy, which is due to be announced in the first quarter of this year. Malaria and anti-malarial work will be a focus of that strategy.
  We always seek to promote an internationally coherent approach. We were instrumental in establishing the Roll Back Malaria Partnership to secure global steerage. My Department has given the partnership some £48 million over four years, and we have inputs into its strategy in order to develop an effective relationship between the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, the global fund and the World Health Organisation, as well as the other research agencies, academia, private sector groups, foundations and so forth with which the partnership works.
  We firmly believe that there should be a strong relationship between poverty-focused control activities and poverty-focused research and development strategies. My hon. Friend mentioned the link between the two.
  We make direct investments in research and development that benefit malaria treatment in several ways. Each year we give some £4 million to the Medical Research Council, in a concordat that prioritises the needs of developing countries in the research selection process. Within the overall MRC portfolio, the focus on basic clinical research that can be used to identify new drug candidates includes malaria.
  The Department also has experience of engaging more directly in partnerships with industry to take the kind of research produced by the MRC and turn it into drugs that can be used where they are needed most. Most recently we have formed a partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, the WHO programme on tropical diseases research and Liverpool university to develop a cheap new drug called Lapdap, which my hon. Friend mentioned. To ensure the best possible use of that drug, further research to combine it with another drug to protect against early resistance is being undertaken, managed under an umbrella organisation called the Medicines for Malaria Venture, which my hon. Friend also mentioned and which my Department supports.

  797
  MMV is an important and innovative organisation, which brings together collaborators from the public and private sectors and from foundations to solve the market failure problem that I described earlier. It adopts a new approach to drug development, which creates a virtual process of research and development, and manages intellectual property in favour of developing countries. Since its inception in 1999, it has demonstrated significant progress towards reaching its objective of two new drugs in the next two years. My hon. Friend asked about the resources that my Department is giving to MMV. I can confirm that we are committed to giving it some £5 million over five years.
  I mentioned the review of our research strategy; it is worth reminding the House of that. The most expensive phase of drug development is large-scale field trials in humans—phase 3 trials. To raise public finance to support those trials the Government, led by the MRC, are a contributing partner in the new European venture called the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. Launched in mid-2003, the partnership brings together EU member states, developing countries, other donors and the industry. It is one of the main achievements of the European programme for action on HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and is the largest programme of clinical trials ever targeted on Africa. I think it is a powerful example of the co-operation that can be achieved through the European Union.
  Once new drugs are available, it is important to monitor their uptake in target populations. My Department has two programmes that undertake applied and operational research on malaria in African, Asian and Latin American countries. Those focus on making sure that medicines work as they are intended to in real-life situations in developing countries, as well as investigating aspects such as compliance. That is in order to turn the availability of medicines into true access and true health gain in the countries that need it most.
  The Government are also using other more indirect methods to stimulate research, such as contributing to the global fund for HIV, TB and malaria. Global funds help to stimulate research by creating a "pull effect". They pull new research into being by guaranteeing larger amounts of finance to procure new medicines when they are developed.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that the Government are implementing the research and development tax credits that were announced in the
  798
  2002 Budget. That special tax relief for companies developing drugs and medicines for TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS applies to all expenditure incurred on or after 22 April last year. As companies make claims when they complete their tax returns, they will have up to 12 months after the end of the accounting period in question to claim the tax credit. We are monitoring how successful the tax credit is in stimulating research and development into drugs for malaria, which obviously helps those most in need—in this case, the poorest in Africa, where malaria is most prevalent.
  My hon. Friend alluded to specific issues, such as the prevention and treatment of malaria in the UK. He is right to point out that the NHS does not cover the costs of preventive anti-malarials, impregnated bed nets, sprays or drugs, because the mosquitoes that transmit the disease are not endemic in the UK. A person infected overseas is not, on return, infectious, so there is no public health risk. The NHS does cover the cost of care and treatment for those infected once they are at home. In comparison, the Department of Health pays for hepatitis A, polio, tetanus and typhoid, which are much more infectious when people return.
  The Government also take action to try to make people aware of the risks of malaria by providing accurate and up-to-date travel advice. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a section on its website for advice "before you go", which includes travel tips and health advice. The health section advises foreign travellers to access the Department of Health website and provides a direct link to the correct site for advice on malaria. That advice provides a list of countries where malaria is endemic, offers guidance on how to protect against malaria and on the value of discussing anti-malarial measures with doctors and encourages people to seek medical attention immediately if they feel feverish while abroad or for up to three months after their return. Travel agencies in the UK are also obliged to give advice to travellers. The Association of British Travel Agents also provides a telephone hotline service. My hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done, as we cannot relax simply because we advise people to take the appropriate precautions. The debate is helpful in stimulating awareness in that respect.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on raising this matter. I know that he will continue to return to it in the coming months. I look forward to debating with him and discussing with other interested colleagues what further action we can take to make the treatment of malaria and prevention of its spread more achievable.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Fisheries Council
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: When I was thinking before Christmas about applying for a useful debate in Westminster Hall about the fishing industry, I intended to consider its long-term future. I expected major parts of the fishing industry to be in calmer waters after the meeting of the European Council and that we would have the opportunity to take a longer-term perspective. However, events have moved on. The outcome of the Fisheries Council was so grave for the white-fish industry in Scotland that I will concentrate on the implications of what happened at that meeting in December.
If we believe the Minister—and the initial reaction, at least, of his Scottish counterpart—the United Kingdom secured a negotiating triumph. The Minister returned from the meeting covered in glory to tell a grateful fishing population that quotas had increased. It was our first victory after a series of reversals at the Fisheries Council. Unfortunately, the reality is very different. In an exchange with him last Thursday, he repeated that view. He cited two respected leaders of the industry: Alex Smith, president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and John Patterson, the chief executive of the Peterhead harbour board in my constituency. He said that someone from my constituency had expressed broad approval for the deal that the United Kingdom won. Unfortunately for him, the press contacted those gentlemen to ask them their views about being cited by the Minister. The Press & Journal (Aberdeen) of last Friday stated:
"Scottish fishing industry leaders reacted furiously last night to a claim by UK Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw that they applauded the deal he secured in Brussels."
It reports both Mr. Smith and Mr. Patterson saying that the Minister quoted them out of context. They welcomed the increase in quotas, but their balanced view about the deal was that it was utterly unworkable and disastrous.
The fishing industry is not made up of a huge number of people; it is much like a village society. It is possible for a Minister in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom to contact the major figures in the industry, but such contacts should not be bandied about across the Dispatch Box, as so and so from the CBI or so and so from the TUC are sometimes cited. It is easy to contact the leaders in the industry, so it is impossible for a Minister not to know the feelings of the industry about the deal that was secured. It is therefore extraordinary that he should cite people in the industry as saying something that they clearly and obviously do not believe. That does not do him any credit. It certainly does our debates no credit. The leaders are not
188WH
politicians; they should not be used in party political banter. They are trying to do their best for their communities and the industry, and they deserve to be treated with respect and to be taken seriously.
We must first establish today whether the Minister believes that the view of the fishing industry in Scotland is as he said it was on Thursday. If he does so, he is living in some parallel universe—unlike the rest of us—in which, despite grave fears for the future, everyone says what a marvellous job he has done. I am not just talking about the two gentlemen to whom I have referred. I have a collection of 12 quotations of people in the industry in Scotland. It shows the real view of the disastrous outcome of the December negotiations, and one that is held throughout the Scottish industry.
Alex Smith, who according to the Minister was in favour of the proposals, said:
"This is not feasible at all, it is totally unmanageable".
Hamish Morrison, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, stated:
"This agreement becomes ever more curious the more you look at it. It is fundamentally flawed".
Mike Park, the chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said:
"This is a black day for the industry…There is no logic in this."
That view has been repeated by all the industry's representative bodies, across the spectrum. The only congratulation that the Minister deserves is on uniting the industry. It is his misfortune that he has united the industry in Scotland against him. That is the only impact that he has had.
The views of the producer associations, whose members have to implement what Ministers agree in European Councils, are even more interesting than those of the industry's political representatives—the voice to Ministers. Yesterday, I asked all the fisheries producers organisations in Scotland to give me a one-sentence view of what they think of the outcome for the white-fish fleet of the December negotiations. Gary Masson, the chief executive of the Northern PO, said:
"This deal is totally unworkable!"
Mark Dougal, the chief executive of the North East of Scotland FPO said:
"Due to the confusing 'permit' system, we view the 2004 Haddock quota as unmanageable."
Robert Stevenson, the chief executive of the West of Scotland FPO, said:
"'A good deal', 'A successful outcome'?—nothing could be further from the truth".
Alan Coghill, the chief executive of the Orkney FPO, said:
"The December Council outcome was an utter disaster for Scottish Fishermen".
David Herriot, the chief executive of the Anglo Scottish FPO, said:
"The whitefish sector must have additional days".
Finally, Hamish Gordon, the chief executive of the PO in Aberdeen, said:
"Only 15 days a month with, in effect, a reduced Haddock quota in prolific Haddock areas with a restrictive permit system is uneconomic, unviable and unworkable."

189WH
Those are the real views of the industry—the very industry that, last Thursday, the Minister tried to tell us was hailing his achievements in Brussels as a negotiating triumph.
My first question for the Minister is whether he accepts that those are the real views of the industry. Does he accept that there are grave misgivings about the deal that he has secured—that the key players in the industry, and particularly the people who have to work with the deal, regard it as an unmanageable disaster?
Such a view is shared not only by the POs and the fishermen. John Hermse of the Scottish Fishing Services Association of onshore businesses—the harbour businesses, which are the lifeblood of our communities—said:
"This is the final straw which could break the back of the white fish industry, onshore and offishore."
Robert Milne of the Scottish Fish Merchants Federation said:
"We welcome the additional quota but we have mounting concerns about the impact of the regulations attached to this deal."
People have now realised the impact of the regulations.
Last. Thursday, while the Minister was lauding the deal, the Scottish First Minister, Jack McConnell, had to apologise to the Scottish Parliament for misrepresenting it. Given the spin that the Minister tried to put on the deal, it is hardly surprising that people initially thought that the increased quota was welcome. Immediately one looks at the regulations, however, one sees how unworkable the outcome is. When we consider that, some weeks after the Council, the First Minister of Scotland does not understand things and has to apologise to the Scottish Parliament for misrepresenting the deal—presumably because he was misinformed by his officials—the extent of the difficulties that the Minister has created for the fishing industry become apparent.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deal could create huge difficulties for people in the onshore fish-processing industry, many of whom—as in my constituency—rely on Scottish-caught haddock? Although there is an increased quota, there is no way that the fishermen can catch that amount in the days that have been allocated to them.
Mr. Salmond: That is one of the key problems, which I will address. We must try to explain to the Minister—explanation is obviously necessary—what his Scottish counterpart described last Thursday as the "unintended consequences", which require "tidying up" if the deal is to be made effective.
I mentioned Ross Finnie, the Scottish Fishing Minister. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties wish him well for the surgery that he is about to undergo. What happened after a meeting that he attended last Thursday was interesting—and perhaps shows his honesty. I understand that he was told not only by the fishing organisations but by Iain MacSween of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, which is one of the biggest producer organisations, that the impact of the deal would be the closure of the haddock fishery,
190WH
perhaps as early as April or May, in the key haddock fishing grounds. That is when Ross Finnie came face to face with the reality of the deal that he and the Minister agreed last month in Brussels. My second question is therefore whether the Minister accepts the view of his Scottish colleague—his co-negotiator—that there are "unintended consequences" of the deal that require fixing quickly.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on securing this debate, and on his speech so far. Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that the latest deal has nothing to do with conservation—which we are always told is the reason for such things—but everything to do with the politics of the treaty, particularly concerning equal access to a common resource? The deal will almost wipe out the Scottish white-fish industry. It has been devastated, and it will continue to be so.
Mr. Salmond: Interestingly, I understand that at last Thursday's meeting Ross Finnie also acknowledged that he expected that another 40 per cent. of the Scottish white-fish fleet might need to be taken out of the industry. The fleet has already been reduced by 50 per cent. over the past three years. Are those responsible for the "negotiating triumph" anticipating a further reduction of 40 per cent. in the white-fish fleet? If we have any more triumphs such as the one last month, there will be no industry left in Scotland or elsewhere.
The Minister's argument last Thursday—apart from the claim that the deal was a success and his citing of industry leaders—was that the deal that he had negotiated was based on the fishermen's proposals. I want to examine whether that claim was true. I have brought along the maps, because such things must be explained in terms of areas.
The map that I am holding shows the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposal for the cod area in the North sea. It should be in the north and east. The Minister is squinting, but he must be familiar with this map because it is based on the international groundfish survey—the bottom-trawl survey. It was also agreed at the Bergen summit by scientists, fishermen and the Commission. There is no argument that the north and east is the cod area—where the cod congregate. That area was put forward in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation spatial management proposals as the restricted cod area. The Minister is squinting again and I am not surprised, because his Department could not produce this map yesterday when it was asked to do so by my researchers. We had to rely on the fishermen themselves to produce it.
A second map shows the cod-restricted area that was agreed in December, which is not in the north and east, but sweeps into the main haddock fishing grounds in the central North sea—the Fladden grounds, which are the main areas from which haddock is taken by the Scottish fleet. They are now in a cod-restricted area from which the Scottish fleet is restricted to taking only 10,000 tonnes of haddock.
The third question for the Minister is this: where did that map come from? Given that he said that the proposals were good and that he would take them forward, how on earth did we end up negotiating at half-

191WH
past 4 or 5 o'clock on a Friday morning—whatever time it was—about putting the major haddock-fishing grounds into the cod-restricted area? Was that the Minister's idea? Was it the Scottish officials' idea? Was it the Commission's idea? Who was responsible for producing a map that makes it impossible for haddock fishery to be pursued orderly and properly?
The Minister told us as he was going to the Fisheries Council that the information from the Sea Fish Industry Authority—based on its survey of the Scottish boats in order to determine the cod by-catch in the major haddock-fishing areas—would be crucial ammunition in taking the arguments to Brussels. I remind him that the provisional results of that survey showed that in the Fladden grounds the cod by-catch for a directed haddock fishery was 2 per cent. or less. If that is so—if that was the argument that the Minister was pursuing—how on earth could he leave the Council and put the haddock-fishing grounds in the cod-restricted area?
That is the third question on which we require answers from the Minister, and it brings us to why this deal is unworkable. Not only have the major haddock grounds been put in the cod area, but the Minister has agreed that 20 per cent. of the haddock quota is to be taken in those major fishing grounds and 80 per cent. is to be placed elsewhere. Incidentally, that applies only to the UK—and therefore the Scottish fleet—and not to any other fleet in Europe.
The Minister has been on the job for six months. Some of us have been representing fishing communities for a great deal longer than that. Some of us remember what happened in 2001, when the fleet was forced into areas that are effectively nursery grounds, such as around Fair Isle up north, and inshore, off Peterhead. The impact of that, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said last Thursday, necessitates the fleet catching small haddock. Everyone agrees that there is a record stock of 450,000 tonnes of mature haddock in the North sea, but there is a worry about the year classes coming in behind that, which are not as ample or abundant. Is it logical to force the fleet in search of an additional quota into grounds where there are immature haddock and to keep it out of the major grounds containing the mature haddock? That may be an "unintended consequence" for Ross Finnie, but for most of us it is illogical, irrational and an environmental and conservation disaster. It makes no sense.
The Minister should reflect on the fact that, despite our having almost 80 per cent. of the haddock quota, the Belgians, Danes, Germans, French, Dutch, Swedes and Norwegians may take 30,000 tonnes of haddock in the major haddock-fishing ground—if the Norwegian deal is done later this week—while our fleet is restricted to 10,000 tonnes. Is that an "unintended consequence", or is it utter discrimination and disaster?
Some people say, "Okay, it seems as though the white-fish fleet is being sacrificed and reduced again, but never mind, the prawn and pelagic fleets have gained from the deal." That brings me to two more "unintended consequences". If Iain MacSween of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation is correct in saying that the 10,000-tonne quota in the major haddock area means that that fishery will close in May or June, the
192WH
prawn boats that fish it will be forced to discard their haddock by-catch after mid-year. We have a record stock of mature haddock in the North sea and the prawn boats are catching haddock as a valuable by-product of their own fishery. However, if the total haddock quota in that area is met completely by May or June, the prawn boats will have to fling that prime stock of haddock—which all of us, presumably, want to be caught—dead back into the sea.
I found out yesterday afternoon about a closed cod area off the west coast of Scotland, which I understand that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) has proposed. Of course, such areas could be part of a fishing management plan. However, the Minister and his team forgot to apply for an exemption for pelagic boats in that area, and for those pursing herring and mackerel. The mackerel are just moving into that closed area. According to the European Commission yesterday, in order to protect the cod stock the pelagic boats will not be allowed into an area that has been closed. Even the Minister must realise—even after only six months—that pelagic boats are not going to catch cod when they are fishing for mackerel. The significant mackerel fishery is to be closed to pelagic boats to protect a fish that they have no chance of catching. That is another "unintended consequence"—or perhaps a total botch-up.
Hon. Members might think that for a species under pressure, such as cod, a permit system might be devised under which people needed permission to catch it. However, the deal has devised a permanent system under which a person needs permission to catch haddock—a species that does not need protection but is in super-abundance. After reading that in the regulation, I came to the conclusion that somebody had got things the wrong way round—that there had been a transposition of words and that the document meant to suggest that people should go into the haddock area rather than a permit system that made it more difficult to pursue that fishery.
The Minister must understand that if we are trying to divert focus and effort away from precious stocks, an incentive must be provided to fish stocks that are in abundance. The plan and its "unintended consequences" do exactly the opposite. Not only does it make it difficull—perhaps impossible—to catch the full haddock quota outwith the major haddock fishing grounds, if boats are restricted to 15 days a month, their only choice in order to be viable is to catch the high-value cod species. Instead of diverting effort away from cod, the plan will divert effort into the cod fishery, which is another "unintended consequence" of the position that was agreed in Brussels.
My understanding is that the 15-days position has not been finally agreed, as has been widely claimed. What has been agreed is 10 days. The Minister—and, no doubt, the Scottish Parliament Minister—must go back and argue for the number of days fishing that the white-fish fleet in Scotland should have on the basis of the decommissioning schemes that have taken place. There is a variety of ways to make that calculation.
Over the past year, we have lost a third of our white-fish fleet through decommissioning. No one else has lost a third of their fleet; in fact, some fleets in Europe are still expanding. Last year, our white-fish fleet, which had then not been denuded by decommissioning, had 15

193WH
days. This year, the fleet, which has been reduced by a third, is still to have 15 days. What possible benefit can be ascribed to decommissioning when we end up with the same number of days to fish a quota in a fleet that has been so reduced over the past two years? We are talking not just about "unintended consequences" of the deal, but about seven deadly sins that threaten the very survival of the fishing industry.
Today's debate is well attended and I want to allow Members an opportunity to develop their points. It is tradition in fishing debates that people from a range of fishing constituencies have the opportunity to make points, particularly at a time of crisis. However, I shall first repeat some of my key points for the Minister, and ask him how on earth he intends to get us out of the total disaster for which as lead negotiator he must take prime responsibility.
First, does the Minister accept, having heard the quotations and having had the opportunity to speak to the industry, that the white-fish sector and all its representative bodies believe that the deal is unworkable and that it presents them with fundamental problems? Does he accept that the producer organisations—not political or representative organisations, but people who have to administer the deal—believe it to be unworkable? Does he accept that that is the reality for people who work in the industry, make their livelihoods from it and represent people from the industry?
Secondly, does the Minister accept the view of the Scottish Minister that there are "unintended consequences" from the agreed deal and that they must be addressed? Thirdly, does he accept that as a result of negotiations he has placed a major haddock-fishing ground in the cod-restricted area? That will cause huge problems for the fleet, and the impact will be to focus attention in the cod-restricted areas on the cod species. It will be virtually impossible to pursue a haddock fishery in any sensible or reasonable manner.
If the Minister accepts those points, will he give us an indication of the effort that he will make to prevent the situation developing into a total and utter meltdown of the Scottish white-fish fleet? If there were no fish in the sea, what is happening to the fishing industry, and particularly to the white-fish sector in Scotland, would be seen as a major misfortune, a disaster, a human tragedy. People would say that nothing could be done—that there were no fish in the sea, and that we could not sustain an industry without that resource. However, that is not the position. Levels of the prime Scottish stock—haddock—are at a 30-year high. Other stocks are in robust condition. One stock—cod—is under pressure, but numbers are improving from a low level.
How can we contemplate forecasting, and hearing a ministerial forecast of, a further 40 per cent. decline in the Scottish white-fish fleet against a background of an adequate fishery that we should be able to pursue? People are prepared to accept many things, but not a sea teeming with fish but empty of Scottish fishermen. As the lead Minister in the negotiations, the outcome is the Minister's responsibility. I challenge him to talk to industry figures, to become acquainted with their views
194WH
and familiar with the "unintended consequences" of the deal that he negotiated, and to do something about the issue.
9.56 am
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Our intention must be to ensure a long-term sustainable future for both our catching and processing industries. Obviously, we hope that the proposals that come from the No. 10 policy unit next month will make a significant contribution in providing long-term policies to ensure that. Clearly, a major aspect must be to ensure the conservation of the stocks of those fish that are under threat, and in the north of Scotland the main concern is cod stocks.
Cautiously, we could say that, in the run up to the December negotiations, the policies adopted to maintain cod stocks seemed to work to some extent; there seemed to be evidence of a partial recovery. A major part of retaining cod stocks must be reducing by-catch from other fisheries; that is a matter of common agreement, and sometimes I think that it might be a good idea if, rather than playing party political games, we looked at the matters of common agreement. It is commonly agreed by all parties in Parliament that we must reduce the effects of some of our European allies' industrial fisheries on cod stocks, particularly stocks of young fish.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, haddock stocks are so high that there is a real danger that they will predate on their own spawn. Clearly there is a reasonable case for saying that that is counter-productive, and that we should therefore look at increasing the haddock quota if that can be done without damaging cod stocks. Our industry did a good job of arguing that it was possible to fish haddock separately. It managed to give evidence that by-catch could be reduced to 3 per cent. Indeed, on one boat, in a catch of 15 tonnes of fish there was only 25 kg of cod.
It is a success for the Government and the industry that at least we have managed to get recognition of certain principles by the EU.
Mr. Weir: Given that the European Commission appears to have accepted that there is now a large stock of haddock in the North sea, what is the logic of increasing the quota but not the ability of fishermen to fish it?
Mr. Savidge: The point that I am trying to make is that we should recognise what we have gained. We gain some things in negotiations, and there are other points on which we must keep arguing. It is important that the haddock quota has been raised by 53 per cent. That is significant. Even more important, we have recognition of the possibility of designating areas and of spatial management of stocks. It was also important that we got at least a reversal of the original proposals for further reduction of days at sea.
I recognise that there are unhappinesses in the industry. There are concerns, about which we have heard a great deal, about the geographical areas designated and the remaining days at sea. It is important for the industry to continue in discussions with the Minister; there are further discussions to be had. The intelligent thing to do is to engage in intelligent, rational

195WH
discussion. One has to recognise that multilateral negotiations are difficult and that you do not get everything that you want, particularly under a system as flawed as the common fisheries policy. All parties here agree that that policy is in urgent need of reform.
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. There are a lot of "yous". "You" refers to me. It is nearly 50 years since I went baiting line haddock.
Mr. Savidge: I apologise, Mr. McWilliam.
Multilateral negotiations are difficult and it can be tempting to take the populist route and argue that we should go for unilateralism. That is what one might call the "neo-con" solution, often applied by the Bush Administration. I am disappointed, although not surprised, that under its new leader the Conservative party has proposed such a solution. That party is in effect the English national branch of the neo-cons. I am surprised that such a route should be proposed by other parties—what we might call the Scottish nationalist branch of the neo-cons.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman's speech has been remarkable, both in terms of what he has said and the smugness with which he has said it. The only way out of this awful mess is through national control. The hon. Gentleman mentioned reform of the common fisheries policy. I suggest that he does not hold his breath, because such reform would require a treaty change. Will he tell the Chamber how that could be achieved?
Mr. Savidge: I have always understood that the hon. Lady's real solution to the problem was to come out of the European Union altogether. Such a solution, I take it, is not followed by the Scottish branch.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman should not accuse people of things that they have no intention of doing. That was a slur, and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the remark immediately.
Mr. Savidge: I am happy to withdraw the remark. If the hon. Lady is telling us that she is happy to be in the European Union, I am glad to hear that. I take great joy when any sinner repenteth.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that he did not want to engage in political banter. I had to forgo all I wanted to say about the common fisheries policy so that I could address the immediate consequences of the deal. I did so because unless we settle the short term, there will be no long term to argue about—there will be no fleet. If the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid party political banter, he can do us the courtesy of trying to say what he thinks about the deal and what he thinks should be done about it.
Mr. Savidge: I have already said that we should be engaging in intelligent discussion with the industry and the Government. However, the hon. Gentleman's party seems to have taken a position of neo-con unilateralism recently. I find that strange because such thinking is a significant contribution to the problem. It is because the Bush Administration refused to engage themselves at Kyoto that we have an increasing problem of global
196WH
warming. Such thinking is by common agreement part of the cause of the problem, and it could undermine all the conservation efforts.
The English neo-cons said in the debate on 9 December that they had a simpler solution.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am sorry, but no Opposition Member has a clue about what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He will have to tell us what neo-con unilateralism is—if he can do so briefly.
Mr. Savidge: I apologise: I was not aware that members of the Liberal party were so ill informed about current international politics. I was using "neo-cons" to refer to the unilateralist policies being adopted by the Bush Administration. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has heard of Kyoto.
In the debate on 9 December, the Conservative spokesman proposed that we should go for something much simpler than multilateral negotiations and said that it would be much simpler to have multiple bilateral negotiations. I used to be a maths teacher, and my understanding is that, if there are 10 European maritime nations, 45 different negotiations would be involved. His concept of "simpler", and of maths, is somewhat different from that of most of us.
The Scottish National party always criticises concessions made in international negotiations, as we have seen today. It does so from a position of immense experience. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan stressed his experience, but one should remember precisely how much experience the SNP has of being in government, or being involved in intergovernmental negotiations. I believe that the hon. Gentleman cares about the fishing industry, but when he stirs up some of his stories there are times when I wonder whether he is concerned about conserving the position of the SNP, because it is now threatened by a number of fishing candidates. Those candidates were initially stirred up by false expectations of what could be achieved, which the party tends to raise.
Internationalism is better than unilateralism or so-called bilateralism. Apart from anything else, fish do not respect international and national boundaries. However, internationalism should be coupled with proper subsidiarity, which is why it is great that we are stressing that regional advisory committees should gain increasing influence. In our international effort, it is vital that we continue to strengthen monitoring and enforcement, and it is right that the Government are increasing satellite tracking. Satellite tracking should be seen as the fisherman's friend. There has been much talk about black fishing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the various stories that have been raised, the situation must be dangerous. If there is a suspicion that people are cheating, it encourages cheating among others. It is vital that we ensure that the measures finally agreed are stuck to rigidly.
The UK's major contribution to international conservation has been made by decommissioning, and I want to conclude by commenting on that. It is perfectly correct of the industry to say that, since the British fishing industry and the British taxpayer have borne that burden, it is proper that the British quota of fish should

197WH
be retained for the remaining British fleet. I make one particular plea in relation to decommissioning the fleet and rationalising and restructuring the processing industry. We should learn the lesson from the Icelandic cod war compensation, when this Government compensated people for the mistake of previous Governments, as in so many instances. We should ensure not only that there is proper compensation for skippers, owners and employers, but that we look after employees and their needs properly.
I am not just talking about compensation. Let us consider the Aberdeen processing industry. Although some of the people working in that industry are short-term migrant workers, a disproportionately high number of local employees come from socially deprived and socially excluded groups. It is important that we ensure that there is not just compensation, but a proper focus on redeployment for those leaving the industry and proper training for those remaining in it. For example, in the north of Scotland there is a need for further training in areas such as filleting.
We should seek to retain those things that are of the highest standard, as far as processing and the fleet are concerned. In particular, safety should be a key priority. Last year eight people lost their lives; that is still far too high and far too tragic a toll. The best memorial that we can possibly make to those who have lost their lives in the fishing industry is to seek to do more to ensure that that tragic toll is reduced.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. I have no power to impose time limits, but will Members please be aware that the point of an Adjournment debate is to provide the Minister with sufficient time to answer the Member who initiated the debate?
10.11 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I shall certainly bear your strictures in mind, Mr. McWilliam.
There was much in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that would make for interesting debates on different days, but it did not relate to the deal that was struck at last month's Council. I will leave the part of his speech that I could understand for another day. We can discuss it then.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate. It is exceptionally timely. At the start of his speech, he said that he wanted to establish what happened at December's Fisheries Council. I am not as ambitious as the hon. Gentleman. In the time available to me, I merely hope to examine a few issues that are most pertinent to the fishing communities in my constituency and to explore with the Minister where we can go from here.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan concerning my colleague Ross Finney in the Scottish Parliament. I was exceptionally worried and upset to hear last week that he was going to require heart bypass surgery. I am sure
198WH
that everyone, both here and in the Scottish Parliament, sends Ross and Phyl Finney their best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
Whatever the reaction elsewhere in the country, there has been little doubt that the fishermen's organisations in my constituency view the deal as a very bad one. Everywhere I go, the word I hear is "unworkable". Hansen Black, the chief executive of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, said that it was
"a complete and utter disaster for us…We would rather have had the status quo from last year."
Given the reaction of his organisation to last year's deal, that is a remarkable statement. Alan Coghill of the Orkney Fisheries Association described it to me as having been written by regulators who have
"no knowledge of the conditions at sea."
There is an important point to make about who said what, when and about what. The initial reaction to the deal was, perhaps, not too hostile, because the detail was not apparent. That in itself betrays the fundamental weakness of the way in which we conduct such negotiations. Fishing industry leaders should have been aware of the detail before Fisheries Ministers signed up to it. That is partly a comment on the Minister himself and partly a comment on a system that has a mad dash at the end of every year to agree what is going to be the capacity of the industry for the succeeding 12 months. I cannot think of another industry, in this country or any other, that would allow itself to be regulated in that way.
The two principal concerns that I wish to bring to the Minister's attention are, first, the question of the number of days at sea and, secondly, what we might call. for short, the map issues—those that relate to the
operation of the permit system and some of our spatial management. The regulation grants 10 days a month at sea to UK white fish fleets. Thereafter, extra days at sea must be applied for. They can ask for as many days as they want as long as the total at the end of the month is no more than 15. I do not understand the logic of that because it takes no account of the decommissioning that has taken place during the past two years. The calculations carried out by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Shetland Fishermen's Association mean that we ought to be entitled to about 22 days a month.
If the Minister does not agree with that, perhaps he will tell me why, either today or in correspondence. It would do a great deal for the credibility of his Department and this deal if he published the workings—when I was at school, one used to get credit for showing one's workings—by which he arrived at the number of days specified. It seems to me, and many in the Scottish fishing industry, that the figure of 15 days has been simply plucked from the air.
There is also the issue of force majeur. There is no flexibility in the number of days at sea to take account of those who are taken into port because of bad weather—dodging into port, as it is called—or situations where a boat goes to the assistance of another boat that has experienced a major breakdown. Those are the sort of details that can be resolved between now and the completion of the regulation. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that he intends to attend to those issues.

199WH
I have severe reservations about the map issues. I do not understand the logic of a system that creates a bilateral approach of cod-sensitive and permit-based fishing areas. Only 20 per cent. of our haddock quota can be taken from the cod-sensitive area, and a restriction of 15 days a month under permit will apply to the remainder of the North sea. My principal concern is that that will push boats in the north of Scotland away from the traditional grounds, where they have always caught large mature haddock, into the nursery areas around Fair Isle and the area known as the jungle to the east of Orkney.
The Minister has said that the fishing industry must take more responsibility for its future, but the fishermen's organisations in my constituency have been saying for years that such areas should be protected. Young stocks in the nursery areas should be afforded protection. but the deal that the Minister has brought back from Brussels will push boats further inshore where they will catch younger, more immature fish which will have long-term consequences for the spawning stock biomass. That will also be of questionable value because it is not valuable to land such fish. There is no real market for small haddock; the market is for the big fish that can be caught in the middle of the cod-sensitive area.
If we look at the totality of the deal—it seems that considering things in their totality is very much the vogue—our fishermen will either have to target cod and end up dumping haddock because of the rigidity of the 5 per cent. by-catch, or they will target haddock under permit and end up dumping cod. Anything that encourages fishermen to dump has got to be bad for fish stocks and the fishing industry. I do not see the upside of that situation. It is the rigidity of the 5 per cent. by-catch rule that appals me most. There may be some scope for making it work a little more flexibly, perhaps by applying the 5 per cent. for a year or a quarter rather than for any individual trip. As things stand, there is not even that much flexibility.
I have taken as much time as I should. I just impress on the Minister that the fishermen's organisations in my constituency are not traditionally the most militant. Their position is well reasoned, and they have a reputation in the industry and in Europe for being exceptionally constructive. If they say that the deal is unworkable, they must be heard.
10.20 am
Mr. Frank Doran: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on his powerful speech, which set out a case of which the Minister must take note. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the Minister is relatively new to his post. Those of us who have been at this game for quite a long time—I entered Parliament in 1987 with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—cannot remember a single fisheries negotiation or agreement in the Council that was not rubbished or said to paint a doomsday scenario. The Minister should also take note that the hon. Gentleman was normally leading the charge, on which I congratulate him.
I have a few straightforward points to make. As I said, the hon. Gentleman made a powerful case. Like everyone else, I was pleased when I heard the news
200WH
reports late in December about the increase in haddock and nephrops quotas; I thought then and still think that we have a good deal. However, more questions have been raised as the details have filtered out, and it is important that they are answered. I hope that the Minister will answer all our questions, although it may not be possible in this debate.
I have concerns about days at sea. We all believed that the significant cut in the fishing fleet would bring a corresponding increase in the number of days at sea, but that has not been achieved. It is important that we understand that people whose livelihoods are at stake are asking real questions.
I am also concerned that the press have made much of the fact that foreign vessels are not subject to the same restrictions as ours are. I understand that to fish in some areas one needs a quota anyway, so that may not apply to foreign vessels. However, that question must be answered firmly.
I tried to make the point in our December debate that we face a serious problem with the industry just now: there is a serious lack of trust. In all the years that I have taken part in these debates and been involved with the fishing industry, there has never been a love for the Fisheries Council or the process. There has always been tension, but I believe that we are facing a new situation—one in which, for example, colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) feel comfortable promoting a Bill to remove us from the common fisheries policy, which I do not believe he would have done 10 years ago. Perhaps he would have—I do not know.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I did!
Mr. Doran: The process, the Commission and the whole engagement are now treated with huge suspicion, if not hostility, not only by the fringes of the fishing industry but by respectable and reasonable people in it. I do not welcome that, but it is something that we must recognise and tackle. Without trust in the process, everything is at risk.
The Herald today has the headline, "Fishing fleet sails into war with EU by defying curbs". Threats have been issued that the process, the fishing grounds, the map and the days at sea will be ignored completely and that fishermen will make their own regulations. The other side of the argument is that enforcement is one reason why we have had such difficulty in the EU negotiations. I read the story only this morning on my way in and it may be that a fringe element is involved, although some reputable people in the industry are making comments in support of the action. We must take note of that.
I have worked for many years with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, a body that I respect. It is generally reasonable and sometimes goes against the wishes of its members. Although, as a membership organisation, it is often put under enormous pressure by its members, it holds the reasonable ground. However, it is now making statements that are hostile to the process and is threatening legal action in Europe. That must be addressed.
It is also important to look to the future beyond this year's negotiations. The negotiations are important and the industry waits every year for the results, but, as the

201WH
hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, no other industry operates in such a way. At the end of December, tense negotiations are carried out to determine what will come into effect and what the business arrangements will be from 1 January. That is ludicrous and we must move away from it.
The fishing industry faces enormous threats. My main interest, as anyone who has taken part in such debates knows, is in the processing industry, because the Aberdeen fleet disappeared many years ago, although we still have the legacy of the Government's cod war trawlermen's compensation scheme. Having direct contact with former trawlermen has helped me to learn a lot more about the fishing industry in Aberdeen. The industry is important and we want to preserve it, but it faces significant threats.
The lack of fish is one of those threats. Fish is being supplied from other areas£we may not be getting it from the North sea, but imports into this country are increasing dramatically. We face the problem of cheaper fish from places such as Iceland and Norway. I speak to my processors regularly and am told that they are becoming seriously concerned about the amount of fish coming in from China, which makes up a significant proportion of the fish coming on to the United Kingdom market. I was told about a Canadian company that has opened up a processing factory in China that buys haddock and cod from Norwegian and Russian boats fishing in the Baltic. It transports that fish to China, has it processed—it is high-quality processing—and sells it on the Scottish market more cheaply than the raw fish can be bought at the fish market. That is a part of the future that harms processors and catchers. We must debate such serious issues.
In the context of the Council's deliberations in December, we cannot ignore the problem of black fish. I raised the matter in the House a couple of years ago and was vilified in the local press for even mentioning black fish. I raised it in the context of new opportunities for longer-term solutions to the problems in the North sea and said that it was important to start with a clean sheet. The fact is that black fish continues to be a major problem. No one talks about it and it is not advertised, but it is clear to me from my contact with fishermen and fish processors that in the past year many of them have depended on black fish for survival.
I could make a phone call today and find out how much black fish costs on the market. It is not difficult to obtain, and that must end. The Minister talked about tighter enforcement, but the problem is not only at the catching end. When I asked him a parliamentary question last week, he highlighted satellite tracking. What seems to be happening in the north-east of Scotland is that the boats land the fish and the fish is immediately transported to Humberside because it is easier to get black fish on to the market there than in Peterhead and Aberdeen. We need vigilance onshore as well as offshore.
The industry faces serious problems. Serious questions have been raised about the result of the Council's December deliberations, and unless the breaching of EU rules takes precedence, the next event
202WH
in the fisheries calendar will be the publication of the strategy unit's report. I think that it will contain good and bad news for the industry because it will put its economics in context, in turn raising a new debate. Although our debate should deal with problems as they arise, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has said, it is important that we consider the industry as a whole. We must deal with many more problems than simply those raised by the decisions of the annual Council.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. This is one of those debates for which an hour and a half is not sufficient. I must start the winding-up speeches now in order to give the Minister time to respond.
10.31 am
Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) not only on securing a very important debate but. in his naturally articulate and robust style, on raising genuine issues about the conclusions of this year's Fisheries Council. There is further work to be done not only in what remains of this debate, but afterwards in order to ensure that many of the hon. Gentleman's questions are properly pursued. There are clearly serious issues that must be resolved.
Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I wish my Liberal Democrat colleague and Scottish Fisheries Minister, Ross Finnie, well in his forthcoming surgery at the end of the month and a speedy recovery to robust health.
I know that the Minister will be well aware, having been involved in the discussions, of the difficult background against which the negotiations were undertaken. As far as the UK and Scottish negotiating position was concerned, it would have been impossible to secure any increase in the total allowable catch of haddock without more stringent control and enforcement arrangements. Apparently, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) pointed out, that reflected the fact that the control and enforcement arrangements were proposed against the background of the infraction proceedings concerning the perception that high levels of black fish were being caught. Such a background did not provide the UK with a very satisfactory platform from which to engage in the discussions. Every point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan deserves careful scrutiny and consideration by the Minister and by those in Scotland.
We should leave aside the arguments about who said what to whom and who believes what outcome of the negotiations should be applauded or not. There has been a certain amount of synthetic argument over what was applauded. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, with a sincere regard for the industry, rightly pointed out several unintended consequences of the negotiations. Part of the background to that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, is the nature of the annual discussions. They are a

203WH
hasty, secretive compromise undertaken at the 11 th hour. It is no way to organise the future of any serious industry.
Angus Robertson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there are unintended consequences. Will he impress on Ross Finnie, who we hope recovers to full health as soon as possible, that he and the Minister should go back to Brussels to renegotiate elements of the deal to end those damaging, unintended consequences?
Andrew George: I am grateful for that intervention. It is a question of projecting what might happen, and there may or may not be unintended consequences. However, the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan were right; we must at least have the benefit of foresight. I shall return in a moment to how I believe that we should go forward, but I have serious concerns about the background to the negotiations.
One outcome of this year's negotiations is the fact that the Minister and his Scottish colleague should be working with their European counterparts to establish far better and more effective long-term management of the industry. There would then be no short-term, last-minute, 11th-hour compromise, as there was this year, which has a significant impact on the industry. When decisions are taken in haste, we must consider in debates such as this to what extent we need to repent at leisure.
As the excellent editorial in Fishing News on 2 January rightly said:
"fishermen's futures were decided at the December Council by a secretive process of horse trading and wheeling and dealing in the bowels of Brussels in a three day test of political acumen and stamina."
I am sure that the Minister associates himself with some of those considerations. The editorial went on:
"The UK is always at a disadvantage in these negotiations, because it has such complex fisheries and so many different areas with different priorities to fight for. Most member states have only one or two priority issues and can focus on these, giving way on less important matters. The fundamental problem is the centralisation of the CFP and the overwhelming power of the commission."
Although we debate possible solutions to the problem of the over-centralisation of the CFP, I am sure that we all agree that it is far more centralised than is helpful.
Mr. Alan Reid: My hon. Friend is right: the system is too centralised. I can give one example of an issue that has been overlooked. In previous years, the prawn quota in the west of Scotland was cut by 10 per cent., allegedly because of the risk of cod by-catch. It has since been established that the cod by-catch is insignificant, yet the 10 per cent. of the quota has not been restored. It was simply overlooked in the negotiations. Regional advisory committees with real powers are the way forward.
Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes a strong and robust point and argues strongly for the fishermen in his constituency. However, in view of the time, we must look at the totality—I believe that that is the word of the moment—of the outcome of the negotiations. Some may disagree, but I believe that to a significant extent Ministers should be congratulated on
204WH
achieving a better quota outcome than many had predicted. The basis of the debate concerns the restrictions that were attached. There could be unintended consequences, and we need to learn lessons, perhaps from experiences elsewhere in the UK.
The problem is that the restrictions provide a straitjacket instead of—to extend the metaphor—a woolly cardigan. We will have an opportunity during the year to review the restrictions and the extent to which they can be renegotiated. The Minister knows that last year there was an opportunity, in conjunction with a scientists' review of the industry, to reconsider the appropriateness of the monkfish quota in area 7. The Minister and his colleagues in other European Union member states should look carefully at that, and consider the opportunity to review many of those restrictions and the extent to which they apply. If at all possible, they should be looking for flexibility during the year. Any reassurance that the Minister could give on that subject would go a long way to addressing many of the points that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and others appropriately raised.
I would have liked an outcome on cetacean by-catch, particularly in the bass pair-trawl industry. Last week, many dolphins washed up on the coast in my constituency; the season is starting again. We are talking about unintended consequences, and that is one about which we knew well. This should be the last season that that happens. We need to ban that fishery and talk much more robustly about how we control industrial fishing in the area. Pods and pingers may well have some effect in restricting cetacean by-catch in the bass industry, but I would argue strongly for much more robust measures. I will look closely at the Minister's efforts to achieve such restrictions.
10.41 am
Mr. Owen Paterson: I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on landing the debate. He raised issues of national importance, but he also put across the real anguish of his constituents, who have suffered from compulsory brutal decommissioning over the past couple of years.
I visited Pittenween in Scotland with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition in early December, and enjoyed meeting senior members of the fishing industry. Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I have rung some of them up over the past couple of days. There is a marked contrast between what they told me and what the Minister told us in oral questions last week. I will mention what some of them have said in no particular order.
Garry Masson, chairman of the United Fishing Industry Alliance, said yesterday:
"The deal is totally unworkable. It is the worst deal to come out of Brussels in the history of fishing negotiations. 15 days at sea is not enough to earn a living. The permit system is ludicrous."
Mike Park of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who we have heard of already, said that as 170 vessels had recently been decommissioned, those left should at least be given 24 days, as is the case in all other countries. That view was endorsed by Alex Smith, who said that he was
"happy with the haddock quota increase until I discovered the details of the restrictions which only apply to British boats."

205WH
Fishing News said last week:
"It is Fischler's obsession with 'saving cod' that has driven EU fisheries policy in recent years".
That obsession has led to Scottish boats being excluded from the North sea. They will be allowed to take only 20 per cent. of their haddock quota from their most valuable traditional haddock fishing grounds, making nonsense of the trumpeted 55 per cent. overall increase in that quota. However, we are given to understand that boats from other nations are to be allowed to take their full quota in that area, leading to the anomalous situation in which Scottish boats appear to be excluded on the grounds of nationality. In fact, they have been excluded for technical reasons, as they have reported cod by-catches of about 5 per cent. On the basis of those higher by-catch volumes, they, and they alone—so the Commission maintains—threaten the cod recovery problem.
Mike Park said:
"We have a sea of haddock and yet they will destroy our industry. There are 2 regulations coming from the Commission, one for us and one for the rest."
How can the Minister have agreed effectively to ban the Scottish white-fish fleet from its traditional fishing grounds while allowing continued fishing in the same grounds to Danish, French and German vessels that, between them, have more than 20 per cent. of the UK quota for what can be taken out of the cod area?
Hamish Morrison, chief executive of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, said last week:
"I cannot imagine how officials could have signed up for something so blatantly discriminatory and against the interests of our industry."
He went on:
"They simply cannot make a rule like this that applies only to the UK and no-one else."
The Minister must ask why only British vessels should be made to apply for permits. Is that in breach of article 12 of the EU treaty? On practical grounds, what will the Commission do in the North sea if, as is widely predicted, all the 20 per cent. haddock quota is caught by the end of March?
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paterson: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me carry on. I have only nine minutes, and hon. Members would like to hear the Minister's reply to the questions asked.
Taking the Commission's argument at face value, there are good reasons for disagreeing with its preferred course of action. The Commission's fisheries-directorate website points out that a number of other options are available to fisheries managers in order to conserve fish stocks. As well as closing fishing areas, the Commission tells us that it can also require minimum net mesh sizes, the use of selective fishing gear, and a minimum landing size for fish and shellfish. The point at issue is that other options are available. In the context of this fishery and the exclusion of Scottish boats, the single issue is the use of selective fishing gear.
206WH
The layperson is used to the concept of fishermen throwing their nets blindly into the seas and bringing up from the deeps all that finds its way into their nets. However, that concept describes what is far from the case. The science of fishing has developed to such an extent that it is possible within reasonable limits to confine catches to particular species. In the case of a mixed fishery comprising cod and haddock, it is possible to rely on the different escape strategies of the two species: when cod are confronted with a net, they dive for the bottom, while haddock tend to rise sharply. If fishermen are required to use nets that leave a gap between the nets and the sea bed, the bulk of their catch will therefore be haddock, and any cod by-catch will be well below the figure of 5 per cent., thus negating the Commission's concerns.
The brutal, blundering unimaginative inflexibility of the Commission's proposals is shown up elsewhere in British fisheries. A long-line vessel in Grimsby, which catches only dogfish and skate and never catches cod, will still be bound to 15 days at sea, making it unviable. Yesterday, Jim Portus, chairman of the south-west FPO, said to me that he was bitterly critical of the Commission's refusal to take account of technical changes, diversification and restructuring. He said:
"The Commission only gives credit when a fleet is destroyed by a taxpayer funded decommissioning scheme."
Leaving that point aside, in the North sea fishery, unlike in some others, cod and haddock compete for the same food sources. In particular, haddock are opportunist and voracious feeders on sand eels—the staple diet of cod in that fishery. If one wants to ensure that cod stocks have the best possible opportunity for recovery, one important measure that should be taken is to fish the haddock stock hard.
Also, as cod in the North sea rely on sand eels, it makes sense to safeguard their food supply, if one wants cod stocks to recover. Here we have an apparent contradiction. Last year, the North sea sand eel quota stood at 918,000 tonnes, yet the industrial fleet managed to land only 400,000 tonnes. In all other circumstances, when the Commission finds that a fleet cannot fulfil its quotas, it almost invariably reduces the following year's quota to a figure below that of the preceding year's catch. However, that logic does not seem to apply to sand eels. The Commission has reduced the overall quota by a mere 10 per cent. to 816,200 tonnes—more than twice the historical catch.
Looking at the issues combined, one must first conclude that, if the sole purpose is to protect cod stocks, there are no technical reasons for excluding the Scottish fleet. A requirement to use selective fishing gear could achieve our aim. Secondly, if one is to give cod stocks the best possible opportunity of recovering, it would be positively advantageous to maximise the effort on haddock, perhaps even increasing the quota even higher than the Commission has allowed for. Thirdly, the optimum result can be achieved only if measures are taken to safeguard the food supply, which means reducing the fishing effort for sand eels, which the Commission has not done.
On the Commission's partial exclusion policy, one can only conclude that it has opted for a measure that is not only guaranteed to cause maximum economic hardship to Scottish fishermen, but one that is technically unnecessary

207WH
and, in some respects, counter-productive. One must question what the Commission is doing. A clue is given on the Commission's website. Of selective fishing, it says that, depending on the nature of the specific fishery, there are differences in effectiveness of such measures, which
"make it difficult for the decision-maker to draft measures that can be adapted to each case, without leading to a multitude of regulations, so complex as to be unworkable".
In other, smaller fisheries, from the Baltic to the Maine fisheries in the United States, selective fishing techniques have had considerable success. If the Commission is refusing to go down the road of permitting selective gear essentially because of the complexity of regulation, the case that it is making is that the common fisheries policy is too cumbersome and unwieldy to deal with the kaleidoscopic variety of fishing grounds administered. From its own mouth, the Commission is admitting that the CFP is unworkable. On that basis alone, the case for returning the policy to national control is unassailable.
On the other hand, some would have it that there is a darker, more sinister motive for the Commission's adopting such an unnecessarily damaging strategy for saving Mr. Fischler's cod stocks. Could it be that the real objective is to clear the Scottish fleet out of its own waters in order to support the treaty requirements of equal access to fleets of other member states? Again, the national control argument is unassailable.
Whatever the motivation, the one thing for sure is that the partial exclusion of the Scottish fleet from the North sea cannot be justified on technical or conservation grounds. It is therefore a matter of the gravest concern that the Minister agreed to such a maladroit policy. What was he thinking of? How can he justify a policy that ignores the three scientific issues that I have identified in preference to a policy that combines little scientific merit with maximum economic damage to Scottish fishermen? I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers, and I have one last question: of the three days and nights that he spent negotiating, how many minutes were devoted to discussing real scientific solutions that could have prevented the disaster being inflicted on Britain's fishermen?
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): You will know, Mr. McWilliam, that, as a Minister, I am always generous in taking interventions, but it might be courteous to you and hon. Members if I alert you to the fact that I do not intend to take them in the few, limited minutes that I have to respond to this debate. I am, however, happy to write to hon. Members if they feel that I have, due to time constraints, omitted to respond to specific points that they have raised.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing this debate. He started by saying that he was rather sad that it was not going to be a debate about the long-term future of the fishing industry. Let me reassure him that there will be ample opportunity for us to discuss that subject when we have the Prime Minister's strategy unit report on the long-term future of the industry that my hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) mentioned and that we expect some time next month.
208WH
The hon. Gentleman spent his first nine minutes accusing me of selectively quoting representatives of the industry, but he did the same thing. I do not intend to enter into a tit-for-tat debate with him about that. The industry can speak for itself. However, he also challenged me to speak to industry figures, which I do regularly. It is nice to see the chairman of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Westminster Hall this morning listening to our debate.
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. It is not in order to refer to strangers.
Mr. Bradshaw: I beg your pardon, Mr. McWilliam. I look forward to continuing my discussions with fishing representatives immediately after this debate.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) helpfully reminded hon. Members about the background to this Fisheries Council, which was not an easy one. Hon. Members who know about such things will know that the scientific advice, which was the same this year as it was in the previous year, was for a total closure of the cod fishery. On going into the Council, Britain's strategic objectives were to agree a long-term recovery plan for cod, which we did, and a multi-annual approach to cod recovery, which we also achieved, in return for maximising opportunities to catch more plentiful stocks, such as haddock and prawns. Those priorities were shared by the industry in the discussions that my Scottish colleague, Ross Finnie, and I had in the run-up to the Council. The industry made that plain to us on many occasions.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is not enamoured of the new arrangements to create the greater opportunity that we achieved, because there are restrictions in the areas where the fish may be caught. Some of his detailed points are best considered by the Scottish Executive, which is responsible for fisheries in Scotland, but I am happy to explain. and defend, the rationale of the scheme. The starting point was the wish of the interested sections of the UK industry, which are, of course, predominantly Scottish, to be free to take advantage of the currently abundant haddock stocks. The independent scientific advice allows for some increase in the haddock quota, but only provided that steps are taken to protect cod. The UK set out at the Council to unlock extra haddock quota by suggesting conditions that would limit the extent to which the increased quota could be taken in cod-rich areas.
The arrangements that we negotiated involved two novel conditions. First, no more than 20 per cent. of the UK's haddock quota may be taken from the designated cod-protection areas. That is substantially less than the proportion of the haddock catch that was being taken previously in those areas. That is the whole point. The purpose is to encourage fishermen away from the designated cod-sensitive areas.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan brandished a map. I was squinting at it because I wanted to make sure that it was the same map that officials have given me—indeed, it was. If he and other hon. Members had seen the map that the Commission originally proposed for the cod-protected areas, they would congratulate my Scottish colleague and I on what we achieved.

209WH
Inevitably, such decisions are always based on some sort of compromise between what the industry wanted, what the Commission was proposing and what we achieved. However, it may be helpful if I say that the Commission's map originally included all the inshore waters around Orkney and Shetland and most of the north-east coasts of Scotland and England. The map that we finally arrived at is a great improvement on the Commission's original proposal.
The second novel condition is a special permit arrangement. Under it, fishermen who want access to the extra haddock quota will have their fishing licences amended to exclude them from fishing in the cod sensitive areas. The combined purpose of these measures is to bring about a change in fishing patterns and to improve enforcement—which I was grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central concentrated on—and control. Without achieving both those things, there would have been no prospect of getting the massive 66 per cent. increase in quota that we secured.
The main objection that has been raised to the quota is that it is discriminatory. The argument is that it is unfair that the extra conditions apply to UK fishermen alone, whereas vessels from other member states may take their quota without restriction or special permit requirements anywhere in the management area. The reason why we accepted it is simple: if we had not done so, there would have been no increased quota. Other member states have very small shares of allowable catch compared with the UK, and none of them was willing to apply extra controls for the sake of gaining what would have been, for them, a very small increase. Therefore, Ross Finnie and I had to choose between no increase in the haddock quota and a significant increase in parallel with new management arrangements. It is not difficult to see which of those alternatives is better from a UK point of view, and nor is it difficult to imagine what would have been the reaction of right hon. and hon. Members if we had come back and reported that we had chosen the alternative.
There is no question but that the UK, with 78 per cent. of the European Union's North sea haddock quota, is seen as the main beneficiary of these arrangements. The other member states with a North sea haddock quota are France, which has 8 per cent., Denmark with 7 per cent., Germany with 5 per cent., and Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden, which each have 1 per cent. or less. Most of them do not take their existing share. Therefore, imposing the same conditions on them would bring minimal benefit to cod and would have created a sticking point that would simply have ensured that we did not secure the higher quota from which we are by far the most significant beneficiary.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw: No, I will not.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam.
Mr. John McWilliam: There is no point of order. If the Minister will not give way, there is nothing that I can do about that.
Mr. Bradshaw rose—
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. Is it not a convention in Adjournment debates that the
210WH
Minister gives way to the Member who has secured the debate? The fact that the Minister might not be able to answer the question that he would be asked is not an excuse for breaking that convention.
Mr. John McWilliam: On the hon. Gentleman's point about that convention, I merely say that if he had shortened his speech, there might have been more time for the Minister to reply.
Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam, for pointing that out. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan spoke for 20 minutes and I was left with 10 minutes in which to reply to his points and those of many other hon. Members.
This is a novel arrangement, as I have said, and it is important with any new arrangement to clarify the practical implications and to seek to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. As far as Scotland is concerned, it is for the Scottish Minister and the Scottish Executive to consider what this may mean, and I can report that they are in discussions with fishermen. We can certainly look at what comes out of those discussions, although we cannot go back on the principle of spatial management associated with more stringent control and enforcement.
I wish to say something about the 15-days issue on which there is some confusion. The basic days-at-sea regime for all the areas that are in the cod recovery areas is 10 days. The UK is unique. It could be argued that we have been discriminated in favour of, because we have 10 plus five days. We are the only member state that has 15 days. The only other member state that has more than 10 days is Denmark, which managed to achieve 12 days. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that the UK has been discriminated against in terms of days at sea—we have not been. The industry's priority before the Council was to defend our existing 15 days at sea, and we succeeded in doing that.
Hon. Members raised the concern that our fishermen will not be able to catch the huge extra haddock quota with the days at sea that they have. I am sceptical about that. Over the past 12 months and more, there have been many complaints about the phenomenon of discard. It cannot be the case that we are catching too much haddock and cod that we are happy to discard it, and that we are now not going to have enough time to catch the haddock and cod that is present. The scientists calculate that the increased haddock abundance should mean that this year's 80,000 tonne quota would be taken by the same amount of effort that took last year's 50,000 tonne quota. However, as always, I am happy to discuss those concerns with representatives of the fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan suggested that Mr. Finnie—
Mr. McWilliam: Order. Time is up. It is unsatisfactory that we have only an hour and a half for a debate like this. I point out to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the convention that he mentioned applies only to half-hour Adjournment debates. However, I intend to raise the matter of hour-and-a-half debates in which there is a lot of interest at the next meeting of the Chairmen's Panel.

Housing (South Oxfordshire)
11 am
Mr. Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr. McWilliam. I much enjoyed your benign chairmanship of the Committee that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill, in whose salt mines I served for about six months. A very agreeable period it was, under your benign rule. I am grateful to your office for selecting this important subject for debate, and I am very grateful to the Minister, with whom I used to share many a lively discussion on the back of the 277 bus. I had no idea that I was to be favoured by the presence of this particular Minister today, and it is a great honour to see her sitting opposite.
Let me plunge straight away into the controversy of housing in South Oxfordshire. I begin with the biggest controversy that has hit the town of Henley. We have had a hospital for some years, much loved and valued by the residents, but we are being braced for its possible closure. Why is it to close? It cannot be due to a lack of cash because we are told that the Government have pumped umpteen millions and billions into the NHS. Those who are bracing us for the possibility of the hospital's closure tell us that the principal threat is that there is too little accommodation for nurses in the area.
If you have not had the benefit of visiting Henley, Mr. McWilliam, perhaps it would be as well to give you a quick word-picture of that town—a sort of caricature of what it is like: the pubs, the ancient site of the brewery, the ripple from the water, the trailing dresses of the girls in the summer, the geraniums in their baskets in June and July, the boats for hire and so on. In the rhapsodical language of developers it might be described as the pearl of the Thames riviera. The houses of Henley are old, beautiful, pleasingly higgledy-piggledy and among the most expensive in the whole of the south-east.
Between 1997 and 2002, house prices rose in South Oxfordshire by 123 per cent. The average price of a new house in Henley is £400,000, according to the Henley Standard, for which I should declare I write an unpaid column. In South Oxfordshire as a whole, the income multiplier needed for a mortgage is 8.6, as opposed to 5.63 in England and Wales, and 6.91 in the south-east. That means that a nurse living in Henley on a country-wide salary of £22,855 needs to find 10 times her salary to be able to afford to live in the area. That is one of the key problems facing the town's hospital, and it is one that I and others are determined to solve.
That is not just a problem faced by nurses and others who the Government in their wisdom designate as key workers. It is also faced by many good people on whom the economy of the community depends. Let us be in no doubt: the sheer affluence of much of the south-east—the ambient prosperity—makes life harder for those on lower incomes. Week in, week out, I meet people in my advice surgery—young people with families who have grown up in Henley—who weep with frustration because they cannot afford to live there. They cannot afford to buy a house and are being forced to live cheek by jowl with relatives in very cramped accommodation because the council cannot find anywhere for them to go. Before Christmas I met a man who told me he was moving from barn to barn. He was living in a barn—
212WH
quite possibly in a manger, for all I know—over Christmas because South Oxfordshire district council could not find him an address. I note without comment that homelessness in rural areas has risen by 13 per cent. since Labour came to power. Some 2,019 applicants are waiting to be nominated by the council to a South Oxfordshire housing association property and a further 337 who need a transfer to bigger accommodation. The council manages to find roughly 300 solutions a year. That is why we must help Oxfordshire to find more affordable housing. At a time when the housing market continues to be so buoyant, it is disastrous that Oxfordshire has lost the local authority housing support grant, as the Minister knows. It was a hugely valuable system by which debt-free and prudent authorities such as South Oxfordshire were allowed to spend money on social housing. It was effectively awarded funds to the same value to spend on non-housing capital projects.
Under the old system, which the Government have just scrapped, South Oxfordshire could spend about £6 million a year on social housing. As a consequence, it was able to build more than 100 houses a year, which exceeded the number being lost to the social housing stock under the right-to-buy process. It kept ahead of that process and replenished and increased the social housing stock. Unfortunately, because of the changes that the Government have introduced, that is no longer an option for the good and wise officials at South Oxfordshire district council. Suddenly, that authority has lost the wherewithal to build and acquire the social housing that we all need.
I invite you to consider a paradox, Mr. McWilliam. At a time when the Government say that we should decentralise and provide local authorities with more powers, and at a time when everyone has mouthed the mantra of decentralisation, South Oxfordshire can no longer provide a key function of local authority—the duty to provide social housing for local people— because it has been hamstrung by the Government. I will waste no time in polemic on the motives of the Labour Government in doing that, except to say that some people suspect that it is part of their general drive to skew money away from areas such as South Oxfordshire to what they currently conceive of as the Labour-held north. I will not elaborate on that point, and perhaps the Minister will take my frustration as read.
The Minister should be in no doubt that housing is central to the problems of a great many of my constituents. Bus routes are closed because bus companies cannot find a bus driver. As the bus driver cannot afford to live in the area, people on lower incomes who cannot afford a car and depend on buses are seriously disadvantaged. I met a young policeman who had come to live and work in Henley. He said that he would have to move back to Wales because he had compared the accommodation—a tiny, one-bedroom flat—that he could afford in Henley with the very substantial premises that he could have in Wales, and there was simply no option for him and his family.
In Westminster Hall debates it is very important to be as constructive as possible, to try to reach conclusions and to bring new ideas to the Minister's attention. So, humbly, I offer her an idea. I received it from a local government official, and, if I mangle it in the telling, I can assure her that a very good man will be happy to explain it to her in more detail. We should provide

213WH
incentives to companies and employers to invest in housing for their employees, who could be people who may or may not qualify under the Government's very narrow definition of a key worker. We could do that by telling the employer that he would receive a stake in the equity of the house—30 per cent., perhaps—and by saying to the registered social landlord that he, too, could have a stake. We could split it up in some way or another. The key advantage of that is that it would help first-time buyers to overcome the astronomical barriers to entry to the housing market, particularly in areas such as Henley. Of course, it could also reduce the amount of Government subsidy for housing because it would introduce cash investment by the employers themselves. When the time came to sell the house, there would be many possibilities: for example, the employer could sell his part to the social landlord, or the employee could sell his part and pocket all or some of the appreciation. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the area is fertile in possibilities, and that the idea of mixed ownership or shared ownership of social housing is one that would be worth exploring.
Before we introduce such a solution, we must address one huge and final problem: the ancient vice, endemic to our country, of nimbyism. The issue of housing brings out many political questions, as do speed humps. It brings out the essential Jekyll and Hyde nature of our characters, because the very people who demonstrate, who write passionate letters to me, who fill the town halls of our market towns demanding that local hospitals be kept alive and who want more nurses, policemen and bus drivers in the area, are, alas, all too often the very people who oppose the construction of houses in which such people could live.
Before I excite the wrath of any of my fellow nimbies—we are all nimbies when it comes to our own property—there is nimbyism and nimbyism. There is good nimbyism. For example, I disapprove of the proposal to build 1,000 new houses and to plonk them in the Sandford area, against the vehement opposition of the people who live in that area. That is completely misconceived and I think that South Oxfordshire district council is quite right to resist the naked territorial land-grab of the urban vicinities of Reading and Oxford. South Oxfordshire is right to want to keep the green belt. The Deputy Prime Minister's brilliant assertion that the green belt is a Labour achievement and that he means to build on it has been repeated often but always bears repetition. I oppose that proposal and South Oxfordshire is right to oppose it as well.
While there is good nimbyism, there is also bad nimbyism, which opposes any social housing, and any development in villages, no matter how sensitive and in accordance with local needs it is and even if it is to be done in accordance with the local vernacular architecture. We need new houses and social housing in our area, not just in the places that the Government have designated for huge construction, such as Milton Keynes and the Thames gateway—the megalopolises that the Government propose to create.
The paradox is that the Government want to prioritise construction in areas where housing is already affordable. They need to think harder about areas such as South Oxfordshire where it is not affordable and
214WH
think imaginatively about what can be done to restore to the area the scope that the council had before the local authority social housing grant was removed. We need to give local authorities the discretion to decide who is a key worker and to abandon the rigid designations of the Government. Would you not say, Mr. McWilliam, that a bus driver is a key worker if his presence or absence in the community makes the difference between the existence or non-existence of a bus route? Even if his company were privatised, is he or is he not a key worker? A barman might be a key worker if his presence or absence in the community makes all the difference to the extinction of the local village pub. We must all realise that the warm glow of pleasure that we feel when we walk past estate agents' windows and see the notional price of our properties spooling ever upwards is accompanied by growing hardship for other people, and it is that hardship with which we must deal.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate and raising an issue of such importance to his constituents. He was right to say that we have shared discussions, and not simply on the No. 277 bus, but by the shelves of the Tesco Metro in Canary wharf in years past, so it is a pleasure to discuss things with him today.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of important points about housing need and affordable housing in his constituency as well as in the wider Oxfordshire area. I was not entirely clear about what he was arguing for when he referred to nimbyism, but I shall attempt to address his points. Clearly, there are worries about the level of affordable housing in areas of high demand. People often mean London when they refer to high-demand areas, but such issues affect areas throughout the south-east, the city of Oxford and other areas in Oxfordshire as well as rural areas in the region. The Government take the issue seriously and such a process is behind the sustainable communities plan that is being implemented throughout the country.
On the specific issues raised about the way in which affordable housing is funded, in February last year we announced that funding for affordable housing would be distributed through regional housing boards. The board for the south-east made recommendations to Ministers on the distribution of funding in July 2003. Ministers approved those allocations in October. Each local authority in the south-east was allocated a share of the former housing investment funding and South Oxfordshire received notification of its allocation in December last year, which was £840,000 for the next financial year and £873,000 for 2005–06.
In addition, the Housing Corporation is currently assessing bids for affordable housing schemes and recommendations for investment will be submitted to the regional housing board in February. Each area will receive its allocation, but there are considerable advantages in asking the regional housing board, which comprises people from the region, to recommend what the allocations should be in the region. We want its members to ask the local authorities and stakeholders throughout the region to take a region-wide look at where the priorities should be in respect of housing

215WH
investment. As part of such an exercise, we are increasing the investment in affordable housing and will be expanding that investment throughout the south-east region considerably over the next few years, as we have done over the past few years. It would be an advantage to the system to ask for regional priorities to be set within the region.
Mr. Boris Johnson: Does the Minister believe, therefore, that it should be up to the regional housing board or the regional government to decide whether the houses should be built in Sandford? It is proposed that at least 1,000 houses should be built there. Should that be a decision for the regional body or should it be left to local people in South Oxfordshire to decide whether they want them? The hon. Lady said that she did not quite grasp my distinction between good nimbyism and bad nimbyism. Good nimbyism is when we are tempted to repel or reject a decision that was made a long way from us in, say, Guildford or London, to impose houses on our area. Bad nimbyism is when people oppose the construction of houses that those living in the area generally agree are necessary for the community. That was the distinction that I was trying to make. I hope that the Minister appreciates it now, and I am sorry if I was not clear enough earlier. Does she think that the decision should be one for the regional authority or should it be left to South Oxfordshire to decide for itself?
Yvette Cooper: The decisions will be taken at different levels, depending on the kind of decision. The exact location of particular houses is clearly a decision to be taken locally, but the overall distribution of a regional pot of funding needs to involve all the players in the region. We are not talking about a decision being taken a long way from South Oxfordshire or Oxfordshire as a whole; we are talking about South Oxfordshire and Oxfordshire playing their part in discussions across the region about what the priorities should be. Deciding where local houses should be built, and whether they should be built, is also an important part of the planning system and the planning debate that needs to take place. That is why Oxfordshire county council has set out its review of the structure plan. As part of that, there is a debate on housing need in the county. Again, I am not entirely clear whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing for more houses in his area, because he believes that there is a need for more affordable housing, or whether he is arguing for resisting additional houses in his area, because that is what local people want.
The discussion needs to take place as part of the review of the Oxfordshire structure plan. The draft plan has been published and the first stage of a considerable process of consultation and discussion with local people is under way. The plan will be subject to an examination in public in September, which will be in front of an independent panel. That panel will examine and test all the proposals at a strategic level before providing independent recommendations to the council. In drawing up the plan, Oxfordshire county council consulted widely to find out how it should plan new housing in Oxfordshire. The further stages of public consultation need to be gone through. I understand that the proposals include one to provide additional housing in some green-belt areas. The Government have made their policy on the green belt clear: there should be no
216WH
overall reduction in the level of green belt. The Government office will make that representation to the independent panel when it takes evidence in September.
Local authorities need to consider the issues surrounding housing need and to recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman made about key workers, who find it difficult to get affordable housing, and those who are waiting on council housing lists, who also need affordable housing. There is also the broader issue of people who want to be owner-occupiers and could, in principle, afford to do that, but who want to live in the town or village where they grew up, where they have family, connections and employment, and simply cannot afford to do so at the moment. The issues are extremely pressing and complex, and local planning authorities need to take them into account. They also need to balance the issues surrounding the green belt and take local people's views clearly into account. That is not an easy balancing act to pursue, but the structure plan process, and the debate and public consultation that will take place, are the right forums. The process will take place within the Oxfordshire framework, which is the right place for the debate.
The county council will consider the independent report before deciding what modifications to make to the plan. The modifications are subject to further consultation before the plan is finally adopted. There is, therefore, a considerable process of public consultation before any decision is finalised. As I have said, the key objective of the Oxfordshire structure plan is to provide sufficient new dwellings for Oxfordshire residents, including affordable housing.
I set out that the Government have no plans to relax planning controls in the open countryside and the green belt. We expect green-belt loss to be compensated for by additions to the green-belt in nearby areas to ensure that there is no overall loss of green belt in the region. We recognise that there are particular difficulties in rural areas and villages. Providing affordable housing on rural sites can be a problem. Such sites are often remote, with landscape, ecological and other constraints on development. Furthermore, land values are often high, design standards add to cost, brownfield sites are scarce and many rural sites are small, which also means that they fall below the thresholds for negotiating planning obligations, which can provide an additional difficulty.
We want adequate housing provision in rural areas to meet local people's needs. There have been increases in recorded rural homelessness in the south-east, and we take that seriously. We advise rural planning authorities to plan to meet the housing needs of their communities. We promote a brownfield-first policy, but such authorities need to consider greenfield sites as well. In the communities plan, we announced an increase in the Housing Corporation's rural target to approve 3,500 affordable homes in settlements of fewer than 3,000 people during 2004–05 and 2005–06. That builds on the rural White Paper commitment.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of key workers when he mentioned problems facing his local hospital. I was interested in his proposal to go broader than key workers and in the proposal—made by one of his local housing officers, I think—about the role that employers could play. If he writes to me about that proposal, I will be happy to look at its details.

217WH
Initially, the Government set out a £250 million starter-home initiative to help key workers into home ownership. South Oxfordshire has participated: 13 police officers, six health workers and 27 teachers are being assisted by the starter-home initiative. However, we are working to broaden the programme. The Deputy Prime Minister has launched a new key-worker programme, which will start on 1 April 2004. It responds to the views of different housing stakeholders about the kind of programme needed to support key workers. The programme builds on the starter-home initiatives, but takes a broader approach as well. It focuses significantly on London because of the nature of the difficulties faced there, but rural local authorities will also benefit.
Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister think that the definition of key workers should be widened in the way that I suggested? Will she give us a glimpse of her views of the idea that employers could become stakeholders in the creation of new social housing?
Yvette Cooper: The private sector is already a stakeholder in the creation of new social housing, particularly when planning gain issues are debated. We have set out proposals in the Housing Bill, debated yesterday in the House, to broaden the kinds of organisations to which the Housing Corporation can provide money in order to expand affordable housing. We are interested in involving a wide range of stakeholders in expanding the provision of affordable housing. I had not considered whether employers could play a role, and that is why I was interested to hear further details of the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
The issue of how to define key workers is difficult. We have taken decisions on the kinds of priority public-sector workers needed, particularly in health, education and the police. It is right that we should prioritise those key public-service workers. They are essential for sustaining any community and ensuring effective fully staffed public services that support the whole community and sustain it into the future. That was the right priority and that is where our investment should be concentrated in the future. I recognise the housing issues that the hon. Gentleman's constituency faces. I urge him to play a part in Oxfordshire county council's structure plan review during the next few months. I also urge his constituents to take advantage of the key-worker programme, which begins in April this year.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Hospital-Acquired Infections
2 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I thank hon. Members for attending the debate. I am sure we all agree that hospital-acquired infection is a serious subject— one that we are pleased is being discussed and recorded for posterity in Hansard—and that we should move things forward. There may be differences in how we approach it, but we are all determined to ensure that we make progress. There cannot be many worse things in life than going into hospital for treatment, being there for some time, acquiring an infection and being incapacitated for even longer. That does happen and, irrespective of whether we will ever prevent it absolutely, we should do something to try to achieve that aim.
The infections can he caused by viruses or bacteria. There is plenty of evidence that infections have been occurring and that the bacteria and viruses have been identified. Such infections are bad for individuals and for a hospital's reputation. The issue is often picked up by the media. The infections are also bad for hospital workers who take good care of us and yet have to bear the brunt because of those infections, for which they cannot be held totally responsible.
I am pleased that the chief medical officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, has reacted to the situation and produced the document "Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England". In it, he states that such infection is
"one of the areas identified as needing intensified control measures"
and that
"control of infectious diseases was an area of National Health Service (NHS) practice which had had a relatively low profile compared with many other areas of health service development."
In addition to the growing canon on the subject of hospital-acquired infection, the problem needs investment and strong positive activity in many departments, not least in hospitals. Sir Liam Donaldson admits that the guidance that has emerged over the past few years—of which there has been copious amounts—has not excited and enthused in terms of what it has produced. Our job as MPs is to make that difference, and I think we can.
Nine per cent. of patients acquire hospital infections and that is one of the highest rates in Europe. The rate of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, infection has continued to increase in this country. The figures issued in 2003 show that England is one of the front runners for this kind of infection rate in hospitals. Associated with that phenomenon is the increasing problem of antibiotic resistance, as we continuously use antibiotics to treat the problems that arise. It is almost as if the thinking is, "Oh, give them an antibiotic and they will be all right." Of course, when that is done, resistance to drugs develops.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Just so that I understand the hon. Gentleman accurately, when he says "front runner" in that context, does he mean that this country is both—this is slightly perverse in some respects—relatively high in terms of

219WH
the rate of incidence of hospital-acquired infections and regarded as having some of the better procedures, at least in theory, for trying to deal with it?
Dr. Gibson: That is true, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. It is not concomitant that, because we have the best technology and techniques, that produces the results. At the same time, we continue to use antibiotics, which increase the resistance of many different organisms. MRSA is only one organism that shows antibiotic resistance. It is a feature of all biological life, such as cancer cells that become resistant to chemotherapy and malaria when the organisms become resistant to the drug that is being used. AIDS is another such organism.
At the Royal Society today, I heard about another recorded case of severe acute respiratory syndrome in China and the measures that are being revisited there to handle the problem. Infection, and resistance associated with infection, is a worldwide problem. It is not just caused by bacteria that float around in the air and on surface tops. It often happens during surgery, where there are site infections. Data from 60,000 operations show that 12 per cent. of hospitals have reduced the rate of surgical-site infection, be that during operations on hips, knee or large bowels. However, I am afraid that 2.5 per cent. have increased infection rates. That comes from a low base and we have to worry when the figure begins to rise.
No one would say that there should not be more hip or knee replacements or bowel treatments, but the increase of infection, coinciding with the increase in activity, which we welcome, must be handled. It is interesting that that is happening across the world and we are now, as in the United States and other countries, beginning to tackle it. Perhaps I will have time to say something about the particular successes of the Netherlands and some of the procedures that it uses to bring about lower levels of infection.
The best estimates we have suggest that about 100,000 people in England get a secondary infection each year and that about 5,000 die because of it. There is certainly evidence in this country that some trusts and hospitals have a worse record than others. No doubt a league table on that will emerge before we can blink and get out of the Chamber. I hope to hear whether the Minister has that intention.
No single factor can explain the number of patients who acquire infections during the course of their treatment and care in the NHS or other health systems around the world. The factors that have driven and continue to drive the worrying increase in infections associated with health care are multiple and there may be multifactorial situations, in which more than one agent is involved.
The problem is partly to do with patients. The increase in the number of people with more serious illnesses such as cancer, which heightens their vulnerability and susceptibility to drugs and organisms when they are at a very low immune state—their resistance and immunity are lower than they would be if they were healthier—means that more patients are susceptible to such an attack while they are in hospital.
Some factors relate to therapeutic devices, such as those that pass into the urinary tract, which can attract a reservoir of organisms that build up over a period of
220WH
time and cause serious infections. Studies in this country and elsewhere show that there are organisational problems, too: high bed occupancy; increased movement of patients; poor staff-to-patient ratios; and the tendency of hospitals to admit patients with a wide range of serious illnesses from a larger geographical area, so that there are different pools of patients in the care environment with different types of illness.
Behavioural factors are always an issue. That means poor compliance by health care staff with hand washing and other hygienic practices. I do not want to condemn health staff. Having looked at the male toilets in Portcullis House and around the Palace of Westminster, I think that it does not befit any of us to say that the hygienic habits of individuals in hospitals are any different from those of people in august environments such as our own.
I am attracted to the idea of a device, often seen on the continent, whereby a toilet is flushed out from top to bottom before the door opens. I would also be happy with the device that stops people from leaving the toilet without flushing it—a little voice says that there is a mess on the floor and asks for it to be swept up. That happens at Schiphol airport, so the Dutch are ahead of us in that kind of technology. I long for the day when those things happen, especially in male toilets. Everyone knows exactly what I am talking about. Those are sites of infection that need some fix, perhaps technological, because people cannot always be trusted to wash their hands when they are in a desperate hurry to do their important business.
There are, of course, some structural problems. In the Netherlands, where they put someone who is being monitored and has an infection in a single room, they have a structural set-up that enables them to prevent an individual mixing in a ward. Hand basins are important. There are several types. The best is the one that people hit with their elbow so that they do not put their hands on the tap, which can transfer organisms to the next person who uses it.
There are also environmental problems, such as dirty instruments, floors, walls, and clinical areas. The Government have seriously addressed cleanliness in hospitals. They have tried to improve hospital food and standards of cleanliness, and they have tried to modernise the environment. The dear old modern matron has returned and stamps her way around the wards putting the boot into people who practise dirty habits. That is welcome and was one of the major reasons for bringing matrons back. Hattie Jacques lives on, and I am sure that that will improve the cleanliness and infection controls at one level. The annual inspection of hospitals takes into account the cleanliness of wards, and serious consideration is being given to whether the organisation to do that should be the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection or the Commission for Health Improvement. Cleanliness is being given serious consideration.
The cost of hospital-acquired infections is high. The National Audit Office estimates that it is about £1 billion a year. The United States has lived with the problem for a long time and has found ways to assess the savings. It says that the cost of maintaining one hospital bed for a year would support a full hospital infection control programme in a 250-bed hospital. As one in 10 national health service patients suffer some kind of infection,

221WH
either serious or less serious, we have a problem. Some people may take the infection home with them because there is always a push to get beds empty and people outside may be affected.
The real issue, however, is not always MRSA. The problems of SARS and terrorism have helped to focus the public's mind on getting control of infection, and having systems not just in hospitals, but across the nation. The public will be demanding much stricter regimes in hospitals because of the pressure of potential infection from those different sources.
The commonest sites of health care associated infection are the urinary tract, the lungs, wounds and the blood. Medical devices that are employed are associated with urinary tract infection. Catheters can be inserted which have a record of reducing the amount of infection, but things are still at an elementary stage. Technology needs to be pushed and examined to ensure that catheters, which can be in place for some time, do not lead to large reservoirs of infection. The situation is similar for blood infections. Such infections can occur when intravenous feeding lines are used. Patients who are being ventilated can get pneumonia through various ventilation systems, and patients can also endure infection when they have complex surgery.
Those are the kind of things that happen. Every newspaper loves the single story that enables it to ridicule the hard work that people put in. However, contamination still takes place in operating theatres and we must recognise that. A reservoir of bacteria and viruses can cause the infection. They are transmitted from one person to another via table tops or other sources.
We need to start talking about what we can do to improve infection rates, and, as the Secretary of State for Health recently said, to wage a war on the infection process. The public are concerned, and unless we take up the cudgels now, infection will become an increasing problem. The chief medical officer has identified some areas of concern, and we should consider whether we can do something about that, but we need to push the argument much faster. For example, it is clear that every hospital trust needs a director of infection control, as is now the case, but where are those directors in the hierarchy? Do they have that Alex Ferguson managerial determination to put the boot in where it is needed, to show that the savings resulting from a hard-line policy are worth taking? It is not always seen to be like that. The directors do their bit—they tell people to wash their hands, they issue leaflets and so on—but the matter is much more serious than that, and we must give managers with that responsibility some clout.
We should also take a leaf out of the United States' book. At great expense, having cleared it through the US Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson has given me permission to have a document. Such documents are hard to get hold of in the United States these days because of the vetting procedure. A friend of mine did the work. I am not breaking any confidences; it is a published work. Hospital-acquired infections in the United States affect 2 million people a year. The US Department of Health
222WH
argues that surveillance systems for such infections are essential, and I believe that the chief medical officer's paper recognises that. The document says that:
"surveillance is the ongoing systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health data essential to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of public health practice, closely integrated with the timely dissemination of these data to those who need to know"—
the patient, the public and so on. The data are published on websites, for instance, so that people know what the infection rates are at their local hospital. That approach by the Americans in the 1980s brought about an improvement in their hospital infection rates. In other words, they are saying, "There is no secrecy. We recognise that it is a problem. We will do our best to get it down to zero. We will never quite get there, but at least we are taking stringent measures to try to make it happen." The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia produced that work, and we should attempt to mirror it.
That is one important matter. I have mentioned the technologies, which we must consider. I have also mentioned hand washing and disinfection. When hospitals bid for star status, infection control will become as important as other criteria. Until it does, it will not have the clout of some of the other parameters that give a hospital its grading, unless we intend to do away with the current grading system and produce a new one. If we do not intend to do that, we must take the matter seriously and show that we are doing so. We must encourage every hospital to publish its figures on a website and to boast about improvements. There is no doubt that hospitals would be pushing at an open door. We cannot simply teach individuals and leave it to them. We must give them back-up, such as hand-washing facilities and catheters.
Who can take control of the problem? I understand that the National Patient Safety Agency is collaborating with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency on hand-hygiene projects, but such work is piecemeal. We need an organisation to take control of all the things that cause hospital-acquired infection. Either the NPSA or the new Health Protection Agency, which is now finding its feet and becoming dynamic, should take on that task, because their remit is to look at new research and technology, and the results could be fed into solving the problem. It is always better to have one person running the show than two, each of whom has to be asked, "Do you ever to talk to one another or do you just send each other a Christmas card?" I look forward to the Minister telling us about that.
It is time to declare war on this process, which we are doing. Now that the Government have a policy, this is a great opportunity for them to be resolute and determined, and to ensure that the policy benefits all those who go into NHS hospitals and that every trust makes hospital-acquired infections a priority.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), may I say that the point of these debates is that the Minister has time to respond adequately to the hon. Member who was fortunate enough to secure the debate? I impress the need for briefness—then everyone will get in.
2.20 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: I will do my best to observe your very wise recommendation, Mr. McWilliam. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for securing a debate on this very important subject, and I make no apology for returning to it, having spoken on the matter last Wednesday on the Floor of the House. Indeed, I have raised the issue on several occasions in recent weeks and months because it is immensely important.
Sadly, despite the undoubted dedication of the men and women who work for the national health service, we suffer from a poor record of hospital infections in this country. Nearly one in 10 people who go into hospital acquire an infection that they did not have when they entered. In most cases, those infections are not due to the superbug but, according to the National Audit Office, between 5,000 and 20,000 people die wholly or partly because of infections acquired in hospital. Not only is that level of infection worse than in most of the European Union, but it is getting worse faster. The last report of the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System stated:
"We found strong indications for a rapid increase in the prevalence of methicillin/oxacillin resistance in the United Kingdom (about 6 per cent. increase per year)".
It went on to single out the UK again:
"Especially in the United Kingdom, MRSA is a serious resistance problem, as its prevalence has risen by up to 45 per cent. by 2001."
We have a very serious problem. If anything, it is remarkable how little attention is paid to it. Consider the number of column inches devoted to the tragedy of the Hatfield crash, which occurred near my constituency. It involved the death of six people: for every one and every family a terrible tragedy, but not remotely on the same scale as the number of people who have lost their lives through infections acquired from hospital. When I think of the number of people who have come to my surgery over the years who have lost relatives, lost limbs or been permanently maimed as a result of such infection, I am astonished at how little attention is paid to it.
There was a burst of publicity when the Government announced what we were initially told were new policies—although we later learned they were not. Shortly afterwards, I was speaking to a French friend, who asked what issues I was taking up in Parliament. Before I could answer, he said, "What you should be doing is pursuing this superbug issue. It is a scandal that you calmly take the fact that around 5,000 a year may die from it." Although there is such a problem in French hospitals, it is treated very seriously and, in his view, much better controlled. There was a recent scandal in northern France, where 14 people had acquired infections in hospital. The President of the Republic had been brought in, and the story was on the front page of all the newspapers. We should be taking the matter seriously, and I am glad that we are doing so today.
The main reason to be worried about the problem is the impact that it has on the mortality of those in hospital, but there are also cost implications. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, estimates of the costs incurred of more than £1 billion are credible and,
224WH
if anything, likely to be understatements. The solutions, by contrast, do not appear likely to be costly. If anything, they will save very substantial sums of money. It is extraordinary that at a time when resources are being pumped into the NHS with remarkably little effect, we have an opportunity to save lives, reduce the harm done to people and save large sums of money, and we are not taking it.
What do we need to do? As a result of expressing an interest in the matter, I have done a lot of interviews in the newspapers, on radio and in other media. I have often shared time on discussion programmes with medical people far more knowledgeable than myself, and subsequently received e-mails from them. They say that there are medical things that need consideration, which we should examine because they might help us tackle the problem.
I did a series of radio interviews with a representative of the Academy for Infection Management, a worldwide body of experts in the sphere. It says that there must be a change in the use of antibiotics in tackling infections in hospital. We must do the reverse of what we have done until now. When a case has been discovered and samples are being sent for tests and identification, which can take several days, we begin treating with the mildest of antibiotics and slowly build up through the range of increasingly intensive treatments. As a result of its work, the academy believes that it would be better to zap the infection initially with something strong, rather than waste several days on checks—allowing the hugs to take root and transmit in a hospital—before finally applying broad-spectrum antibiotics. That approach would save lives and money and release beds in intensive care, so it would be fully justified. I am not a medical expert; all I can do is put forward the suggestion and hope that the Government give it the consideration that proposals from such a source deserve.
I received another e-mail from a doctor who said:
"Hospitals used routinely to test doctors for `commensal carriage' of MRSA:" —
that means carrying it but not suffering any adverse effects, which is quite common—
"if the test proved positive, the doctor was immediately sent on compulsory leave while receiving treatment to eradicate the organism.
The practice has been quietly dropped by NHS trusts, with no explanation."
He suggests that it is down to the
"over-riding passion of hospital managers for saving money".
In my view it undoubtedly has the long-term consequence of costing money, and it would be ill advised. We should consider whether that practice needs changing to the original one.
I received correspondence from others about the potential in the long term for the use of bacteriophages—bacteria-eating viruses that have been developed in other countries. There is some literature in this country about their potential. They can be highly specific and geared to particular resistant microbes, and once they have eaten them they themselves die and have far fewer side-effects compared with microbiotics. It is another area in which we should consider whether research is appropriate. As a politician, I make it quite clear that I am not saying, "This is right; this is the

225WH
medical procedure that we should adopt." I am merely saying that we should consider it and take it very seriously.
Another doctor wrote to me and criticised the impact of targets, which were impinging on his success in largely eliminating infections from the unit of which he was controller. Due to a target to move people from one unit to another at a certain speed within a certain time, people were being moved before they had been properly cleared of infection. It was then likely to spread in the hospital.
The over-rigid application of targets is an issue that came up time and again as one factor that contributes to the prevalence of bugs and various infections in our hospitals. I will not repeat the other case histories that I cited on the Floor of the House last Wednesday.
Above all, we must restore a consistent, rigorous and meticulous regime of personal cleanliness among staff. We must restore the Florence Nightingale culture that is the ultimate barrier to the transmission of infections within hospitals. That will be achieved only if we restore authority to clinical staff and medical personnel and take it away from management, bureaucracy and rigidly imposed targets. Unless and until we make the patient supreme, and medical staff have the authority in hospitals, we will not secure any change or improvement. I will not be satisfied until we have, not the worst record of any major country in Europe for the treatment and prevention of hospital-acquired infections, but the best.
2.30 pm
Barbara Follett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this timely and necessary debate. I should like to echo a great deal of what he and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) have said.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and I share a health trust. As he will know, that trust— which has a specialist renal unit and can therefore expect to have higher than average rates of infection—is rated sixth highest in the country. He and I are dedicated to reducing such infections, as is the trust, which has implemented a number of recommendations from the chief medical officer's welcome report. I was shocked to see England's position in the league tables. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we are the worst, with an infection rate of 9 per cent. France may be worse, but its figures do not appear to be able to tell whether it has an infection rate of 6 or 10 per cent. We can assume that we are the worst, with France somewhere alongside us. That is bad news, because the infection rate is going up.
I will focus on what is happening in the East and North Herts NHS Trust and on what I have concluded from my discussions with the chief executive at the Lister and the Queen Elizabeth II hospital. An infection control officer has been appointed—Alex Ferguson. I do not know whether he has any of Sir Alex Ferguson's qualities; I hope that he has. The hospitals are taking the issue seriously and screening at-risk patients. They are training staff as hard as they can in infection control, in
226WH
the appropriate use of antibiotics and, most important, in hand washing, in which I have a personal interest. As a renal patient recently in the hospital, I noticed that people—patients, visiting relatives and medical personnel—did not take hand washing sufficiently seriously. During the past 20 years, we got used to not having to wash our hands so much because we believed that antibiotics would deal with things. Now we have gone back to 1860, when Florence Nightingale first wrote her notes on nursing, which are just as relevant now as they were then in the Crimea.
Due to the use of catheters, there are particularly high rates of infection in renal units. What measures will the Government take on the provision of better or disposable catheters? They are a fact of life for many people and we must ensure that they are not also major sources of infection.
Areas of risk have been identified in each clinical area in the East and North Herts NHS Trust, and staff are being made aware of them. A decontamination centre has been established and the new cleaning contract contains new specifications. Some £500,000 more a year will be spent on ensuring that the hospital is cleaned. During a stay there about a year ago, I got up and cleaned the windows and the window ledge with baby wipes. I had a drip in my arm, but I could not sit there looking at those windows. I also got up and hooked the curtains back on the rails. My children say that I am obsessive-compulsive and I plead guilty to that. However, we need a bit of obsessive-compulsive behaviour in hospitals. I should be interested to hear how the Minister will introduce that. A care about detail and about dust on window-sills is necessary.
I am glad that there are ward housekeepers in the East and North Herts NHS Trust, and that there are modern matrons, although I fear that they need a bit of Hattie Jacques's weight and ability to inspire fear. I regret her passing, but I am sure that no matron was ever as terrifying as she was in the "Carry On" films.
Dr. Gibson: We will clone her.
Barbara Follett: Yes, we will clone her.
East and North Herts NHS Trust has also increased the number of infection control teams in two hospitals from four to five. The director would welcome a recommendation or a guideline from the Government on the optimal number and size of such teams, because those details are somewhat haphazard at the moment, and are left to chance.
Finally, my trust put in a big plea for specialist "surgicentres". My trust is one of those that will get such a centre, but more are needed and we desperately need to consider some of the outdated buildings in which we are asking our constituents to work and be treated.
2.36 pm
Brian Cotter: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has secured this important debate, as many MPs are coming across such issues increasingly often. Those issues need to be tackled for the sake of the health of our constituents and the reputation of the health service. I am glad that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) is so obsessive; I only wish that she was

227WH
in charge of our hospital—but perhaps I should not comment on that. I am sure that the Minister will respond most adequately when the time comes.
The issue of MRSA is particularly relevant to my constituency, which, unfortunately, last year achieved the worst record in the country for prevalence; that is why I am speaking on the issue today. As a result of that disclosure, I contacted the local hospital and wrote to the health authorities generally and the Minister. I also achieved some press prominence.
Following that publicity, I had a number of disturbing contacts from my constituents. It is only fair to say that the local hospital replied to my letter, saying that it has in place an extensive range of measures related to improvements in hand hygiene. It goes on to list the various measures. So often when such issues arise, authorities have great lists of things that are being, or should be, done. They seemingly give some answers, and send us away saying, "Everything's okay; don't worry about it."
It is early days for this issue, and people are contacting me about it increasingly often. There are many elderly people in Weston-super-Mare, and we have a number of residential homes. Local health authorities have claimed that much of the problem relates to those residential homes and to people from those homes bringing the infection into the hospital. That needs to be looked into further. I have before me a quotation from one of the very reputable residential home owners in Weston. He says:
"For several years the nursing homes"
in the town
"have been constantly complaining"
and worrying about clients going to the hospital. He adds:
"We dread sending our residents into hospital for ongoing surgery. Knowing that in all probability they will return colonised."
He continues:
"There has been no record of a nursing home ever being the source"
and says that he always clears matters with his admissions to his residential home to ensure that there are not infections. So who do we believe?
Another constituent told me that the furniture in the intensive care unit at the local hospital was torn. Surely that does not make it easy to ensure that cleaning is carried out. It could be a source of infection. When I visit hospitals overseas, I often notice how clinical they look. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, it is easier to clean smooth surfaces.
I recently received a further report from a constituent saying that, while visiting a friend at a local hospital during the Christmas period, she was
"unhappy at the level of cleanliness".
On the table beside her friend's bed was a soiled dressing. She noted that, during the visit, the only cleaning that was done was by a cleaner who
"went through the motions of pushing a damp mop around the floor".
She said that her friend also lost her set of dentures during her stay in hospital, yet they were not found until five days later when they were seen underneath an
228WH
armchair beside her bed, covered in dirt. She said that, contrary to claims by Weston hospital, there was a lack of alcohol gel dispensers at the end of each bed and that, although gel was available at the entrance to the ward, there were no instructions beside it telling visitors how to use it.
Naturally, I am basing my argument on reports that have been relayed to me. I have not seen such conditions for myself, but the reports are disturbing. I am calling into question not whether procedures to control infection are in place, but whether they are being followed. I very much accept that our nursing staff are of high quality, but we all know that they are under considerable pressure. Many issues come to mind but, owing to the short time available, I shall not rehearse them. However, a nurse has expressed concern about nurses going to and from work wearing their uniforms. She spoke about the laundering of the uniforms. In the old days, they were laundered in hot conditions, but nowadays they are often laundered at home.
I said earlier that I had contacted my hospital. In the response that I received, the deputy chief executive admits:
"The increase in the number of affected patients and the general pressure of emergency admissions on the hospital makes it very difficult to screen and tackle the problem."
Since there is clearly a need for hospitals to take action, will the Minister say whether there is a stream of funding available so that special measures can be taken when they are considered necessary?
The mixed messages of reassurance that have been bandied around are doing nothing to allay people's fears. Perhaps the Minister will offer my constituents the reassurance that they deserve today.
2.43 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: My short contribution to the debate dovetails well with the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter). Much of what he had to say was anecdotal, but that does not mean that it was not true. The more true anecdotes we hear, the more we realise that something is wrong with the system. I do not have the expertise of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), but we are all in his debt for pursuing not only the subject under discussion, but many other causes on behalf of NHS patients since he has become an hon. Member.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has made such a vital cause one of his own. However, it was the contribution of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) that reached the nub of the problem. She referred to the system that is operating in wards now compared with the system that used to operate when there was a sort of quasi-military discipline in the administration of the management of patients.
Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady referred to Florence Nightingale. It is surely astonishing that, so many years after her basic lessons of hygiene were put into effect with such dramatic results, we are having to learn them all over again. The problem lies in the fact that people who might have accepted her philosophy had the ability to put it into effect, which meant having a serious hierarchy of power on a ward, a serious chain

229WH
of responsibility and serious consequences for people in that power structure if they did not deliver the goods—clean wards are part of the package—but that ethos is no longer available to people who manage wards today.
I was struck by an article published in the The Daily Telegraph on 29 November 2003, which was based on a Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet by Harriet Sargeant. I shall enter a number of quotations from her article into the record of this debate.
"It is a revelation to anyone spending time in a hospital to discover how little of hospital activity is actually managed. The closer you get to the patient, the less management there is. No single person appears to have the authority to oversee all the elements of a patient's care, pull them together and take responsibility for that person's wellbeing.
Whether you enjoy attentive nurses, a proper diet and clean wards is simply pot luck."
She goes on to examine in some detail how, since nursing has largely become a graduate profession, there has been a movement away from the fundamental duties on which patients rely if they are to be kept in a clean and safe environment. Here is another anecdote, which is true. She records:
"At a London A&E department, a staff nurse who had recently qualified complained to me that her training had not prepared her at all. In 18 months of study, she had spent only one and a half hours learning how to take blood pressure and a patient's temperature. On the other hand, a whole afternoon had been devoted to poverty in Russia."
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich, North laughs—I am sure that it is bleak laughter. I know how he feels.
"For assignments, her tutors had set her work on social issues and ethics—including patient rights."
Someone who had been through the courses stated:
"'I learnt more in the first three months on the job than in three years at college."'
The article is shot through with anecdotes. However, as a constituency Member of Parliament, I have my own to report on the Southampton General hospital, which is a mighty establishment that does much good work. My experience with that hospital is similar to the experience of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in correspondence with the chief executive of his main hospital.
I shall give three examples, which refer to three cases about which people sent me letters in a 24-hour period. That is not typical, but it is extremely worrying. In my letter to the chief executive in February 2003 I raised the case of a person I shall call patient C, whose wife wrote to me listing in detail
"the dirty state of the ward in September 2002 and the administering of injections to successive patients on repeated occasions by nurses who did not wash their hands before moving from one patient to another."
While patient D was in Southampton General hospital,
"his wife observed dirty swabs left on the floor for two or three days at a time, as well as excrement left on the floor after sheets were changed. Once again, nurses were observed not washing their hands or changing gloves"
before administering injections.
In the case of patient A, while in the D level wards his family observed blood and pus on the table alongside his bed and on the window-sill, as well as blood spots on a
230WH
ceiling tile. On some occasions, he was attended by staff members who were not wearing the relevant gloves and aprons, and on others such gloves and aprons were left for long periods in an overflowing bin in his room after they had been discarded. Soiled bedding was also left in the room for several days.
To balance the picture, I am happy to acknowledge that the son of patient A told me that the attention given to him in F1 ward after he had to have part of his leg amputated was first class, and that the standards of hygiene and cleanliness were very good. The attention given by consultants was also warmly praised. However, what is the point of having high standards in one part of the hospital when the patient has already been made seriously ill by low standards in another part? I do not know whether the difference is the result of changes in cleaning practices, the disappearance of matrons, the politically correct reduction in standards of discipline and training or a lack of practical experience by trainee nurses, but I do know that things cannot be allowed to go on as they are.
I had a good response from the chief executive of the Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust. He faced up to the criticisms in a straightforward way. He said that my comments would be raised at the next trust cleanliness group meeting, and that
"areas identified as not reaching the required standard in your letter will be the subject of further audit to ensure that the correct standard of cleanliness is achieved."
I am sure that when Members of Parliament bring such concerns to the attention of chief executives of hospitals, those chief executives do everything in their power to rectify them. It should not be the case, however, that things can go wrong in this way so that people have to complain to get remedial action on a piecemeal basis. The systems in place should include the sort of rigorous discipline that existed in my days as a youngster, which meant that when I had to be admitted to a hospital for a scrape or a minor operation, cleanliness shone out at patient and visitors alike. That is what we have lost, and what we look to the Government to help us recover.
2.52 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: We have had a useful debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing it and allowing us to turn the spotlight on this important issue. Some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken today took the opportunity last week to raise a similar subject: performance measurement. This is a good opportunity to explore some of the issues that were mentioned then.
The hon. Members for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) referred to the teachings of Florence Nightingale. It is right to say that some of the hard-learned lessons that she taught have been forgotten and need to be relearned, and I cannot go without quoting one reference from her notes on health care:
"It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital is it should do the sick no harm."
What are we talking about today but health care-acquired infections? These are infections that people pick up in hospital at least in part because of actions or

231WH
omissions by health care professionals. The hon. Member for Norwich, North and the chief medical officer are right to say that the problem is multi-factored; there is not one thing that we can put our finger on but a range of issues that contribute to the continued growth in the rates of MRSA infection and other forms of infection in our hospitals.
The hon. Gentleman made several points that I want to pick up on. He referred to the availability of antibiotics that are able to treat MRSA infections. That picks up on a point made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Will the Minister tell us what assessment the Department has made of the pipeline of antibiotics research and development work? How many projects are coming through that will continue to offer the NHS, and others, forms of antibiotic that are able to deal with the resistant strains of bacteria that are increasingly encountered in health care settings?
The hon. Member for Norwich, North referred to catheter care, which was also touched on by the hon. Member for Stevenage. It would be helpful if the Minister would describe the Government's position on the work that has been done to develop catheters that are much less likely to be agents for the spread of infection.
The most important point, among many, that the hon. Member for Norwich, North made was about who should take the lead responsibility for driving forward best practice and ensuring that it really is the norm across the national health service. He referred to collaboration on hand washing between the National Patient Safety Agency and the purchasing authority. Where do responsibility and leadership lie? Is it with the chief medical officer, the Health Protection Agency or the Minister? We must be clear where responsibility for action lies, particularly in respect of "Winning Ways", which was published by the CMO before Christmas.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made several points. I shall pick up on some of them. He said that testing of doctors, who are, potentially, carriers of MRSA, was not now the norm. That was mentioned in the 2000 report of the National Audit Office. However, such tests do not only apply to doctors. Nursing staff are no longer subject to such surveillance. It would help if the Minister were to say why it was appropriate to cease to operate such a regime and whether it is being actively considered for the future. We will never eradicate infections in health care settings, but we can certainly do much more to minimise the chances of people picking them up.
I wish to discus several points from the CMO's report, which provides a helpful platform for moving things forward. Hon. Members have already referred to some figures, but I shall refer to a few more. In the last 10 years of the non-mandatory reporting system, there was a fiftyfold increase in reports of MRSA infections in hospitals. Once the mandatory system clicked in, it was unsurprising, perhaps, to learn just how much MRSA infection in the NHS had not been reported because people did not have to do so under the voluntary arrangements that had pertained.
The NAO reported that each year 100,000 people pick up infections in hospital. According to the former Public Health Laboratory Service, patients with health care-acquired infections stay in hospital on average 2.9 times
232WH
longer—about 14 days extra—than those who do not pick up infections. That would imply that 1.4 million bed days are lost every year as a direct consequence of infections picked up in the NHS. I should be interested to know whether the Minister or his officials think that that is an accurate assessment. Just think of the cancelled operations, the many other lost opportunities to provide health care to our citizens and the delays and waits that patients suffer as a result. Of those who have health care-acquired infections, 10 to 13 per cent. die, compared with just 2 per cent. of those who do not. This is a serious life-or-death issue.
A couple of years ago, after the NAO report, I undertook a survey of the teams that are responsible for dealing with infection control in our hospitals to find out just what was happening on the ground. I found that 61 per cent. of respondents felt that they did not have adequate resources to do the job. Indeed, two thirds of them said that one real problem that was stopping them doing their job was that they did not have sufficient staff. Many highlighted the fact that they had little or no administrative support to underpin their work. The hon. Member for Stevenage mentioned the need for clear guidance from the Department on staffing ratios for infection control. It is worth bearing in mind that the NAO, when it did its work a few years ago, found one infection control nurse for every 535 beds and concluded that that was inadequate. My survey found similarly low rates.
More recently, the Infection Control Nurses Association said that it continued to be concerned about there being no guidance on staffing ratios. As a consequence, hospitals make things up for themselves. For example, the United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust has 13,000 beds, but it has only three infection control nurses. Neighbouring Weston Area Health NHS Trust has 300 beds and—apparently—1.6 infection control nurses. There appears to be no rhyme or reason—no logic—behind how this is done. It appears to be determined by the priority that is assigned locally, rather than by guidance from the Department. It would be useful to know what plans the Government have in that regard.
I also tried to find out about whether the infection control teams were being properly integrated into the management of hospitals—that issue has been referred to by hon. Members. One in four teams said that they were not consulted about the letting of cleaning or catering contracts. They are key contracts, which can have a bearing not only on the general health and well-being of patients but on the spread of infections. Indeed, 30 per cent. of the infection control teams that responded to my survey said that they were not being involved in the crucial induction training of cleaning and catering staff.
I turn briefly to the patient environment action team initiative—the so-called clean hospitals programme. Ministers regularly cite it as part of their fight against infection in the national health service, but it is nothing of the sort. It should be prosecuted under trade descriptions legislation because the reality is that only one of the 19 categories that PEAT inspects is to do with cleanliness, and there is nothing that specifically addresses questions of infection and its management and control. We should examine the MRSA league table—which, apparently, might eventually be

233WH
published. On the most recent MRSA figures, of the 21 acute trusts—excluding the specialist trusts—that have the highest incidence of MRSA, 17 are ranked green under the PEAT ratings, of which five were given a three-star rating under the star rating system, two are given a green or amber rating and two are amber. How can the PEAT rating be relied upon to give any indication of how effective a hospital is at dealing with infection? It is not a guide to whether the fight against infection is being prosecuted well within the NHS, and Ministers should stop giving the impression that it is—I can offer evidence of answers to parliamentary questions in which Ministers have done that. Perhaps we need such a measure, but it certainly is not the PEAT initiative.
I will conclude by asking a few questions. The issue of guidance and whether it is mandatory is exercising the Infection Control Nurses Association. In his report on infection control, published in December, the CMO stated:
"The Department of Health will publish further guidance on the roles and responsibilities of infection control teams."
When will that guidance be published, and will it be mandatory? Can the Minister tell us today what its status will be? Will there be further guidance as to the management role in respect of hospital-acquired infections? That is relevant to the point that the hon. Member for New Forest, East made.
Will further guidance be issued to primary care trusts to deal with issues of staffing and fighting infection within the community at the primary care level, not least given the fact that post-discharge surveys of the acute sector to find out how many people get infections after they have left hospital are very rare? There is inadequate data on that. There could be a significant problem that results in emergency readmissions to the NHS.
Finally, to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Stevenage, education and training are key factors in dealing with this issue. A few posters dotted around the hospital saying, "Now wash your hands" will never be enough. Is it being considered whether we should make training around infection control mandatory, as health and safety regulations and fire regulations are? Will the Minister consider including training on infection control in pre-registration programmes for all health care staff, not just doctors and nurses? That message must be drummed home time and again if we are to change behaviour, reinforce hygiene habits that protect the public by reducing MRSA rates, and save NHS resources and people's lives.
3.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is kind of you, Mr. McWilliam, to give me the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I shall endeavour to give the Minister proper time in which to reply. It has been an excellent debate and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for instigating it and for the way in which he introduced it. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who illustrated some of the best ways in which Members of Parliament can become involved.
234WH
My right hon. Friend has pursued the matter doggedly. He referred to the involvement of the President of the Republic of France in this regard in an incident in France which, if it occurred at the right time, might have been his motive for raising it with the Prime Minister on one occasion, although I am not aware that the Prime Minister has acted in the same way as the President of the French Republic.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East reflected the experience of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House: namely that, notwithstanding the excellent care that our constituents receive in hospitals locally, which is certainly true of Addenbrooke's and Papworth hospitals in my constituency, it is unfortunately too often the case that we receive evidence from members of the public with professional experience—often people who were, for example, formerly nursing or medical staff in hospitals—who see some of the staff practices when they or their relatives are patients and who regret the failure to adopt some of the basic requirements.
I pay tribute to the many staff who do very well. Addenbrooke's is a good example and it is an intensely busy hospital. It is sometimes suggested that the problem arises because of very high bed occupancy in the NHS, but I do not detect that the busiest hospitals with bed occupancies of 95 per cent. or more necessarily have high levels of cross-infection. Clearly, the risk exists, the requirement on them to react is high and it would be better if bed occupancy were lower, but pressure in the system does not necessarily lead to failing performance.
As I implied to the hon. Member for Norwich, North, we know increasingly what needs to happen in theory, but we must now ensure that it happens in practice. Someone reading this debate might conclude that we have only just discovered the problem in the NHS, but we have been living with it for some time. In March 1995, the hospital infection working group produced guidance, the Nosocomial infection national surveillance scheme was established in 1996, work began on evidence-based guidelines in 1998 for production in 2000, and the fact that hygiene and infection control is a core management responsibility was emphasised and reiterated in 1998, which answers the point about where responsibility lies. Indeed, it is clear that it is a management responsibility in NHS trusts and has been for a very long time. Also, the National Audit Office reported in 2000, the House of Lords did excellent work in 2002–03-—its Select Committee on Science and Technology has been referred to—and the chief medical officer's was published in the middle of last year. The action that flowed from that was, apparently, not new policy but implementation of the report in December.
What we have seen recently, which in part instigated this debate, is by no means a new response, but reiteration of and emphasis on what has been known for a long time. None the less, although we have known about the problem in theory, it is not decreasing in practice and that is most disturbing. We know from answers that the Department gave to my questions only yesterday that, even with all the action, the incidence is rising. The latest figures under the mandatory scheme show a 1.8 per cent. increase in MRSA reports in 2002–03 compared with the previous year and a 2.8 per cent. increase overall in reports of Staphylococcus aureus infection.

235WH
Some of the figures are worrying. The hon. Member for Norwich, North and I share a strategic health authority, which witnessed an increase of about 6.5 per cent. in the year in question over the previous year. Some SHAs had 20 per cent. increases. The infections are increasingly of MRSA. Ten years ago, the rate of MRSA in Staphylococcus aureus infections was 3 per cent. It is now nearly 40 per cent.
Action must be effective. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made perfectly clear, it is not merely that we want to make hospital treatment safe for patients, although that is at the heart of our objectives. For the health service, there could be a win-win situation—not only would treatment be safer for patients, but pressure on the health service would be relieved and the service would have additional capacity.
Based on the figures that have been mentioned, such as a 9 per cent. incidence in this country, it is not inconceivable that we could halve the rate of hospital-acquired infections. The accurate current figure may even be higher. International comparisons suggest that half that is the best that is available in other health care systems. The Public Health Laboratory Service study conducted in 2000 on the socio-economic burden of such infections suggests that halving the incidence of hospital-acquired infections could release the equivalent of 5,000 bed years. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned that almost 3 million bed days are in total attributable to hospital-acquired infection. Halving that would mean that 250,000 finished consultant episodes were available for alternative health treatment. To put it another way, it could reduce the overall average bed occupancy from 90 to 86 or 87 per cent. That would relieve the pressure on the NHS dramatically. There is a big gain there for the NHS if we can achieve it.
I am not going to repeat the points made in an excellent debate that has detailed many of the things that could be considered. The hon. Member for Norwich, North talked about the importance of hand washing and all that goes with it, and listed the options in that respect, including reference to the Netherlands, which is interesting because it has about three times our number of infection-control nurses.
It seems that there is a symptomatic element to the way in which, over recent years, the Government have responded to the problem in relation to its response to the NHS as a whole. We have had guidelines, and we have had reorganizations—we are having the reorganisation of the PHLS and the establishment of the Health Protection Agency—and there are now directors of infection control. At the same time, one wonders why, although the balanced scorecard reflects MRSA incidents, the planning and performance management system criteria for the NHS do not include infection control anywhere. Unfortunately, managers are not free to respond in the way that they feel is best for patients and right for their trust. They have to respond to what the NHS centrally tells them they should concentrate on.
However, we need managers to be able to respond. The NHS and its professionals must have the freedom and the responsibility to respond. It was common ground in many of the speeches today that front-line freedom and responsibility need to be given, along with
236WH
the authority that goes with them to control what happens on the ward, perhaps through the modern matron, although the modern matron is often not, in practice, the ward manager. There needs to be a person who is responsible for all that happens on the ward and for delivering reduced infection control, whatever name is attached to that person.
As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, it is vital that surveillance leads to action. It is vital that there is research, although I wonder how complete the research instigated in 1998 was and why many of the treatments and ideas in relation to equipment and best practice that are offered by professionals in the NHS to all of us when we talk about the subject are not already reflected in the research and guidance available. Research needs to lead to action.
The final question was made perfectly clear by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam: who is responsible? It would be tempting to say that it is all the Minister's responsibility, but I do not believe that the NHS can be run that way. The responsibility rests with front-line staff, but we cannot give them that responsibility, and expect them to deliver on it, unless we also give them the necessary freedom and authority. It would certainly be the intention of the next Conservative Government to enable that to happen.
3.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It is not my habit to say, "What a good debate it has been," because, frankly, my contribution usually follows an hour and a half of turgid rubbish and I do not like to mislead the House. On this occasion, however, it has been a good debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on selecting an important subject and winning the opportunity to get these matters on the record.
I will not congratulate the Opposition, however. I wrote several paragraphs accusing them of scoring party political points and taking a negative approach to the subject, and they have gone and let me down by doing neither of those things. Large tracts of my speech have had to be thrown out. I congratulate all hon. Members on taking a positive view of all issues.
The subject is serious. Hospital-acquired infections are significant economically and, more importantly, significant to the welfare of patients. It is right and proper that we take the matter seriously. The infections are caused by a wide range of organisms. They are a problem not only for the national health service and this country, but for services everywhere. That point was forcibly made by my hon. Friend. Such infections are difficult and expensive to treat. They affect patients by causing illness, pain, anxiety, longer stays in hospital and sometimes death. We must face the challenges that they present.
Several right hon. and hon. Members presented anecdotal evidence and evidence from their own experience. I will not comment on the specific examples that they have given, except to encourage the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to ensure that the chief executive of the trusts concerned

237WH
know about their specific examples. If the chief executive does not take it seriously, they should write to Ministers, who will ensure that someone does.
I will not engage in the debate on nurse training that was raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East because it is a subject for another day. It is important to recognise that we have a different health care system now; it is far more advanced compared with the old days. It is appropriate that a largely graduate work force provide nursing. It is not easy to make direct comparisons between the training that nurses currently receive and the training they received 20 or 30 years ago, or to say that one is worse than the other.
The infections that have been discussed are a worldwide problem. In the United States, Australasia and most European countries, including this country, the percentage of patients who experience a hospital-acquired infection ranges from between 4 and 10 per cent., and there is a remarkable degree of consistency between nations. Although the UK is at the high end of that range, at about 9 per cent., the figures offer no comfort to anyone who wants to use them to suggest that the national health service or the UK is doing a broadly worse job than elsewhere.
One hospital-acquired infection is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. It is only one, but it is very important—the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden referred to it as a superbug. It shows a different geographical distribution to the other hospital-acquired infections. The particular aspect of the bacteria that causes us so many problems is its antibiotic resistance. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) asked whether any new classes of antibiotics are in the pipeline. I am not aware of any, but the problem is of great concern to the Government and to the pharmaceutical industry. As someone who used to work in the pharmaceutical industry and whose pension is in part in its hands, I can assure him that I, more than anyone, would like to see new classes emerging. However, as far as I am aware, they do not exist and that is an issue for us to address.
The European antimicrobial resistance surveillance system shows that some countries, such as the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, have maintained low levels of MRSA bloodstream infections. we have a much higher level of infections and that is why the distribution of MRSA is different from that of some other infections. Having said that, we are not alone in experiencing increasing levels of MRSA. The same problem has been occurring in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Ireland since 1999. Demographics, long-term investment and the infrastructure of health services vary widely across Europe, as do historical approaches to infections such as MRSA. That is probably why there are differences in different countries.
Since the 1980s, the Netherlands has maintained a more rigorous search-and-destroy policy with regard to MRSA than we have. It involves screening patients and isolating those found to be positive. The Dutch have been better able to do that by setting aside sufficient numbers of single rooms in modern hospitals, which have high health care worker to patient ratios. Although
238WH
we have not had the capacity in the past to adopt a similar approach, that will not—thanks to this Government—be the situation in future. Our major programme of change, set out in the national health service plan, is creating the extra capacity needed to ensure better care for patients, and by 2007–08 public expenditure on the NHS is set to rise to £90 billion. Part of that will be used to improve the infrastructure of hospitals in the way identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) in her important contribution. Part of getting the issue right is getting the built environment right.
Since 1997, our guidance for major hospital redevelopment has aimed for a minimum of 50 per cent. of bedrooms to be single. We have implemented major recruitment drives for qualified health care personnel and increased the number of training places for doctors and nurses. As our plans progress, we will increasingly be better placed to achieve the same low infection levels as the best examples abroad.
Unfortunately, not all hospital-acquired infections are preventable and many factors contribute to the problem. For example, more susceptible patients—such as those with severe or chronic diseases—are being treated than ever before. At the same time, advances in treatment that improve patient survival can leave them more vulnerable to infections. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam compared survival rates of people who have hospital infections and the time spent in hospital of people who get such infections with what, I believe, was the average time spent in hospital. In order to be accurate, we must compare people with hospital-acquired infections with people of a similar level of weakness, because they are the ones who are most likely to have got the hospital-acquired infections in the first place.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out that representatives of nursing homes occasionally suggest that the problem does not affect them. I also often hear stories from nursing home proprietors that they worry when their residents go into hospital. In fact, we have a lot of evidence to suggest that nursing homes can be reservoirs of infection. The previous Government recognised that by publishing guidance for infection control in nursing homes. It is too simplistic to suggest that acute hospitals are causing the problem and that nursing homes have to deal with it.
There is no one simple solution to the complex and multifaceted problem, as others have described it. It is generally accepted that up to 30 per cent. of cases could be avoided with the better application of existing knowledge and good practice. In other words, it should be possible to reduce the estimate of UK hospital-acquired infections from 9 to 6 per cent. However, we cannot eradicate all infections by changes in working practice and hygiene, as some erroneously suggest.
Unfortunately, use of antibiotics exerts an inevitable Darwinian selection pressure on bacteria to develop resistance. Bacteria are genetically promiscuous, and, once selected, resistant bacteria can spread or transfer their resistance genes to other bacteria, which makes infections more difficult to treat. The increasing prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant micro-organisms, especially those with multiple resistances, is a global

239WH
concern and improved infection control must be an important part of our strategy to control the problem.
In recent years, we have actively provided the NHS with advice on combating the infections and with additional support and resources. As health care associated infections are caused by a variety of micro-organisms, reporting systems, in general, do not identify cases acquired in hospitals. That is why we are developing a new national mandatory surveillance system that will track the national situation and help trusts to monitor their performance and to act to improve patient care. The system started with MRSA blood stream infections in 2001 and is being developed to include other organisms.
Cleanliness was raised by many hon. Members. Although common sense suggests that there is an association between cleanliness and infections such as MRSA, we do not have evidence to show that. However, we are working to improve both infection control and cleanliness. The Government have invested an additional £68 million in a nationwide clean-up campaign and have initiated a programme of unannounced visits by independent teams. Every hospital in England now provides a patient environment that is good or acceptable. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement.
I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who said that we should not draw too close a parallel between the efforts that we are making to ensure cleanliness in hospitals, and infections. He was right to suggest that. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden suggested that staff screening might be an issue. We do not carry out such screening because MRSA is a transitory organism and staff screening would not tell us anything of much use. Hygiene and the use of protective clothing at appropriate junctures is a better way forward.
Hand hygiene is likely to be particularly important and is receiving more attention. The amount of alcohol hand-rub purchased through the NHS Logistics Authority has increased by 35 per cent. in the last year. The National Patient Safety Agency toolkit to improve compliance with hand hygiene is being piloted in six NHS trusts. In June, we announced that £12 million would be allocated over the next three years for hospital
240WH
clinical pharmacists to monitor and control more carefully the use of antibiotics. Projects to help the NHS improve infection control are under way, a professional group is reviewing guidelines for the control of MRSA in hospitals, and implementation workshops for NHS staff on the national guidelines are being held. Revised national standards of cleanliness for the NHS were issued in August and a cleaning manual for the NHS is to be published shortly.
In recognition of the need to do better on this subject, the chief medical officer set out a comprehensive range of actions in the report "Winning Ways", to which hon. Members referred. Many measures reinforce good clinical practice, but there are a number of new measures. Before I talk about those, I shall deal with catheters, which several hon. Members mentioned. "Winning Ways" and the guidelines that we are issuing include the use of catheters. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage asked about single-use catheters, which are now routinely used for intravascular and urinary cases. We are also trying to build up an evidence-base for other medical devices that it might be more appropriate to introduce. Where evidence suggests that there will be benefits from introducing different types of single-use medical devices, they will be introduced. I assure hon. Members that we are aware of the issues relating to catheters and are doing our best to address them.
As part of "Winning Ways", there will be an investigation of new systematic approaches to identification, evaluation and control of safety hazards. There will also be further work to improve auditing, and a research programme. We announced that £3 million would be available over three years. That is in addition to the Department's antimicrobial-resistance research programme of more than £2 million, and any work that the Medical Research Council might want to initiate in areas such as bacteriophage, if proposals are put to it.
Mr. John McWilliam: I should explain that at 4 o'clock there is a likely to be at least one Division. In that case, the sitting will be suspended for 15 minutes. If there are two Divisions, I will suspend for a further 15 minutes.

Grass-roots Sport
3.30 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: First, I should declare an interest. I do not know whether it is a pecuniary one, but it is a passionate interest. I not only play for Birstall rugby club; I am its president. I have been much honoured to be so for the past two or three years.
The purpose of today's debate is twofold. First, it is just over a year since the Government produced their strategy report "Game Plan", setting out their sport and physical activity objectives for the next 20 years. Secondly, since the rugby world cup and following the success of the England team, there has been enormous enthusiasm across the nation for sport as a whole and particularly for rugby—perhaps not so much in Scotland and Wales. The hope was that the interest generated would ensure that people joined their local rugby club.
Mr. John McWilliam: As a life member of Blaydon rugby club, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not need to declare his interest?
Mr. Reed: I do not think that I have played Blaydon, but as I still participate most weekends, I look forward to doing so. I shall come to my personal experience at grass-roots level. Birstall rugby club is about as grass roots as one can get, as I shall explain.
I want to explore where we were in 2002 when "Game Plan" was written, where we are going, where we are hoping to go by 2020 and whether we are making the right moves in that direction. We could easily have another half-hour debate about elite sport, school sport and the holding of mega events, but I want to talk specifically about the grass-roots element of "Game Plan" because it is crucial to the other elements in the strategy. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows of the fantastic work with elite sport that goes on at Loughborough university. I hope that we can return to this Chamber to discuss the excellent work going on there and how we will deliver at Loughborough on the country's major sports.
Grass-roots participation is about two key things: mass participation for its own sake—I shall talk about that in relation to health, education and crime—and ensuring that we identify talent, so that those recognised as elite athletes late in their careers can surge through. My regular appearances for Birstall first team this season demonstrate that that can happen, although the fact that we have run only one team for large parts of the season may have something to do with it. I believe that, even at a late stage, there is a role for each of us. The possibility of an England call-up and a career with Leicester Tigers are long past, but we still all harbour the hope that some day we may be called up to do something.
"There are millions of people in this country who are passionate about sport—I am one of them, both as a player and as a fan. But the value of sport goes beyond personal enjoyment and fulfilment. Sport is a powerful and often under-used tool that can help Government to achieve a number of ambitious goals. We have to ensure that we are well equipped to do that."
Those are not my words. They are the words of the Prime Minister in the foreword to "Game Plan", and
242WH
they encapsulate the feelings of many of us who are passionate about sport, both as players and as fans. We recognise not only that sport is good in itself, but that it can achieve a great deal more, which the Government want to achieve.
My personal experience is as a rugby player for Birstall rugby club over the past 20 years. It is an old school side, and a number of colleagues of my own age group are just about hanging in there. The next season will probably see one or two of us heading towards retirement. My wife probably wishes that I had retired 15 years ago, but come the first week in September, there is nothing more magical than the sound of the whistle and the first kick-off as we start another season. It is difficult to explain to people who do not enjoy sport how much fun and enjoyment can be found at that basic level. We play on a school playing field, we use the school changing rooms, and a local pub is our club house. We do not have any club facilities, but it is genuine grass-roots sport. That is what it is all about.
Several players were disappointed on Saturday when I scored the first try of the game. I was elated that we had scored the try, but they realised that I had secured this Adjournment debate and that I could talk the Minister through it. It was only a 15 or 20 m run-in, but by the time that I got here today, I was sure that I went past all 15 players on a jinking run from underneath our own posts. That is the glory of sport at the grass roots. We managed a fantastic 52-0 win against Oakham.
In my maiden speech, I mentioned the game that we had had against Melton the week before the 1997 general election. I was fortunate enough to play fly-half that week, and managed to score four tries. We won 97–10. It was at that point that I knew that we were on for a landslide the following Thursday. Participation at that level is not the only important factor. Unfortunately, one problem with my job is that I will not be able to attend training this evening, which is just as important as the social activity on a Saturday.
Even in this place, however, it is possible to participate in grass-roots sport. I have been lucky during the past few years; the number of sports teams in this place almost makes the experience like that at college. I have managed to play rugby; I scored a try at Twickenham. I have played in Australia a couple of times, as well as in France, Ireland and Japan. The football team has raised an enormous amount of money for charity.
I never really played cricket at school, but the team in the House let me run out a few times throughout the season; I turn out now and then for the tennis team; if anyone is interested, we have a hockey game next week against the BBC; and I will be captain of the swimming team for a charity swim against the House of Lords in march. I do not how the swimming captain was chosen—unless it was by default. Unfortunately, I am one of the worst swimmers in the House, so I count myself as a non-swimming captain, cheering from the back. I have to admit that one gets a rather nice gold medal for doing so; my four-and-half-year-old son was most impressed by it. I would hate to tell him that all six of us, whether we came first or sixth, received a gold medal, although it does look impressive.
I have also spent a large part of the past three or four years chairing East Midlands Sport, as we have moved

243WH
towards the establishment of a regional sports board. I pay tribute to the Minister for his work in ensuring that that has progressed. As the rest of the Government programme moves towards regionalism, it is vital that sport matches that progress. I enjoyed those years, and I hope to serve sport in that way again.
Sport is still a passion to me, which others throughout the House share. Last week, for instance, the gym was absolutely packed. The post-Christmas bulge ensured that it was one of the busiest periods that the gym had seen, and our regular MPs' five-a-side game had double the usual number of participants—between 15 and 20 players last week. Unfortunately, only nine played this week, and we were down to three-a-side at one stage. The level of commitment demonstrated by some of our colleagues needs to be wound up somewhat. They need to follow through on the commitment that they show straight after Christmas.
The current situation in sport is not all bleak. Britain is fair to middling in the European leagues of participation rates. Some 36 per cent. of people undertake 30 minutes' activity five times a week, but that is nowhere near the best in the world. In Finland, for example, they attain levels of between 75 and 80 per cent. In Australia, the figure is 57 per cent. We clearly have a long way to go to achieve such figures. Other European countries such as Ireland, Spain and Italy fall below our participation rates, but that should give us no comfort.
If we are to increase participation rates, we must do a wide range of things. All one has to do is consider what they did in Finland and Australia. They made a concerted effort over a long period, and decided that they felt strongly and passionately about the issue. I am pleased that "Game Plan" does that too. It recognises that there is no short-term fix, but it also recognises that we as a Government and as a nation need to do something about the issue, for the sake not just of sport but of other aspects such as health and fitness, education, crime and social inclusion.
The strategy report and the Health Committee have considered the major health issue of obesity. If we do not tackle the problem, the country will be sitting on a time bomb. We estimate that obesity causes 57,000 premature deaths and costs the Treasury about £2.5 billion each year. Most people would be horrified at the obesity levels and the graph that shows their increase. I am not sure what my wife was trying to tell me, but she bought me a set of scales as my main Christmas present. The scales measure not only my weight but my body-fat index.
Mr. David Drew: That was had timing.
Mr. Reed: It was bad timing, but at least I knew that just after Christmas I was not far off clinical obesity, which directed my efforts. I have managed to lose a little weight and body fat since. That demonstrates how we can be blasé about obesity. Our lifestyles in this place and across the country make it difficult for us to understand, as parents or as individuals, how to balance work, life, play and diet.
Even if we did not want to play sport for its own sake, health and obesity would be major reasons to increase participation. The two go hand in hand. It is impossible
244WH
to drive up participation in sport if people do not enjoy it. A key factor behind the drop-off rates from sport—people participate at school, then there is a decline as the years pass—is that people feel that they need to want to do sport and not that they should do sport. The Finnish targeted their approach on groups in which participation in sport was declining most rapidly. They therefore managed to increase participation among older people. We should target resources at those groups least likely to participate and most likely to benefit, such as the lower socio-economic groups, women, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and those who are older. Each group needs to be targeted differently.
Two or three years ago, the Nike report revealed the incidence of women dropping out of sport post-school. The school-club link was not apparent. There is still no link with lifelong sport—into the veteran age group—for women leaving school. I was horrified to find that I officially played for the veterans at the age of 35. I had always thought that veteran age was a long way off. We need to target each of the groups that I mentioned. The Finnish looked at why there were barriers to participation and targeted messages at such groups. In addition, they produced an annual report on participation. Will the Government consider that?
The Finns also did a lot of long-term research. Many sports bodies are starting to do research, as anecdotal evidence has been a problem. All of us who are excited by or interested in sport think that participating in it is good for education and health, but we do not have the hard facts and research to back up our beliefs. It is good that organisations such as sports coach UK are working on research programmes, and that Sport England is conducting research as part of a more strategic approach. The Finns have also tried to make use of their natural assets. Unlike Finland, we would clearly struggle to engender a lot of cross-country skiing, but we have many natural assets that we can use.
Sport does not have to be played in teams. People believe a lot of myths and make many excuses why they do not participate in physical activity and sport. They always find reasons not to practise. One such reason comes from a misunderstanding of what is required. Doing 30 minutes' physical activity five times a week does not have to involve playing rugby or going to the gym. There are other ways. Vigorous walking and cycling can make a difference to people's lifestyle and health. The Finns devoted many of their resources to the lowest level—to councils and clubs. They reduced bureaucracy as much as possible and let people get on with the job. Sports clubs up and down the country are good at attracting people and holding on to them, because they want people.
Mr. Drew: I do not want to try to match my hon. Friend's sporting finesse, but does he agree that there is room for semi-professional clubs? We know the many ways in which professional clubs work in the community. Furthermore, the Government have done an awful lot for what we used to call amateur clubs—although I do not think that we use that term any more. Semi-professional clubs are forgotten when it comes to tax concessions, as they do not always fit the agenda as closely as they might. However, such local clubs can do

245WH
an awful lot to advance grass-roots sports. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that that is an important layer on which we should concentrate?
Mr. Reed: I agree that several football clubs and youth teams make an enormous contribution—that happens throughout my constituency. We see the first team football results in the local newspaper on Saturday and tend to forget the number of youngsters who are participating because of the support that they receive. I have some concerns about amounts of money paid to players at different levels of the game. I know that when rugby went professional, money started being paid to players at my level—unfortunately, not at my club, where we still pay our £5 a week subscription to get our shirts washed and to buy food for the opposition. It seemed a little silly that money coming into the game was being wasted on paying players who had been happy to turn up for their club week in, week out. We need to get the balance right; I agree that clubs make a valuable contribution to the local community.
I want to talk about coaching and the role of sports clubs. The way to drive up participation generally is to do so first at school. We need to get that right. All the work that has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in setting up school sports co-ordinators and specialist sports colleges has made an enormous difference, but we still need to do more.
As we build up the number of participants in schools, we need to ensure that the school link is so strong that people move almost seamlessly from one club to another without a drop-off rate. To achieve that, we must get two elements right: the human capital and the physical structures. There needs to be much greater use of school facilities. In my area, we use our college's facilities, which are fine. Our rugby pitch is a piece of grass, the changing rooms are of a reasonable standard and we are able to make do. However, coaching and the individuals involved are the most important aspects to get right. I must praise the Minister for the work that he has done on the coaching taskforce and for his ability to get money out of the Treasury to achieve much of it.
If we get one thing right it should be the link between coach and individual. We must ensure that the coach is fit for purpose. We do not need a Clive Woodward at Birstall rugby club. Clive is perfect for what he does, but at our level we need somebody who can teach us, even in our later years. I have learned to drop-kick in the past two or three years, as I have been forced to play at fly-half a few times. I do not quite have the Jonny Wilkinson ability to do so under pressure; it takes me about five minutes to line the blooming thing up. However, it is possible even in one's late 30s to learn such skills, although I wish that I had done so earlier. The coach must be fit for purpose across the spectrum. Having the right coach at the right place at the right time is crucial.
I have to admit that the past decade has been the best for sports funding. Amounts have come from the lottery, the Government and the New Opportunities Fund—and from the Exchequer through the doubling of funding. I congratulate the Government in particular because we have won battles and they have climbed down on the issue of community and amateur sports
246WH
clubs. It seems a long time ago since I introduced my ten-minute Bill on that subject. We hit a brick wall at the time, but eventually we won our battle with the Treasury—although not necessarily with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Once the civil servants came round, the wall quickly tumbled down and there was a great deal of enthusiasm. There is now much enthusiasm in the Treasury, which recognises the enormous benefit of those clubs. At the grass roots, a few thousand pounds or a few hundred pounds make a big difference.
I would particularly like to say a big thank you for the conclusion of the big rate relief battle, which has gone on ever since I became involved in sports and politics. Even though we thought at one stage that victory was unlikely, we won the battle this year when the Government finally conceded. I know that they like doing that at the last hour; it adds to the sense of purpose and build-up. Rates can be enormous, so relief will make a great difference to many clubs' finances, allowing them to spend money on coaching and attracting more people, rather than on the fabric of buildings. The Government have done an enormous amount on that, and they need praising.
We have much to do to get participation rates up from 36 to 80 per cent. I would like to hear how the Minister thinks that we will do so, what progress we have made in the first year, and whether he believes that the structure is in place to allow that to build year on year.
The other important thing about local clubs is volunteering. The whole structure would collapse tomorrow if the 1.5 million volunteers in the 150,000 sports clubs disappeared overnight. However, volunteers and volunteering in sport never seem to match what we know as the voluntary sector—and I have been guilty of that attitude as much as others. There have been similar difficulties with, for example, the Home Office volunteers programme; sport does not seem to have been recognised. Somehow, those volunteers are thought to be different from others in the voluntary sector. I used to work as a project officer, but I must admit that, even though I was a volunteer in a sports club, it never crossed my mind that it was part of the same sector. The spheres need to work much more closely to ensure that sports clubs benefit from elsewhere.
There is a great deal to do: we have to get the suppliers' side right and increase the demand for participation. That will benefit health, education, crime and social inclusion. We must target the groups that are least likely to participate. We really have a chance to turn things around. I hope that we have been able to use the success of the rugby world cup as a genesis for that, because we will not have such an opportunity again.
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. The object of an Adjournment debate is to get a reply from the Minister, not to lecture him.
3.51 pm
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on the work that he has done and continues to do in his constituency, and on the role that he played in the East Midlands Sports Council. His name for participation in sport went before him, and he should be commended.

247WH
My officials have been working on all the press releases that my hon. Friend sends out, of which there are many—in fact, I had an army of civil servants going through them. One was titled: "Rate Relief for Sports Clubs Secured Thanks to Reed". It read:
"Local MP Andy Reed's 4 year battle to get effective rate relief for local sports clubs finally came to an end yesterday, as the Government passed the Local Government Bill".
That was solely down to him apparently, and I congratulate him on that. However, to be serious, it was a battle to get that rate relief, and as he said, that battle had been raging for 30 years. It came to a conclusion because of this Government and he acknowledged our investment in grass—roots sport. To a large extent, we convinced the Treasury through the development of the CASC—the Community Amateur Sports Club. The CASC gave us a vehicle that was watertight in taxation terms as far as the Treasury was concerned, so it was prepared to introduce mandatory rate relief, which was a good exercise.
One aspect, however, has been disappointing. I ask hon. Members from both sides to come on board to ensure that we get the scheme out to sports clubs. One of the weaknesses of the governing bodies has been their inability to communicate with their clubs. By 31 December last year, only 558 clubs had registered with the Inland Revenue. That includes those registering for mandatory rate relief and the CASC—the whole lot. Through our nine regional officers, we put out about 100,000 leaflets. We used the one-stop shops, and had a dedicated telephone line linked to the Charity Commission and various organisations to make it as simple as possible for any sports club to receive that sort of financial support. There is a lot more educational work to be done, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties will participate in that.
As my hon. Friend said, it is one year on from "Game Plan", which is a 20-year plan. We are laying the foundations and going through a modernisation of the sporting infrastructure. He epitomised what sport was all about when he talked about scoring a try on Saturday for his local rugby union club. I do a bit of running, as he probably knows, and I must admit to running the half-marathon in under two hours last year. I did the great north run, in which 47,000 people participated. To do that with them was a fantastic feeling in itself, and I did the run in 1 hour 58 minutes and 25 seconds. All I wanted to do was to get under two hours—and I did. It is a great feeling when such personal ambitions are achieved.
It is right that we are now paying attention to participation. The record of investment in sport has been unfortunate. We have spent just over £1.5 billion during the period of the lottery and have increased participation by just per cent. One has to start looking at where things have gone wrong. As my hon. Friend said, we have now started to work in schools, and we are now rolling out 400 sports colleges—one for every 400,000 people—that are linked to an average of seven secondary schools and 15 primary schools. Their sole objective is to provide two hours of quality physical activity per week for every child from the ages of five to 16. That bedrock has to be laid. The initiative is linked to 3,000 school sports co-ordinators, who are releasing teachers from other tasks, thus allowing them to teach. The co-ordinators are developing sport in and between schools and in their communities.
248WH
Club-to-school links are important. Some 70 per cent. of our young people do not continue in active sport when they leave school. In France, that figure is 20 per cent. and throughout most of the developed world it is less than 70 per cent. We have been trying to consider the issue systematically and are asking, "Where are the structural weaknesses that we have to address?" That is why we are investing £60 million through the governing bodies to examine the club structure, club-to-school links and the development of clubs in the community.
There are 40,000 soccer clubs throughout the country, but the number of rugby union clubs has fallen from just over 1,500 to about 1,480. I know that the Rugby Football Union is addressing that issue and making a welcome impact by investing £100 million over the next four years. The number of clubs has tended to decline across the major sports. We are trying, in partnership with the governing bodies, to address the issue of strengthening the club structure and club-to-school links. If we can get young people to participate in sport in their communities at a young age—whichever sport that might be—they are more likely to stay in sport when they leave school.
In the recent past, it has been pleasing to see how the governing bodies of sports are talking together and considering how to develop multi-sports clubs. We were talking about how the issue is not just about real estate, which is important, but about how the synergy of sport is brought together to operate in the community. The national coaching certificate will evolve this year thanks to the governing bodies coming together. We are investing just under £30 million over the next two to three years to bring in a coaching certificate. I should like to see around 3,000 community coaches on the ground in the next three to four years working through county partnerships, and making links with what we do in the schools and what the governing bodies are doing through their sports clubs development schemes.
This is one of the small issues, but there is a much bigger picture. On grass-roots development and participation, we are currently investing in the real estate and human capital through co-ordinators and the new community coaches. There is also the development, for the first time, of the profession of sports coach. Sports coach UK is developing that strategy.
The lack of worth given to coaching in this country was brought to my attention when I was in the north-east. One of our young national gymnastics coaches, who was previously an engineer and had retrained as a coach, told me that he had just got married. He said that he tried to get a mortgage, but was told, "I'm sorry, but that is not secure employment. Go back to being engineer, put 'engineer' on your application form and we will give you the money." That spoke volumes. As a nation, the most important part of our infrastructure is coaching. We have had to import a coach from abroad for nearly every national sport, including our national game, football, as well as swimming, rugby league and so on. I mean no disrespect to those people, but that is an indictment of the lack of investment in coaching for many years.
The investment in infrastructure, what is happening in schools through the governing bodies and the modernisation proposals will start to have an impact on the development of grass-roots sport throughout the coming years. If we link that to what is happening to

249WH
talent development in further education and at universities, we shall be able to say in a few years that young people in the schools or clubs structure who have talent can seamlessly develop it to a level that will reward them, reward sport and reward the nation, as we begin to pick up more gold, silver and bronze medals and win the cup in Australia.
Mr. John McWilliam: Order. Time is up.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—

Post Office Services (West Derbyshire)
4.12 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about post office closures in West Derbyshire. I do so reluctantly because I fully accept that, inevitably, closures take place. However, I cannot believe the scale on which they have been happening over the past six years in West Derbyshire. Ten years ago I had ministerial responsibility for the Post Office, so I am familiar with some issues that surround post office closures and the constraints that are placed on the Post Office. My constituency is one of the largest in the east midlands. Its boundaries stretch from Derby to Sheffield and across to the Staffordshire border. It extends over 350 square miles.
In 1997 there were 61 post offices in my constituency. By the end of March 2004 there will be only 45. Branches have closed in the rural areas of Fenny Bentley, Biggin, Brassington, Clifton, Cubley, Darley Bridge, Flagg, Haddon, Kniveton, Kirk Langley, Lea Bridge, Longstone, Quardnon and Taddington. I was absolutely shocked to receive a letter before Christmas from the branch closure division of the Post Office, which said that it was earmarking the closure of four post offices in Belper and one in Matlock Green. It was closing four post offices of the five in Belper, which meant the removal of 80 per cent. of the capacity of post offices in the area as a result of a supposed "reinvention" proposal. If ever there was a wrong word for a set of proposals, it is the Post Office's "reinvention" programme, given that so many post offices have closed.
From 1997, there has been a reduction of 27 per cent. in the post offices in West Derbyshire. That has caused considerable problems for the elderly. I have received a number of letters over the years from constituents about the closures and the proposed closures that I shall discuss today.
Belper has a population in excess of 20,000. These proposals would give us one post office to cover the entire area. The consultation exercise was extremely strange: 23 December was the closing date for representations, and I received a letter on 2 January outlining why those offices must close. It does not seem that during the period 23 December to 2 January much would have gone on in many offices. I would not have expected them to be working on 24, 25 or 26 December and I think there was a weekend in the midst of the period. During the same period of 23 December to 8 January, decisions were also being taken on 56 additional post office closures across the United Kingdom, from Bournemouth to Huddersfield to Worthing. I do not believe for a second that in the space of three to six working days, all the comments, letters and petitions were fully considered. I believe that the decisions were already taken and that they were taken when the letters were sent out about the original proposals to close.
I join a number of parliamentary colleagues who have said that the closure consultation process is nothing more than a farce. It does not exist in reality; the decisions are already being taken before the

251WH
consultation programme is undergone. I am grateful for the work that Postwatch has carried out. As it happens, I had a scheduled meeting with Postwatch before the closures were announced. I met Irene Shiels, the representative for Derbyshire, and John Verspeak. I pay tribute to their hard work. I am glad that they put in their objections to the closure of the Windmill Lane post office. Of the four post offices proposed for closure in Belper, one has gone up to what I believe to be escalation scale one. It is disappointing that the closures seem to have been decided before we went for the consultation process.
Very little is being done to shore up the remainder of the post office network. I know that the Minister will tell us that £ million is available for improvements. Perhaps she will also tell us how much of that £30 million has been spent so far. My understanding is that not much has been spent at all; in fact, so far only £1 million has been allocated, although the closure programme is halfway through. If it is going to be a reinvention programme, why not consider re-siting another post office elsewhere in Belper so that the people of Belper have at least two post offices available rather than having to come in to the centre of town all the time to use the one remaining post office, associated with the Co-op.
I am amazed by part of the letter I received on the closures from Paul Maisey, head of the area Post Office Ltd. Having told me that the closures are going to take place, he says:
"I am pleased to confirm in partnership with the remaining subpostmasters, coupled with financial support from the investment grant programme, we are planning to invest some £1,500 within the remaining Post Office branch network in the West Derbyshire area".
That is £1,500 for some 40 post offices. The letter continues:
"Specific improvement proposals are detailed within the attached appendices, but typically, they include a selection of the following:
Internal Decoration
External Decoration
Ramp
Hearing Loop
2 extra counter positions".
I am not sure how much £1,500 will buy, but it will not buy much from that list if it is to be spread across all the post office networks. It works out at a mere —33 per post office, which is not very much for investment. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that the figure was actually a misprint or that there is something wrong in the letter that was sent to me.
I am not the only person who is disappointed by the way in which the Post Office has conducted the consultation programme. The Southern Derbyshire Pensioners Association has written to me on behalf of the senior citizens of southern Derbyshire to convey their thanks for my support for keeping post offices open. In letters that I receive from my constituents and in meetings with them, one issue that is constantly raised is the service that they are receiving.
The Government have continued to undermine the remaining Post Office business. There is a direct correlation between their policies and a rise in closures.
252WH
Direct payment of pensions and benefits into building societies has reduced the flow of business to post offices. Indeed, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services admitted in November 2003 that the
"traditional business of post offices has been declining. For example, 43 per cent. of benefits recipients now have their money paid into a bank account".2014;[Official Report, 6 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 923.]
The Government's policy has cost the Post Office 40 per cent. of its income, which helps to explain why the Royal Mail Group is losing £1.1 million a day.
There was a little bit of annoyance at the way in which the Women's Institute treated the Prime Minister when he talked about post offices in that famous address that he made when he was handclapped. The writing was on the wall that post offices would not get the kind of support about which we had heard thitherto. The Prime Minister has said constantly at the Dispatch Box that pensioners would be able to claim their benefits from the post office if they so wished. That is fine, but going around closing post offices does not leave people with much opportunity to use them.
I am not the only person to raise this matter. Just before Christmas, there was a debate in the House on a Trade and Industry Committee report. Members from both sides of the House all made the same protests about the closure programme.
Indeed, there have been many complaints about the card account as a viable alternative. The Department for Work and Pensions showed a severe bias in its leaflets, which highlighted the positive points of bank accounts but underplayed the card account's strong points. The Government allocated £25 million to publicise a move to direct payments, but the vast majority of the information, including the UK-wide advertisements, does not even mention the Post Office card account. This Government are not trying to support post offices but undermining them so that they can come up with closures. Post offices are not even allowed to advertise the card account.
The Government have not been straight when telling us of their plans for the post office network. Those of us who represent rural areas have seen a huge number of closures in the rural networks in the past few years. There is now an even larger closure programme in the urban network. There has been tremendous pressure from both sides of the House, but basically the Government have ignored it. The longest early-day motion in the last parliamentary Session was signed by 391 Members of Parliament, including 180 Labour Members.
A staggering fact is that when for a while I was the Post Office Minister, I answered hardly a debate in the House on post offices. That was because they were not closing. Since 1997, there have been 66 debates on Post Office services; there were only 15 from 1992 to 1997. That shows the level of concern.
I said earlier that I accepted that there would always be post office closures and that there would always be times when people wanted to sell the business and move away, and people could not be recruited to take on a particular post office. The scale of closure that we are currently witnessing is unprecedented in recent years.
Every debate and every EDM shows that the Government's policies are to blame for the decline, and

253WH
they must be held to account. They have recently made a great play of having a big conversation; there was a fairly big conversation in the House of Commons before Christmas when we debated the Trade and Industry Committee report. Every Member—on not only the Opposition Benches, but the Labour Benches—asked the Government to rethink what they were doing. The way in which the closures are taking place is unacceptable.
There is grave concern about the Government's post office policies. I hope that the Minister can provide some answers. It is no coincidence that while we are debating post offices in Westminster Hall the House is debating the same issue. The Government should address that issue. If they are to stand by the commitment, given so often by the Prime Minister, to allow people to collect their pensions and benefits from the post office, there must be a post office counter network.
I sadly believe that we will see a complete decline in the network so that it does not become a viable option. One way or another, the Government will be able to say that people do not use the post offices because they are becoming more and more difficult to use. I hope that the Minister will address those points.
4.26 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing the debate on post office services in his constituency…and slightly further afield, to which I will also venture in my response.
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. We fully recognise their importance as a focal point for communities, and to those customers who are elderly and less mobile. I should also like to reassure him, given his comments about benefit recipients, that we are committed to ensuring that they can continue to collect their entitlement in cash from the post office.
Some local Conservative representatives—I do not include the hon. Gentleman—would be better advised to encourage people to use their local post offices to take up the opportunities that exist through the card accounts, which are not advertised because they are for benefit recipients; the basic bank accounts from which benefits can be accessed at all post offices; and the current accounts of several large banks, which provide more flexible benefit access than previously.
It is important to view Post Office action and Government support in context. The recommendations in the performance and innovation unit's 2000 report, which formed the basis of Government policy for the post office network, provide the context. It was an in-depth study of the issues facing the Post Office and it made 24 recommendations for the future of the network. We accepted all its recommendations, including the proposal that, if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in urban areas, the Government should consider providing funding so that sub-postmasters affected could be adequately compensated for the loss of their business.
254WH
Following parliamentary approval of the funding in November 2002, Post Office Ltd. began its urban network reinvention programme. I understand the concern of Members about post office provision in their areas, but it is important for all Members to realise the difficult conditions that the Post Office management face. We must work constructively with the company to ensure that we achieve the aim of maintaining a sustainable network for the future.
In the past financial year, Post Office Ltd. made losses of £194 million before exceptional items. In the previous year, losses were £163 million. The Post Office has again reported very significant losses of £91 million in its half-year results. The previous Government let the situation drift. I was not going to say that, but I was tempted by the hon. Gentleman's contention that he never faced controversy during his period in government when 3,500 post offices closed. He argued, when highlighting post office closures, that what we now need is decisive and urgent action to ensure that it is possible to maintain a viable, managed network.
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister referred to 3,500 post office closures during the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government. When the figures are available, I shall be proud and pleased to compare the number of closures between 1996 and the end of 2004—some eight years—with the number of closures during the 18 years to which she refers. I believe that they will substantially match.
Jacqui Smith: During those 18 years there was a considerable lack of interest by the Government in a sustainable future for post offices. That is part of the reason for the pressure that the Post Office finds itself under now, along with past underinvestment, lack of commitment to developing a sustainable network and other factors, such as changing customer choices.
I challenge the hon. Gentleman, who is criticising the Government for providing choice for benefit recipients, to say whether he expects everyone who receives benefits such as child benefit to be forced to receive them through the Post Office. Is he arguing that the Government should take choice away from benefit recipients? I hope that he is not. We must recognise the changes in context and ensure that we support both the urban and rural post office network, and particularly sub-postmasters, who have been finding it increasingly difficult to earn a reasonable income from their business and, consequently, have been shutting up shop and leaving of their own accord.
It is vital to have rationalisation in parts of the network to improve its sustainability. Without that, there will be unmanaged decline as sub-postmasters continue to shut down and leave. We faced a supply situation in which, before the urban reinvention programme began, more than 1,000 urban sub-post offices had at least 10 other post offices within a mile. Allowing that unmanaged decline to happen would bring the real prospect of serious gaps in provision and would be much more damaging for our constituents and the viability of the network as a whole than the current managed process.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the situation in his constituency, where the Post Office has come forward with a programme of planned closures.

255WH
Initially, closure proposals under the Post Office urban reinvention programme were focused on single post offices known to be at most risk of closure because of poor viability. In response to input from stakeholders and to reduce uncertainty about the future shape of the network, the company moved, in September 2003, to producing its proposals on an area-by-area basis, using each parliamentary constituency or geographical groupings of them as the basis.
Producing an area-wide plan brings the benefit of giving a clear view of the level of service provision at the end of the urban reinvention programme and provides the Post Office with the opportunity to understand the views of Members of Parliament and local authorities about the wider plans. I understand that during the consultation period the company responded to the hon. Gentleman's written correspondence and met representatives from Derbyshire county council. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was able to voice his concerns via Postwatch, whose funding has been increased precisely so that it can provide that important watchdog service on the proposals.
It is worth outlining that those proposals relate to urban post offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I want to talk about rural post offices in a moment. Under the proposals, Post Office Ltd. reviewed all its urban offices in the West Derbyshire constituency after producing an area plan, which included the proposal to close five branches under the terms of the urban reinvention programme. I understand that although the four post office branches in Belper facing closure obviously attract some loyalty from local people, their transaction levels would not match even average levels of business at a single-counter-position branch. The main Strutt street Co-op branch is expected to receive the additional business created by the closure of those branches. There will be various improvements including two additional counter positions, a ramp, a hearing loop and internal and external redecoration.
I do not believe it is the hon. Gentleman's fault, but there appears to have been some confusion about the nature of the £1,500, which is part of £30 million for modernisation and adaptation, but specifically identified for the Strutt street Co-op branch. I shall go on to talk about support in the rest of the constituency in a moment.
It is worth pausing to consider the issue of the £30 million. It is worth noting that during the period when there was an unmanaged decline in post office numbers, there was neither the investment in improvement of remaining capacity nor the maintenance of the rural network that has been undertaken by this Government. In fact, the £30 million represents the first ever programme of Government investment in urban sub-post offices, and it is an additional measure to those recommended by the performance and innovation unit report that started the whole process, as I outlined.
Mr. McLoughlin: But can the Minister confirm whether I was right about the fact that so far only £1 million of that £30 million has been allocated, despite the fact that we are halfway through the closure programme for the urban offices?
Jacqui Smith: Well, actually, I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that spending on this aspect of the programme has now reached £6.5 million. Post Office Ltd. is confident that take-up of that funding will increase as sub-postmasters become more confident about their future. The funding is matched by investment from sub-postmasters. I must say that in the previous environment I would not have been very confident about investing in my business if I were not sure that I would be part of a viable, sustainable network. Sub-postmasters can now be sure of that, and I would expect the take-up from that £30 million to increase.
I shall now discuss rural post offices in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In urban areas restructuring has taken place under the urban reinvention programme but, as recommended by the performance and innovation unit, we have already asked Post Office Ltd. to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures in the first instance until 2006. That has involved considerable investment. Post Office Ltd. has underpinned its commitment to achieving that aim by appointing a network of rural transfer advisers who often become closely involved with community efforts to reopen or save rural post offices. They have had considerable success in finding alternative sub-postmasters to replace those who have left, in locating suitable replacement premises where necessary, and in giving encouragement to community efforts to provide post office services.
The rural network benefits from £450 million of investment, available from 2003–06, which will help it continue to provide access to services in rural areas that could not otherwise be sustained on a commercial basis. That follows on from the £2 million that we provided for the rural sub-post office capital start-up scheme. Under that scheme, more than £25,000 has been paid out for successful grants benefiting three rural post offices in West Derbyshire, at Kirk Ireton, Hulland Ward and Turnditch. In addition, funding from the Countryside Agency and Derbyshire rural community council enabled a post office to reopen in Ashford in the Water, and Hartington post office in the hon. Gentleman's constituency won the best rural post office award for 2003.
In 2002–03, rural post office closures were at their lowest since 1994–95, which demonstrates the commitment that Post Office Ltd. is showing to the Government's requirement to prevent avoidable closures, and the use of the additional investment being put in by the Government. We have put in place a strong management team at the Post Office and we have tasked that team with turning the business round. Post Office Ltd. continues to develop and introduce new services and business activities. It is not the case that provision of services by the Post Office is being run down. Most recently, the Post Office announced its intention to offer a range of financial products in a joint venture with the Bank of Ireland. That is in addition to arrangements already in place that allow customers of Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, Lloyds TSB, the Co-op and the internet banks Smile and Cahoot to cash cheques and make cheque deposits at post offices free of charge. The Post Office now provides electronic access to all current

257WH
account holders at the Alliance and Leicester, Barclays and Lloyds TSB—some 20 million customers.
Other initiatives, including acceptance of debit card payments and a major advertising campaign for travel insurance and bureau de change services, are helping to make the post office a place that customers want to visit. The hon. Gentleman chided us for a lack of advertising. I hope that he has seen the advertisements with the ants making use of post office services. [Interruption.] He grimaces, but it is a good advertisement.
258WH
There are many challenges facing the Post Office management as they take the necessary measures to ensure that the network remains viable and relevant to the changing needs of its customers. However, the combination of rationalisation and Government investment is the only realistic way to maintain the viable post office network that all our constituents want and need, and which the Government are committed to maintaining into the future.
It being eighteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Chemicals
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking following the meeting on 6 January between her Department's Ministers and industry and other representatives to ensure compatibility of chemicals used in agriculture and horticulture with the regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH); what consultation has taken place with farming organisations; and if she will make a statement. [147177]

  Alun Michael
  To ensure compatibility of regulation, the REACH proposal allows for certain substances to be exempt or considered as automatically registered where environmental or human health protection is already adequately covered by existing regimes such as for pesticides, biocides and veterinary medicines. Discussions have therefore focused on those industry sectors and uses most likely to be affected by the proposals, such as manufacturers of industrial chemicals, and we have not been approached by farming organisations to discuss REACH.

  We will shortly issue a public consultation paper, which will offer all interested parties, including farming organisations, a further opportunity to provide us with their views. There are also plans to hold a stakeholder conference during the consultation period.

  Chemical Regulation
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Council of Ministers formation her Department has called on to lead the debate on the forthcoming EU chemical regulation. [147230]

  Alun Michael
  Given the wide-ranging nature of the forthcoming EU chemical regulation, the Government have always considered it essential that the expertise of both the Competitiveness Council and the Environment Council would be needed in coming to decisions on the regulation on registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals.

  Following the decision of the Italian presidency to ask the Competitiveness Council to lead this debate, we welcome the formation of an ad-hoc working group between the two as a way to enable this wide input to detailed policy discussions. Such an approach is essential if we are to make good progress with this long awaited legislation. I recently visited Brussels to discuss the issues with parliamentarians and the Environment Commission's team and in the UK Ministers at Defra and DTI are working closely with each other and with
  628W
  both industry and non-governmental organisations to give the Commission's latest proposals the best possible scrutiny from all perspectives.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146908]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:

  Defra has 734 staff working in the West Midlands. A further 147 Defra Executive Agency staff work in this Region.

  Neither Defra nor any of its Agencies has offices in North Staffordshire.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which other European Union member states' fishing vessels will have to comply with the restricted areas in EU waters due to commence on 1 February. [146682]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All those which choose to fish in the restricted areas using the specified gears.

  Information Campaigns
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Department spent on information campaigns and advertising in 2002–03. [145248]

  Alun Michael
  The Department does not maintain records of its expenditure on marketing separately. The expenditure for publicity by Defra's Communications Directorate, which includes advertising, publications, events, shows and direct information literature mailings, in the financial year 2002–03 was £4.7 million.

  This included communication on a very wide range of matters, much of it necessary or beneficial to the public and the wide range of industries in which Defra has an interest, together with local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies.

  Teesside Power Station
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has carried out into the health implications of allowing the burning of animal fat from cattle at the Teesside power station, Witton. [147403]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is currently determining a permit application under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 from SembCorp Utilities Teesside Limited who operate the Teesside power station. The company plans to burn tallow that is currently held in storage as a result of the Over Thirty Month (Slaughter) Scheme (OTMS).

  The Agency has produced an OTMS Tallow Protocol that provides guidance to Agency Officers and operators on the determination procedure for applications to burn OTMS tallow. The Protocol states that the Operator

  629W
  must provide an environmental risk assessment of their proposals, including the risks of burning, handling, filtration, and any other pathways by which potential BSE infectivity might affect human health or the environment.

  As required by the Regulations, the Agency sent a copy of the operator's application to the local Primary Care Trust. The Agency has received a response on their behalf by the Tees Local Health Protection Unit. The response stated that the information from the application had been considered, together with additional information provided in a report by the European Commission's Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) entitled "The Safety of Tallow Obtained from Ruminant Slaughter By-products" and a "Risk Assessment for the Transport and Combustion of OTMS Tallow" by Det Norske Veritas Limited (DNV). Information had also been provided to the Health Protection Unit by a representative of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC).

  The Tees Local Health Protection Unit response included the conclusions that, on the basis of the information supplied, the risks to individuals contracting vCJD1 as a result of the transportation to and combustion of the tallow at the power station can be described as being negligible.

  The Environment Agency is considering this response and the additional information provided by the SSC and DNV as part of its determination of the application.

  The Agency is also taking into account UK and European air quality standards and objectives in its determination These are set at levels which are unlikely to cause harm to human health.

  1vCJD: variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason pesticides still hold provisional approval after five years; what the longest period is for which a pesticide has held provisional approval; and what she estimates the total tonnage used in the UK of pesticides provisionally approved in each category to be in the most recent year for which figures are available. [145176]

  Alun Michael
  All pesticides must meet a minimum standard of safety and efficacy before any approval is given, provisional or otherwise. Provisional approvals are given in order for confirmatory data to be provided for example in areas such as efficacy. The precise requirements and time allowed for the generation of those data vary depending on individual products.

  The product that has held provisional approval status for the longest time was first given that status in 1988. Safe use of the product was established, but confirmatory efficacy data were required for full approval. Consequently, a series of different provisional approvals were issued in response to separate applications for approval concerning changes to the product label and its intended uses.

  The most recent estimates of the total tonnage of all provisionally approved pesticides used in the UK (in 2002) are as follows.
  630W

  Category

  Tonnage (active ingredient)

  Fungicides

  1,285

  Growth regulators

  394

  Herbicides

  3,029

  Insecticides

  59

  Molluscicides

  87

  Others

  <1

  Total

  4,854

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether local authorities will be fully compensated for costs incurred under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; [146980]

  (2) whether she intends that manufacturers and retailers of electrical goods should contribute to costs incurred by local authorities under the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive; [146981]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the cost to local authorities of complying with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive in relation to (a) startup costs, (b) storage costs, (c) collection costs and (d) disposal costs. [146982]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The implications of the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) for local authorities, manufacturers, retailers and others are set out in a consultation paper which the Government published on 25 November 2003. This is available at or may be downloaded from the Department's website at http://www.dti.gov. uk/sustainability/weee/index.htm. Copies are available in the House Library.

  This consultation paper invites views on the Government's preferred approach to implementing the Directive. It includes proposals for implementation of the Directive's provisions on producer responsibility and retailer take-back.

  The WEEE Directive places no obligations on local authorities. The Government have made it clear that there will be no new unfinanced burdens on local authorities as a result of the Directive. However, the Government aims to encourage increased separate collection of WEEE in line with the Directive's objectives and, in this context, it makes sense to build on existing collection activity at civic amenity sites. The Government wishes to encourage local authorities to consider upgrading and/or introducing WEEE collection facilities at their amenity sites. It is proposed that money will be made available, via a fund, into which local authorities may bid to finance improved or greater separate collection of WEEE at their civic amenity sites.

  The consultation suggests that this fund would be provided through a retailer take-back compliance scheme. The Government propose that the retailer scheme should provide funding initially of at least £5 million for civic amenity site upgrades in each of the five financial years between 2005–10, with an interim review in 2008, when the Directive is expected to be revised. It is expected that most of the early expenditure would relate to capital costs and any initial operating costs.
  631W
  The Government have included in its consultation package a report by consultants Network Recycling on the scope for upgrading and expanding WEEE collection at civic amenity sites around the UK. In summary, this report indicates that over half of civic amenity sites currently collect some WEEE and that there is significant scope for expanding this on the basis of site space available. It suggests that the baseline costs of such upgrades are in the region of £6-£12 million, depending on the approach taken; and that on-going staffing and training costs could be in the region of £4-£9 million per annum.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Leader of the House what recent discussions he has had with Government Departments and Select Committee Chairmen on the programme for pre-legislative scrutiny; and if he will make a statement. [147115]

  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with Ministerial colleagues to discuss the legislative programme, including the programme for pre-legislative scrutiny. He met the Liaison Committee to discuss pre-legislative scrutiny, among other matters, on 11 November; and he wrote to all Committee Chairmen with a provisional list of draft bills for the current session shortly after the Queen's Speech.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to record representations he receives for and against the(a) present sitting hours of the House and (b) September sitting of the House. [146837]

  Mr. Hain
  To record the many informal representations I receive would be impractical, especially as many do not fall into a clear "for" or "against" category. However, as I announced to the House last week, the Modernisation Committee is to survey Members' views as part of a formal review of the sitting hours change.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to review the sitting hours of the House. [147110]

  Mr. Hain
  As I announced to the House last Thursday, the Modernisation Committee intends to review the sitting hours. I am keen that the Committee should explore a range of options with a view to establishing a new and durable consensus.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Leader of the House what assessment he has made of the impact of the new sitting hours of the House on the times of committee meetings. [147114]

  Mr. Hain
  I am aware that some Members have found the time of Standing Committees irksome and am willing to consider this further. I have also discussed with the Liaison Committee the impact of the sitting hours on Select Committee meetings.

TREASURY

  Financial Advisers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the current qualification levels for financial advisers; and what assessment he has made of whether these are of a high enough standard to protect the public; [147637]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the badging and level of qualifications for financial advisers; and what assessment he has made as to ways in which this could be simplified; [147638]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the extent to which a simpler form of badging to indicate the qualification and level of competence of a financial adviser would improve consumer confidence. [147639]

  Ruth Kelly
  Consumer protection should take account of the requirement that those working in the financial services industry are capable of properly performing the work they undertake at all levels, and that consumers should thereby have confidence in the competence of financial advisers.

  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 charges the Financial Services Authority (FSA) with securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers. Vetting by the FSA aims to allow only those firms and individuals satisfying the necessary criteria (including competence) to engage in regulated activity.

  The FSA sets training and competence policy, including minimum standards for regulated firms and examination standards. The purpose of the FSA is to set the standards of training and competence that firms should reach.

  The FSA works closely with both the industry and consumers, and keeps training and competence requirements under review. It carried out a significant review of the qualification regime for financial services in November 2002. In particular the FSA proposed in Consultation Paper 194 (CP194) that the training arrangements should be simplified and competence assessed by using examinations that are 'appropriate' rather than a published list of FSA 'approved' examinations. This proposal gives firms greater flexibility, because they will be able to choose an examination that is appropriate in their circumstances.

  The FSA liaises closely with the Skills Council for Financial Services to ensure that consumer protection is at the forefront of training and competence policy. The Skills Council for Financial Services has responsibility to develop world class occupational standards in the financial services sector and to ensure that all sector specific qualifications are based on them.

  Financial Services
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on developments in financial services. [148151]

  Ruth Kelly
  I am replying as the Minister responsible for financial services.
  633W
  Under the terms of the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding between the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Bank of England (dated 28 October 1997), the FSA have kept me informed of developments at Standard Life, which have led to this morning's statement by the FSA.

  The FSA have responsibility for regulatory decisions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), including the setting up of a review under Section 166. They have informed the Treasury of their decision to commission a review by independent experts into the origins and implications of the significant divergence in the calculation of Standard Life's liabilities.

  I will continue to keep the House informed of developments.

  Red Diesel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated loss to his Department was from the fraudulent manufacture and use of red diesel in each of the last five years for which there are records. [145485]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise's latest estimates of the overall revenue loss from all forms of diesel fraud in Great Britain and the overall revenue loss from all forms of diesel fraud and legitimate cross-border shopping of diesel in Northern Ireland in 2000, 2001 and 2002 are set out in their Annual Report (HC 52) published in December 2003.

  The following table sets out Customs' latest estimates of the revenue loss in 1998 and 1999:

  £ million

  Great Britain (diesel fraud)

  Northern Ireland (diesel fraud and legitimate cross border shopping of diesel)

  1998

  750

  85

  1999

  900

  175

  Customs believe the great majority of diesel fraud on the British mainland, and a significant loss in Northern Ireland, involve the misuse of rebated or low-tax fuels supplied for non-road use, but a specific estimate of loss from red diesel alone is not available.

  VAT (Motorcycle Helmets)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, and on what basis, motorcycle helmets were made subject to VAT. [147107]

  John Healey
  Motorcycle helmets which meet the necessary approved standards have been VAT zero-rated since 1 June 1974. The Government have made clear in negotiations on the European Commission's review of reduced VAT rates that we will not agree to the removal of any of our zero or reduced VAT rate derogations.

WALES

  Dee Cockle Regulation Order
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Dee Cockle Regulation Order to be implemented. [144779]

  Mr. Touhig
  Responsibility for managing the Dee Estuary rests with the Environment Agency in its role as a Sea Fisheries Committee. As the Dee Estuary straddles the Wales/England border, Defra and the Welsh Assembly will act jointly to make a single Regulating Order under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, once the Environment Agency Wales, is in a position to submit a formal application for the Order. The Agency is in the process of obtaining written consents from landowners and it will forward an application when these are received.

  Both the Welsh Assembly and Defra will ensure that the application is processed as quickly as possible under the terms of the 1967 Act, but the process can take up to two years.

  Fair Trade Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is the policy of his Department to use fair trade products, as a matter of course, in(a) sales on departmental premises and (b) receptions and meetings involving staff and visitors. [142809]

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

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

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Green Paper
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are already in existence to register children on a national register. [145656]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are no arrangements in existence to register children on a national register. There are no plans for children to be included on a national register.

  E-Registration Systems
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have(a) been awarded Department for Education and Skills funds for e-registration, (b) installed e-registration and (c) have fully operational e-registration systems. [R] [146750]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department has provided 480 secondary schools with funding to purchase electronic registration systems. Another 61 schools are in the process of claiming such funding. However, schools may use other funds to purchase e-registration systems and they are not required to inform the
  635W
  Department when they do so. So the information required to answer parts (b) and (c) of the right hon. Member's question is not available centrally.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answers of 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 608W, on education spending, what effect the announcement of additional funding for 2004–05 in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report will have on the sums provided; and what the sums provided were in 2003–04. [146521]

  Mr. Miliband
  The additional funding provided in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report affects the Revenue Support Grant payable to authorities rather than the Formula Spending Shares, which remain unchanged. The basic entitlement in the Education formula Spending Share in 2003–04 was £2,004.65 for primary pupils and £2,656.92 for secondary pupils.

  Environmental Engineering
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to increase opportunities for young people in the field of environmental engineering, with particular reference to the provision of(a) courses in further education and (b) modern apprenticeships. [146545]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are a number of different routes into careers and relevant university courses in environmental engineering. Young people choosing this area will therefore benefit from the Government's commitment to increase opportunities to study or train in a variety of subjects in both colleges and Modern Apprenticeships. A range of academic and vocational subjects, together with Modern Apprenticeship frameworks, are available in the areas of engineering, science, construction and the environment. The relevant sector bodies for this area LANTRA covering land based industries and SEMTA covering engineering are working with employers in their sectors to promote these careers to young people and with the Learning and Skills Council expand the range of opportunities available.

  Fresh Water (School Dining Rooms)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the availability of fresh water in school dining rooms; and if he will make a statement. [146351]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All schools are required to have a wholesome supply of drinking water. However, it is for local education authorities, governors and schools to decide how and when drinking water should be made available to pupils.

  Guidance produced by this Department advises caterers on meeting the requirements of the Government's nutritional standards for school lunches and recommends that drinking water should be made available to all pupils every day, free of charge. The DfES, in partnership with the Food Standards Agency, are currently examining school meals provision in 80 maintained secondary schools in England. This exercise will also consider the extent to which complementary
  636W
  guidance, which covers drinking water provision, is adhered to. Results of the exercise are due in late spring 2004.

  Higher Education Expansion
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the cost of the current phase of expansion of higher education in annual revenue terms. [147562]

  Alan Johnson
  Funding for higher education in England between 2002–03 and 2005–06 was set out in the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735), published in January 2003. The overall funding for higher education—including the costs of expansion—will increase by 31 per cent. between those years from £7,596 million to £9,918 million.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on differences in information technology curricula between the main examination boards. [146658]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is responsible for ensuring the GCSE specifications, including those in ICT, are consistent with the National Curriculum programmes of study, conform to publicly available subject criteria published by the regulatory authorities, and are of a consistent rigour and standards. The subject specific criteria set out a framework for aims, assessment objectives, and schemes of assessment required in syllabuses. Each awarding body is then free to develop GCSE specifications within the framework.

  I have asked the Chief Executive of the QCA to write to you providing further details of individual awarding body specifications.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's policy is on the use of mobile phones in schools by(a) pupils and (b) staff. [146661]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The use of mobile phones in schools, by pupils, is a local matter to be determined by the headteacher, school governing body and/or the local education authority. The Department has advised schools to take into account the Chief Medical Officer's guidance that children and young people should be encouraged to use their phones for essential purposes only and to keep the calls short. The Department has not issued guidance for teacher's use of mobile phones.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what methods are used to measure regional differences in educational standards. [146663]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department publishes a wide variety of data on the performance of schools and other education institutions, including 'value added' measures. Much of this is published in Statistical Bulletins, Statistical First Releases and Statistical
  637W
  Volumes of Education as well as Performance Tables. These sources provide information at school, LEA, Regional, and national level. This data is used by bodies such as Regional Development Agencies and the Learning and Skills Council to help develop regional and local strategies to improve education and skills attainment.

  School Meals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on the nutrient content of school meals of the metric used by the Audit Commission Best Value Inspectors for school catering services. [146349]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department has not made any such assessment as the Audit Commission as part of Ofsted LEA inspections uses the food based approach set out in the Nutritional Standards Regulations in its inspections of school catering services.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to(a) implement national nutrient-based standards for (i) school breakfasts and (ii) school lunches and (b) make arrangements for monitoring their implementation. [146350]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are no plans to require maintained schools to provide breakfasts. Schools are required to provide free lunches to eligible pupils, and lunches for other pupils where a request for one is made, that meet the school lunch nutritional standards.

  We carried out two consultations before introducing the national nutritional standards in 2001. Most of those consulted thought that food based standards would be simpler to implement and monitor, and would be consistent with cross Government policies that support children in making healthy eating choices. Most importantly, they are easily understood by children.

  Teachers (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) primary and (ii) secondary school teachers were employed in Chorley constituency in each of the last three years. [146973]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the numbers of full-time and part-time regular teachers, employed in each January between 2001 and 2003, in primary and secondary schools in Chorley constituency.

  Maintained primary1

  Maintained secondary2

  Full-time2

  Part-time2

  Full-time2

  Part-time2

  2001

  340

  120

  400

  70

  2002

  340

  110

  420

  70

  2003

  350

  120

  430

  60

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Includes qualified and other teaching staff.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Teachers (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers were employed in Huntingdon on 1 December 2003. [146435]

  Mr. Miliband
  Constituency level data for regular teachers are collected on the Annual Schools' Census in January of each year. The most recent data available for primary and secondary full-time regular teachers is at January 2003. These data are shown in the following table.

  Full-time teachers1 in maintained schools in Huntingdon constituency

  Number

  Primary2

  380

  Secondary2

  420

  1Includes qualified and other teaching staff.

  2Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Toilet Training
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of toilet training for children; and whether any research has been conducted on this subject. [146727]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health has not commissioned any recent research on links between bowel and bladder problems in children and child abuse.

  Data on the number of parents accused, and admitting to abuse of their children as result of enuresis are not collected centrally.

  A study published in 1997, based on data from the national study of health and growth, found that a father's social class was associated with enuresis only in girls, with a higher prevalence in those whose fathers were manual workers.

  "Good practice in continence services", issued by the Department in April 2000, provides guidance to primary care trusts (PCTs) on continence services. This includes that PCTs should have specialist continence services in place, which provide patients with an individual assessment of their needs. Provision of these services in England is a matter for PCTs, which are responsible for determining the level of services required to meet the needs of their local populations. The Department does not monitor provision in this level of detail.

  Toilet training for children is considered in the Department of Health guide, "Birth to Five", available free to first time mothers and at www.doh.gov.uk/ birthtofive/. The Department has not commissioned any recent research on toilet training for children.

  Unauthorised Absence
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils missed, through unauthorised absence,(a) one half-day session, (b) between two and five half-day sessions, (c) between

  639W
  six and 10 half-day sessions, (d) between 11 and 15 half-day sessions, (e) between 16 and 20 half-day sessions and (f) over 20 half-day sessions in each year since 1997. [147145]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available. The Pupil Absence Return requires schools to provide only the number of pupils with at least one unauthorised absence. From the data collected, it is possible to calculate the average number of half-days missed per absent pupil due to unauthorised absence and the figures since 1997 are shown as follows:

  Academic year

  Average number of half-days missed per absent pupil due to unauthorised absence

  1997/98

  15

  1998/99

  14

  1999/2000

  13

  2000/01

  13

  2001/02

  13

  2002/03

  12

  Note:

  Figures are for maintained primary and secondary schools combined.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the amount the proposed top-up fees would raise annually if(a) all universities charged the maximum and (b) universities on average charged half the maximum. [147563]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the costs and benefits associated with the proposal in the Higher Education Bill to allow universities to set their own tuition fees is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published on 8 January 2004, alongside the Bill. The Regulatory Impact Assessment illustrates the income from additional fees in different scenarios. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the costs vary greatly according to the decisions that higher education institutions take, and they cannot be estimated precisely at this stage. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which year he expects his proposal to increase from £10,000 to £15,000 the income threshold for repayment by graduates of tuition fees to take effect; and whether he plans to take account of possible inflation in the intervening period when setting the threshold. [147724]

  Alan Johnson
  We plan to increase the threshold for the repayment of student loans from £10,000 to £15,000 with effect from April 2005. No account will be taken of any inflation in the intervening period.

  Violent Pupils
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provisions are being implemented to promote the safety of teachers, with particular reference to violent pupils. [146666]
  640W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are investing nearly £470 million over this and the next two years in measures to improve behaviour and attendance in schools. These include training for school staff in managing pupil behaviour and preventing violence. We have also made it clear that head teachers may permanently exclude pupils responsible for violence. New legislation in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act will enable local education authorities to apply for court-imposed Parenting Orders for parents whose children have been excluded from school for serious misbehaviour. And we have issued "A legal toolkit for schools", which identifies legal remedies available when school staff experience problems with violent parents. Some of these are also available when dealing with violent pupils.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146918]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are currently no staff in my department that work in the West Midlands or North Staffordshire area.

  Hotel Accommodation (VAT)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make representations to the Chancellor to undertake a review of value added tax levels on hotel accommodation. [147250]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS has no plans at present to make representations to the Chancellor to review the rate of VAT on hotel accommodation, but we will continue to monitor the position carefully in consultation with the tourism and hospitality industry. Inconsidering the rate of VAT for hotels, the Government has to consider a wide range of issues such as the rate paid by other industries and the impact on revenue to the Exchequer, both in the short and longer term. The Government's aim is to maintain a tax system that provides the best overall environment for business, but it does keep the system under continual review.

  Iraqi National Museum
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Government Ministers have recently visited the Iraqi national museum in Baghdad; and if she will make a statement on(a) lost, stolen or damaged exhibits belonging to the museum and (b) access to the museum and its security. [146362]

  Tessa Jowell
  No Government Ministers have visited the Iraqi national museum in Baghdad recently. The British Museum is collaborating with the Baghdad Museum on a conservation programme which includes providing training in London for three Iraqi conservators on up to date conservation techniques. Estimates on numbers of missing artefacts are subject to regular revision. Early reports stating that 170,000 pieces had been looted from the museum were misleading. Currently around 30 pieces from the main
  641W
  collection are still unaccounted for and a further 10–13,000 other pieces may also be missing. Access to the Museum and the security of the Museum, and of its collections is a matter for the Museum and the appropriate Iraqi authorities working in partnership with the Coalition Provisional Authority.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase productivity in the tourism industry in 2004. [147253]

  Mr. Caborn
  Government, in partnership with the wider tourism industry, has identified four key strategic priority areas for increasing productivity in the industry. During 2004, DCMS will continue the work that is already in progress on domestic and overseas marketing through direct funding to VisitBritain and development of the EnglandNet initiative, on raising skills through supporting the establishment of a Sector Skills Council, by driving up quality through the Fitness for Purpose initiative and a review of the current accommodation quality grading schemes, and by improving tourism data through a review of data quality and availability with a view to strengthening statistics. A fifth priority for DCMS is to strengthen the advocacy of tourism across government at all levels. By concentrating on these areas, we aim to drive up productivity in the sector and to develop a highly competitive industry with sustainable foundations for long-term growth.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the fairness of the recent parliamentary elections in Turkish Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [147106]

  Mr. Straw
  The 14 December elections to the "Assembly" of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", although not officially recognised, were an important opportunity for the Turkish Cypriot people to express their views on the island's future. A small team of academics from the University of Oslo carried out an independent study of the elections and the pre-electoral period. They noted some serious concerns about the manner in which the campaign was conducted. Lack of impartiality in the media was one area highlighted. The final report from the University of Oslo team is expected within the next month.

  We too have noted the widespread concerns expressed by many Turkish Cypriots about the way the campaign was conducted. There were numerous reports of intimidation and also of rigging of the electoral register. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. MacShane) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 17 November 2003, Official Report, columns 657–58W.

  As far as we are aware, elections on the day were conducted in a fair and open manner. We welcome the fact that notwithstanding these concerns about the
  642W
  campaign, the majority of the population in the north of Cyprus voted for candidates committed to a solution to the Cyprus problem. We encourage all sides to work now for a settlement to the Cyprus problem based on the UN Secretary General's proposals (the Annan Plan) by 1 May.

  HGV Drivers (Detention)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British heavy goods vehicle drivers are held in prisons in EU countries, broken down by country. [146961]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following is a breakdown of the number of British lorry drivers that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been made aware of held in detention in each European Union country as of 8 January 2004:

  Number

  France

  60

  Belgium

  9

  Spain

  4

  Italy

  1

  Germany

  1

  Sweden

  1

  Netherlands

  0

  Luxemburg

  0

  Denmark

  0

  Portugal

  0

  Greece

  0

  Austria

  0

  Ireland

  0

  Finland

  0

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether all member states agreed to the Intergovernmental Conference Final Declaration issued by the Italian Presidency.[146951]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Declaration on the Intergovernmental Conference was concluded on the Presidency's own authority and annexed to the European Council Conclusions. The main elements of it were, however, presented to the European Council before it concluded on 13 December 2003.

  International Treaties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the judicial body and its treaty or other international basis empowered to adjudicate and provide interpretations and judgments concerning(a) the international treaties comprising the core structure and operation of the principal Treaties of the European Community and Union and (b) a formal European Constitution, once agreed, ratified and operative, similar to that under current consideration. [146976]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Court of First Instance, each within its own jurisdiction, ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the European Community Treaty, under the terms of its Article 220.
  643W
  The powers of the ECJ in respect of the Treaty on European Union are set out in that Treaty's Article 46. The ECJ would be responsible for ensuring respect for the law in the interpretation and application of the Constitutional Treaty (draft Article 1.28 (1)).

  Libya
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with his(a) Libyan and (b) German counterparts concerning the seizure of the German-flagged ship BBC China; [146839]

  (2) what part was played by British officials in the recent tracking and seizure of the German-flagged ship BBC China. [146840]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: It is our policy to co-operate with our allies in seeking to take action against the transport of goods which could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The UK is an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative designed to improve international co-ordination in this area. I am withholding further information under exemption 1 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects that talks will be held with Libya about ending its programme for the development of weapons of mass destruction; which other countries he expects will be involved; and what role the International Atomic Energy Agency will play in the talks. [147071]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has invited Libyan Foreign Minister Shalgam to visit London soon to discuss a range of bilateral and international issues. This will form part of the process of implementing the decision by Libya to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programmes. Britain and the United States will now be taking forward the practical issues of verification and of the dismantling of these weapons in partnership with Libya and with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

  We have committed ourselves to helping with the preparation of Libya's returns to the IAEA and OPCW and to helping dismantle the programmes Libya has agreed to destroy. Within their respective remits, the responsibility for verifying Libya's declarations lies with the IAEA and the OPCW, and it is for the Libyan authorities to inform these organisations about the details of their programmes. Declarations, as always in these areas, will need to be detailed and comprehensive.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) from which country the BBC China set sail with the cargo of uranium enrichment equipment seized in Italian territorial waters in October 2003; and in which country the equipment was made; [147379]

  (2) what happened to the cargo seized from the BBC China in Italy in October 2003. [147380]
  644W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him today (UIN146839 & 146840).

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Mr. Nelson Mandela played in the recent change in relations between Libya and the United States and the United Kingdom. [147410]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. Mandela had no involvement in the recent discussions on Libya's weapons programme. These discussions only involved officials and experts from Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what parts of the Schengen acquis the United Kingdom has applied to participate in since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145585]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  In March 1999, the United Kingdom applied to participate in those parts of the Schengen acquis which relate to police and judicial co-operation, co-operation against drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The UK also applied to participate in the related provisions of the Schengen Information System. My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Jack Straw) made a statement to Parliament on 12 March 1999 setting out this proposed partial participation in Schengen.

  The United Kingdom's partial participation in Schengen was agreed by the JHA Council in its Decision of 29 May 2000 (Decision number 2000/365/EC). There has been no further application by the United Kingdom.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Sudan on its treatment of students who support Sudan Organisation Against Torture. [147408]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our embassy in Khartoum has raised the issue with the Government of Sudan who have acknowledged our concerns and have undertaken to look into the cases and report back to us.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan on the recent arrests in Nyala, Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [147409]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our embassy in Khartoum has raised the issue with the Government of Sudan who have acknowledged our concerns and have undertaken to look into the cases and report back to us.

  I discussed the human rights situation in Sudan generally, and in Darfur more specifically, with the Sudanese Ambassador on 2 December 2003. And my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) raised our concerns with the President of Sudan on 10 December 2003.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Andrew Smith
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 721W, what working arrangements there have been between Mr. Andrew Smith and his Department in Sierra Leone prior to the last 12 months. [146417]

  Hilary Benn
  There have been none.

  Company Checks
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what checks officials in his Department make on the identities of shareholders and partners in companies which are contracted to provide services for it overseas; and if he will make a statement. [146419]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We routinely check the financial standing of companies through Companies House and Dun & Bradstreet reports. We do not normally check the identities of company shareholders or partners unless prompted to do so by our standard financial appraisal or other cause.

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits achieved to date for developing countries from the World Trade Organisation agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health;. [146592]

  (2) whether it is his policy to support compulsory licensing for export of all drugs for life-threatening diseases to least-developed countries. [146593]

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

  We welcome the Decision of the General Council of the WTO on 30 August 2003 which resolves the outstanding issue from the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the Trade-Related Property Rights Agreement (the TRIPS Agreement) and Public Health—the issue of how countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector can make effective use of the compulsory licensing provisions within the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

  The Decision effectively extends to countries with minimal or no domestic manufacturing capacity the existing flexibility within the TRIPS Agreement to issue compulsory licenses by allowing other countries to produce and export to them. The original TRIPS Agreement allowed for compulsory licensing only where such licensing was primarily for domestic use.

  We are currently considering with our European partners how best to implement the new Decision both at EU and at UK level. Beyond our own implementation, we will monitor the wider implementation of the Decision in due course in order to ensure that the Decision is implemented effectively and delivers the intended benefits to developing countries. However, it is
  646W
  too early to make a substantive assessment of the benefits achieved to date for developing countries from the new Decision.

  In the context of implementing the new Decision, the Government has supported the principle that pharmaceutical companies in developed countries should be able to act as suppliers under the new arrangements—which would include the export of drugs for life-threatening diseases to least-developed countries—if they so choose.

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries taking part in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative have reached completion point within the timescale established at their decision point. [147391]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  When the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative was launched in 1999, the fixed three-year performance period of the original HIPC framework was replaced by a 'floating' Completion Point. This means that Completion Point is triggered by the successful implementation of a set of pre-defined reform measures, rather than a set period of time. The Decision Point documents for HIPC countries give a prediction of when a country is expected to meet the floating Completion Point triggers, but these time-scales are intended to be only rough estimates. Of the nine countries that have reached Completion Point, only two (Mauritania and Uganda) did so at the date that had been predicted. Two further countries (Tanzania and Mozambique) reached Completion Point within five months of the date predicted at Decision Point. The remaining five countries (Mali, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso and Guyana) missed their predicted Completion Point date by at least a year. Delay in reaching Completion Point is mostly due to poor policy performance. It should be noted, however, that there has been no delay to delivery of relief, as countries cease to make payments on their debt from Decision Point.

  Special and Differential Treatment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had since 17 September 2003 with(a) the World Trade Organisation, (b) the European Commission and (c) the United States about the use of special and differential treatment. [146585]

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

  It is important that WTO rules more fully reflect different WTO Members' implementation capacities and stages of development. We are therefore disappointed at the lack of progress which has been made in addressing Special and Differential Treatment issues post-Doha.

  We had hoped to see agreement in Cancun to at least an initial package of measures, however limited, which might then have opened the way to a wider dialogue on Special and Differential Treatment within the WTO, perhaps through the creation of an expert working group. In the event, no such package of measures

  647W
  was agreed and no progress made on establishing a wider dialogue, through an expert working group or otherwise.

  We will continue to press the case for appropriate Special and Differential Treatment within the WTO system with all relevant interlocutors.

  Zimbabwe
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment has been made of the impact on health standards of the strike by doctors and nurses in Zimbabwe. [146756]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Even before the doctors and nurses went on strike three months ago, the coverage and quality of health services in Zimbabwe were being compromised by severe shortages of skilled doctors, nurses, and other professional staff. Declining numbers due to AIDS mortality and migration has led to vacancy rates of 40 per cent. for nurses, 55 per cent. for doctors, and 90 per cent. for pharmacists. Those who remained saw their standard of living drastically eroded by inflation, which now stands at 700 per cent. per annum.

  During the doctors' and nurses' strike the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare attempted to limit damage by deploying military medical personnel and Cuban doctors. The doctors' strike came to an end early this month when substantial increases in salaries and allowances were agreed.

  The health impacts of the strike and the ongoing human resources crisis have not been quantified, but recent trends in health status in Zimbabwe are alarming. In less than 10 years, life expectancy at birth declined from 50 to less than 35 years, and mortality among children under five rose by more than 50 per cent. HIV prevalence is currently 25 per cent. among those aged 15–49 years. There are over 3000 AIDS-related deaths per week, and more than half a million children have been orphaned by AIDS.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment has been made of the request by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs for non-food aid for Zimbabwe. [146757]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) recently released an update on the UN Consolidated Appeals Process in Southern Africa. DFID agrees with OCHA's assessment that while food shortages remain the most immediate humanitarian concern in Zimbabwe, other factors affecting and threatening the basic needs of the Zimbabwean people should not be underestimated or neglected. These include the crippling effect of HIV/AIDS on households and communities, the lack of agricultural inputs, and the rapid decline of basic social services such as health care and education.

  DFID is committing approximately £35 million to Zimbabwe this financial year in support of both food and non-food initiatives through UN agencies and other channels. Approximately £28 million is going towards humanitarian relief programmes, including some support to subsistence farmers to enable them to plant food crops to feed themselves, and the provision of safe
  648W
  and clean water to vulnerable urban populations. Our other main programmes help to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis, and support the health sector. No funding goes through the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure the funds are not abused.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Car Theft
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases involving the theft of(a) vehicles and (b) property from vehicles were reported during December 2003 in each of the Park and Ride car parks operated under the auspices of the Department of Regional Development in the Belfast area. [147044]

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

  Costello Report
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Costello report on the future selection and transfer procedure between primary and secondary education in Northern Ireland. [147234]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Costello report deals with many complex issues and I am giving it careful consideration. I will make an announcement as soon as possible about the publication of the report and the shape of future transfer and post primary arrangements.

  Dental Care
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dental practices in each Northern Ireland health authority area have ceased providing general dental services in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [147383]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available. The Department will be developing a new strategy for primary care dentistry, taking account of the recent reviews of the Dental Workplace and the Community Dental Service, and an important part of any new system of delivery will be to ensure that patients are able to access health service dental care.

  Motorsport Circuit
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on publicly funded support for a motorsport circuit for Northern Ireland. [R] [146647]

  Angela Smith
  Publicly funded support for a motorsport circuit for Northern Ireland must be considered in the context of the development of motorsports in Northern Ireland.

  Responsibility for the development of motorsports in Northern Ireland rests with the relevant governing bodies as represented by the 2&4 Wheel Motorsport Steering Group Ltd. This Group is currently engaged in

  649W
  an 'Expressions of Interest' exercise in relation to the development of motorsports facilities, including the possibility of a regional motorsports facility. It would be premature to comment on funding implications in advance of the completion of this exercise.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146868]

  (2) what assessment his Office has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Office to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement; [146897]

  (3) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in the Office to the regions; and if he will make a statement; [146928]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Government's ability to meet (a) their policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements. [146987]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North to the answer that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Illegal Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether his Strategy Unit has produced reports in the last two years on a strategy for reducing harm resulting from the use of illegal drugs. [146752]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy Unit has been working closely with the Home Office and other key Departments in undertaking a study on high-harmcausing drugs.

  The study is a review of the impact of interventions on the drug supply chain from international production to distribution within the UK.

  The study will report privately to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  House Tours
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what plans he has to improve access for tours of the House by constituents. [147113]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  A detailed report on the first year of operations since the introduction of the Central Tours Office and the new sitting hours in January last year is being prepared for the Administration 650W
  Committee. The Committee will consider the report, taking into account views expressed by Members, and will then advise the Commission.

SCOTLAND

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the North Sea oil and gas industry on the Scottish economy. [146396]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government recognise the continuing vital role of the North Sea oil and gas industry for the Scottish economy and to the UK as a whole in terms of jobs, investment and its contribution to the national income.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the reclassification of cannabis. [146397]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The legislation governing the classification of drugs is reserved to the UK Government and is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Home Office is working closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure a coordinated approach to the reclassification of cannabis, which will take effect from 29 January.

  Elections
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the findings of the Electoral Commission in its report on elections in Scotland. [146398]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I met, in November, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission who briefed me on the official report on last year's Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I very much welcome this report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will consider very carefully all of the recommendations made by the Commission.

  Pensioners (Means-tested Benefits)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt of means-tested benefits. [146399]

  Mr. Darling
  The latest figure indicates that 320,000 pensioners are receiving income-related benefits in Scotland.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt of means-tested benefits. [147711]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The latest figure indicates that 320,000 pensioners in Scotland are receiving income-related benefits.

  Fisheries Council
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outcome of last month's EU Fisheries Council and its consequences for the North Sea fleet in Scotland. [146400]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to his question on 8 January. He may also like to refer to the record of a statement in the Scottish Parliament made by Mr. Ross Finnie MSP on 7 January.

  Civil Service Jobs (Dispersal)
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent steps the Government has taken to promote the dispersal of civil service jobs from central London to Scotland. [146401]

  Mr. Darling
  I am determined that Scotland will continue to get its fair share of posts created by UK Departments or dispersed from London, and I have encouraged Cabinet colleagues to consider what Scotland has to offer when they are reviewing relocation options.

  Defence Establishments
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the contribution of defence establishments in Scotland to the economy of Scotland. [146402]

  Mrs. McGuire
  While my right hon. Friend and I are well aware that defence establishments make a significant contribution to the Scottish economy, such assessments are a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence and the Scottish Executive.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has(a) received from stakeholders in Scotland and (b) made to the Ministry of Defence in connection with the orders for Type 45 destroyers. [146403]

  Mr. Darling
  I have neither received nor made any specific representations in connection with the Type 45 destroyer programme.

  Defence White Paper
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent meetings he has had with the Scottish Executive on the economic impact on Scotland of the Defence White Paper. [146404]

  Mr. Darling
  I regularly meet Ministers in the Scottish Executive to discuss a range of issues, including the Scottish economy.

  Innovation and Enterprise
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on innovation and enterprise in Scotland. [146405]
  652W
  Mrs. McGuire
  Innovation and enterprise are at the heart of productivity growth and social gain. Scotland has gained an international reputation as a centre of innovation and expertise in life sciences and other technologies.

  The Chancellor's recent pre-Budget report announced a number of measures, which build on existing programmes to promote innovation and enterprise in Scotland and across the UK. These include a widening of the eligibility for research and development tax credits, reforms to reduce the regulatory burden on enterprise and measures to overcome barriers facing small business when raising finance.

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Department since 1997 was; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of its works of art has been since 1997. [142362]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date, the office has spent £3,055 on works of art. The most expensive item cost £720. No works of sculpture have been acquired and no departmental-owned works of art have been sold during this period.

  Departmental Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for his Department. [144557]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I do not consider that the introduction of a national identity card scheme will have any particular implications for the Scotland Office. Decisions on the use of identity cards to access devolved services in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Give as You Earn Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of staff in his Department contribute to a charity through the Give as You Earn scheme; how much money is donated to charity per month by staff in his Department through the scheme; and what steps he is taking to encourage greater participation in the scheme by staff in his Department. [143901]

  Mrs. McGuire
  A small number of staff in the Scotland Office currently contribute just over £200 per month to charities through the Give As You Earn scheme. Further details cannot be provided so as to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information about the Give As You Earn scheme is available on the departmental intranet site and periodic reminders are issued about the facility. Staff may, of course, make donations to charities by other means.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Airwave Police Radio System
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) the Essex Police Authority and (b) others on funding by the Home Office for the Airwave radio system; and what changes have been made in the level of funding to be made available for the system in Essex. [146626]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: Essex Police Authority and several other Forces have written about funding of their 2004–05 costs for optional services over and above the basic service. The Home Office is currently establishing the funding needs for each force and will inform Essex Police Authority of changes to its settlement in the near future.

  Arson
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of arson there have been in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [146421]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of offences of arson recorded by the police in England and Wales

  Number

  1998–991

  47,273

  1999–2000

  53,794

  2000–01

  52,818

  2001–022

  60,470

  2002–032

  53,200

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

  2The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across England and Wales in April 2002. Some police forces adopted the standard prior to this date. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the standard numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.

  Ball Bearing Guns
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to deal with the use of ball bearing guns in public; and if he will make a statement. [146764]

  Caroline Flint
  Under the provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 it will be an offence to have an imitation firearm in a public place without reasonable excuse. We expect this provision to come into force on 20 January. The issue of controls on imitation firearms will be dealt with in the review of firearms legislation which I intend to launch shortly.

  Boris Berezovsky
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of police investigations into the claims made 654W
  during the hearing of the extradition case against Boris Berezovsky that an assassin had been sent from Russia to attack him. [146730]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the Metropolitan Police Service was made aware of an alleged threat to Boris Berezovsky. Inquiries made were unable to either substantiate this information or find evidence of any criminal offences having been committed. Investigations into this matter have been concluded.

  Community Support Officers
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers will be in post in the London borough of Sutton by the end of March 2004. [146000]

  Ms Blears
  The allocation of Community Support Officers (CSOs) within the Metropolitan Police Service is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  The Commissioner has informed me that he plans to deploy 17 CSOs in Sutton by the end of March 2004.

  Crime Reduction Initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been made available to local communities to support interventions that(a) disrupt local drug markets by tackling both the supply and demand, (b) tackle drug-related crime and (c) address associated anti-social behaviour in (i) Middlesbrough South and Cleveland, East (ii) the North East and (iii) England. [144753]

  Caroline Flint
  In December 2002, the Government announced in the Updated Drug Strategy substantial direct annual spending to tackle drug misuse. Details are set out in the following table.

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Protecting young people

  149

  155

  163

  Reducing supply

  380

  380

  380

  Safeguarding communities1

  212

  297

  367

  Drug treatment2

  503

  512

  573

  Total

  1,244

  1,344

  1,483

  1Includes expenditure strengthening delivery.

  2Includes mainstream spending, prison treatment and pooled budgets.

  Regional breakdowns of financial allocations to local communities are not available in the form requested. However the table shows funding streams allocated directly to the Drug Action Teams in Middlesbrough, and in Redcar and Cleveland.

  Regional funding 2003–04

  £

  Middlesbrough allocation

  Redcar and Cleveland allocation

  DAT Development Funding

  35,000

  34,000

  Pooled Treatment Budget

  1,113,000

  765,000

  Throughcare and Aftercare

  133,000

  35,000

  Capacity Building Funding

  350,000

  —

  655W
  In addition to this, national funding provided to, for example, the Police, Probation and Prison Services, is used to tackle the drug-related issues in question.

  A breakdown of direct allocations by Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships against drug-related anti-social behaviour is not available.

  Department Policies
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies on the constituency of Regent's Park and Kensington North since 1997. [145422]

  Ms Blears
  Most of the policies initiated by the Home Office since 1997 have had an impact on the Regent's Park and Kensington North constituency as on other parts of the country. Our policies in the areas of crime reduction, anti-social behaviour and policing are providing direct benefits to the people of Regent's Park and Kensington North.

  It is not possible to give details back to 1997, but policies and initiatives in recent years in the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) areas of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster have included:

  Crime Reduction Initiatives

  Initiatives that have been funded in Kensington and Chelsea and City of Westminster for crime reduction purposes (total amount of funding awarded).

  Name of initiative

  Year

  City of Westminster (£)

  Kensington and Chelsea (£)

  CCTV—Round 1

  2000–03

  1,205,000

  117,000

  CCTV—Round 2

  2001–03

  65,738

  281,000

  Reducing burglary initiative

  2002–03

  —

  59,582

  Communities against drugs

  2001–02

  277,800

  199,400

  2002–03

  956,047

  199,400

  Safer communities initiative

  2002–03

  162,581

  96,144

  Partnership development fund (PDF)

  2001–02

  —

  12,500

  Small retailers in deprived areas (SRDA)

  2003–04

  21,023

  21,023

  Building safer communities fund (BSC)

  2003–04

  455,792

  304,805

  Basic command unit fund (BCU)

  2003–04

  433,000

  232,000

  Interventions funded by crime reduction allocations included:

  Westminster: CCTV cameras and a mobile CCTV system, an initiative to tackle drug related crime from a health, community and environmental angle, street wardens and action against drugs.

  Kensington and Chelsea: CCTV in North Kensington crime hot spots and purchase of a mobile CCTV van, tackling vandalism and anti-social behaviour in the Delgarno Neighbourhood, a hardening and repair of burgled properties initiative, action against drugs aimed at young people, community outreach on domestic violence and youth diversion programmes.

  Statistics published on the Metropolitan police website show a fall in crime over the past year.
  656W
  Street Crime

  The Metropolitan police service has been part of the street crime initiative since its launch in March 2002. Westminster is one of the priority London street crime boroughs. There were 1,752 robberies in Westminster during 2002–03, a reduction of 36.6 per cent. on 2001–02. In Kensington and Chelsea there were 673 robberies in 2002–03, a reduction of 43.4 per cent. on 2001–02. Overall robbery reduced in London by 21 per cent. comparing 2002–03 with 2001–02.

  Positive Action for Young People (PAYP)

  Central London Connexions was launched in June 2002, following a pilot period. Connexions has provided considerable support to help young people in the Regent's Park and Kensington North area to participate and achieve in education, employment and training in partnership with youth services, schools, colleges and other providers. Personal advisers (PAs) are placed in many voluntary and statutory youth clubs providing support to young people including music, art and sports projects, and through PAs in detached youth work teams.

  PAYP programmes have been particularly successful on Regent's Park and Delgarno estates.

  From April to September 2003, across the boroughs of Camden, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, 11,341 interventions took place with young people through Connexions support to approximately 6,000 young people. An additional 7,184 young people took part in PAYP activities in the area.

  Anti-Social Behaviour

  Westminster: The City of Westminster was granted £25,000 in 2002–03 for a designated controlled drinking areas scheme.

  Kensington and Chelsea: In 2003–04, funding of £22,414 has been allocated from the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit to enable the CDRP to commence recruitment of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) specialist.

  Remaining funds will be used to contribute towards the development of a web-based anti-social behaviour case tracking tool.

  Policing

  Government grant (excluding targeted initiatives) for the Metropolitan police force for 2003–04 is £1,764.05 million, an increase of 5.2 per cent. or £87.73 million over 2002–03.

  On top of this, the Metropolitan police will benefit from a number of targeted initiatives, set out in the table:

  Metropolitan Police funding—selected specific grants

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Crime fighting fund

  43.05

  65.89

  70.46

  179.4

  Community support officers

  —

  8

  15

  23

  Airwave

  —

  45.69

  15.02

  60.71

  Street crime

  —

  14.20

  8.01

  22.21

  In addition, the Metropolitan police will also receive in 2003–04:

  £41.24 million in capital funding in 2003–04, plus up to £40 million capital funds for the C3i project.

  657W
  The force has also benefited from extra funding for DNA work—around £9.3 million this year.
  £0.20 million from the premises improvement fund.
  £62.0 million funding for counter-terrorism—£15.0 million for community support officers and £47.0 million towards the wider counter-terrorism programme.

  Between 1997 and 2003, the number of police officers in the Metropolitan police force increased from 26,677 to 28,845.

  The introduction of community support officers (CSOs) in 2002 is helping to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour on the streets.

  Regent's Park and Kensington North constituency is served by two Operational Command Units (OCUs). Borough of Camden OCU covers Regent's Park. It will have a total of 38 CSOs by the end of March 2004. The OCU of Kensington and Chelsea (of which Kensington North form only a part) will have a total of 42 CSOs by the end of March 2004.

  The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's Community Safety Team has allocated an additional 10 CSOs for 2004–05 for the St. Charles Ward in North Kensington. Funding for this has come from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  Drug Crime
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent reports his Department has evaluated on methods to reduce drug crime. [146753]

  Caroline Flint
  As part of the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme, the Government keep the evidence on effective means of tackling drug related crime (both in the UK and abroad) under constant review.

  The Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate has, in the past, undertaken evaluations of initiatives designed to reduce drug related crime, and research reports relating to Drug Testing (and Drug Treatment and Testing Orders), Arrest Referral and prisoners' drug treatment have been published by the Department over the past two years.

  Forensic Science Service
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Forensic Science Service is contracted out to private operators. [146537]

  Ms Blears
  The Forensic Science Service (FSS) does not contract out work undertaken in provision of forensic science services to the police service and law enforcement agencies to private operators. The FSS uses private operators solely for the supply of non-scientific support services unrelated to forensic sciences.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where, and for how long, DNA samples are held by the Forensic Science Service. [146203]
  658W
  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 serious crimes in case of a possible miscarriage of justice.
  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 a sample for intelligence purposes these may also be retained indefinitely provided the individual has given their written consent for its retention.

  In all cases samples are either stored by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) laboratory that dealt with the case or in the FSS central archive in Birmingham.

  Gun Crime
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of gun crimes was drug-related in the last year for which figures are available. [146833]

  Caroline Flint
  Statistics on the proportion of gun crime which is drugs-related are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) cautioned and (b) prosecuted for possession of (i) unlicensed firearms and (ii) shotguns in each of the last five years; in how many instances in each case the offence was limited to possession and not connected with the weapon's use in other crimes; and how many cases related to failure to renew the appropriate certificate. [147397]

  Caroline Flint
  holding answer 12 January 2004]: The available information is given in the following table. The statistics collected centrally do not enable those offences limited to possession to be distinguished from those connected with the weapon's use in other offences. Nor is it known how many cases related to failure to renew the appropriate certificate.

  Persons cautioned and those proceeded against for possession of unlicensed firearms, England and Wales

  Possession of unlicensed firearms

  Possession of unlicensed shotgun

  Persons cautioned

  Persons proceeded against

  Persons cautioned

  persons proceeded against

  1998

  157

  350

  243

  199

  1999

  147

  316

  132

  118

  2000

  149

  1272

  242

  1109

  2001

  117

  217

  233

  125

  2002

  94

  254

  153

  112

  1Excludes figures for Staffordshire.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure has been allocated for the(a) assessment and (b) introduction of identity cards in each year from 2003–04 to 2007–08; and if he will make a statement. [146009]
  659W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  In the current financial year, the Home Office budget for work on identity cards, which also includes work on shorter term measures to counter identity fraud, is £2.5 million.

  Our current best estimates for the three year set-up costs for a scheme are £36 million, £60 million and £90 million. The timing of this expenditure will depend on Parliament's approval of legislation.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list information technology contracts in his Department with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the

  Contract

  Inception date

  Fully functional

  1. National Probation Service Information Systems Strategy (NPSIS): implementation of IT infrastructure and casement management applications. Expired.

  1994

  Infrastructure roll out substantially complete in 2001–2002

  2. NPSIS (National Probation Service Information Systems Strategy): implementation of IT infrastructure and case management applications.

  October 2001

  Infrastructure service handover December 2001, upgrade schedule for completion mid 2004.

  3. Core Home Office infrastructure implementation and services (HOITS)/expired.

  August 1994

  November 1994

  4. Sirius: successor to HOITS infrastructure services and applications (notably correspondence handling, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and electronic data records management (EDRMS).

  October 2000

  Infrastructure service handover February 2001, correspondence handling complete, ERP and EDRMS in progress.

  5. Quantum: Prison Service infrastructure services and applications

  February 2000

  Infrastructure roll out completed mid 2003, application under redevelopment.

  6. Casework Programme: Immigration Service infrastructure services and case management system.

  April 1996

  Infrastructure service operational. Main casement application failed and superseded.

  7. PASS1: UK Passport service passport management service.

  October 1998

  End 1999

  8. CRB1: Criminal Records Bureau, application management, records checking and disclosure certificate generation services.

  August 2000

  High level disclosure service started March 2002, low level disclosures pending.

  1Business service contracts underpinned by IT systems

  M6 Toll Road
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who polices the M6 Toll Road; and who is meeting the cost. [146992]

  Caroline Flint
  The M6 Toll Road is policed by the Central Motorway police group (CMPG), which comprises officers from Staffordshire police, Warwickshire police, West Midlands police, and the West Mercia Constabulary. The cost is met from normal police funds.

  Merseyside Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what issues have been specified by Merseyside police as affecting the incidence of(a) domestic burglary, (b) vehicle crime and (c) robbery in their local plan. [146266]

  Ms Blears
  Merseyside Police's Annual Policing Plan 2003–04 sets out how the force will enhance the use of the National Intelligence Model to target criminals and their networks whose operations have a direct impact on volume crime (burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime, including robbery). Lessons from the street crime initiative have been applied to tackling burglary and vehicle crime. Increased use of police powers to stop and search and targeting known offenders have had a positive impact on both burglary and vehicle crime on Merseyside. In addition, the implementation of new 660W
  inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146195]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am unable to provide the hon. Member with a complete answer as central records are not held on the information sought, and to obtain the requested information in the time given would incur disproportionate cost.

  I am, however, able to provide the following information on information technology contracts let within the last 10 years originally valued at over £20 million by the Home Office and its Agencies (Prison Service, Forensic Science Service and UK Passport Service):

  burglary packs issued to officers attending reported burglaries and extra work undertaken by crime scene investigators have contributed to improved performance. Feedback from user satisfaction surveys has also enabled the force to tailor its response to communities' needs.

  Merseyside Crime Initiative Unit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role and work of the Merseyside Street Crime Initiative Unit. [146239]

  Ms Blears
  Robbery in Merseyside reduced by 5 per cent. in 2002–03 compared to 2001–02. This has been achieved by effective partnership working across all agencies. Overall strategic management of street crime is by the Multi Agency Group (MAG). At an operational level, this is supported by Joint Agency Groups (JAGs) and the Robbery Reduction Team. In the Robbery Reduction Team police and Crown Prosecution Service are co-located and the Premium Service provided.

  National Centre for Policing Excellence
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the National Centre for Policing Excellence. [146262]
  661W
  Ms Blears
  The National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) was launched in April 2003 to increase the professional capacity of the police service. Its functions include delivering training and advice on specialist law enforcement and technical and analytical support in major crime. It also has a major role in formulating national good practice in operational policing and issuing Codes of Practice and Guidance.

  In 2002–03, it produced a knowledge map on street robbery which has been available to all forces on the Criminal Justice Extranet. A Code of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms and less lethal weapons was issued at the beginning of December 2003.

  Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring into force section 25 of the Police Reform Act 2002 handling of complaints. [146172]

  Ms Blears
  Section 25 of the Police Reform Act has already been enacted and was brought into force (except subsection (4) on 1 October 2002. The intention is that the Secretary of State will be making regulations which will come into force on 1 April 2004.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means police(a) forces and (b) authorities seek to develop a clear understanding of the communities they serve. [146263]

  Ms Blears
  Under section 96 of the Police Act 1996, police authorities have a statutory obligation to consult with their communities. However, recent research conducted by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate concluded that there was scope to enhance engagement with communities.

  Provision of a citizen focused policing service is a key priority within the National Policing Plan, published in November 2003, and is fundamental to the on-going process and direction of police reform. Building a police service that is responsive to the diverse needs of the communities it serves requires police forces to develop a clear understanding of those communities.

  We have invested £1 million in a joint action research project between the Home Office and the Association of Police Authorities to help police authorities and forces engage more effectively with their local communities.

  A major consultation exercise on police reform was launched on 4 November 2003 with the publication of "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together". The broad vision behind the paper is to improve community engagement in policing. It is underpinned by the desire to see local communities play a greater role in policing/community safety decisions and solutions in their neighbourhoods.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the police reform programme launched in 2001. [146271]

  Ms Blears
  The White Paper, Policing a New Century, published in December 2001, set out the Government's intentions for the future of policing in England and Wales. Good progress has been made in implementing the Police Reform Programme. We now have a clear and 662W
  understood legislative structure in place under the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure best practice is embedded in the Service through Regulations, Codes of Practice and Guidance, and, linked to that, the ability to direct forces where their performance is consistently poor.

  There is now a more clear focus on performance management within the Policing Performance Assessment Framework which is being developed, and the Police Standards Unit is working with forces to improve performance and identify good practice. The National Centre for Policing Excellence was established in April 2003.

  As well as record numbers of police officers and police staff, we now have more than 1,900 community support officers (CSC)). We have provided the necessary powers for CSOs and police staff to facilitate greater flexibility for forces in the use of resources and to release officers for front line duties. A major pay and conditions package has been implemented to provide a fairer, more flexible and modernised system of pay and rewards.

  The second National Policing Plan was published on 4 November 2003 and sets out the Home Secretary's key policing priorities as well as a strategic framework for local policing plans. The first police science and technology strategy, published in January 2003 provides an overarching vision of how we will address not only our immediate policing needs, but also the future capability. We have invested in the use of new technology. DNA matching and Automatic Numberplate Recognition are important tools to achieve greater effectiveness. The National Intelligence Model is becoming embedded in forces, with the aim that all forces are compliant with the common minimum standards by April 2004.

  Work is under way to develop leadership and management capacity at all levels in the police service. We are working towards creating the new Police Leadership Centre, which will bring together all the strands of work on police leadership.

  Building on these and other successes, we wish to move the reform programme further. On 4 November 2003 we published a consultation document, "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together", in which we set out the broad direction for future reform, aimed particularly at:
  Increasing community engagement.
  Providing greater accountability.
  Improving operational effectiveness in tackling crime, including serious and organised.
  Further modernising the police service.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to close the gap between the best and worst performing police forces. [146274]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office's Public Service Agreements commit it to improving the performance of all police forces, including significantly reducing the gap between the best and worst performing forces. The National Policing Plan 2004–07 set out the performance gap target which has been agreed. It is a fixed target requiring each force's performance in reducing crime
  663W
  and investigating crime to be no more than 10 per cent. below that of the average performance of its Most Similar Force comparators by 2005–06.

  All forces are aware of the improvements in performance that are required, and to help police forces and authorities improve police performance and gauge progress, performance data is now available on-line to allow them to access regular updates on performance.

  The Police Standards Unit (PSU) is currently working with forces who have been identified as having specific performance problems to help deliver improvements.

  Programmes of work are developed in consultation with the force and in liaison with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), and are designed to provide practical help to enhance organisational capacity and capability.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the proportion of time spent on frontline duty by the police has changed in the last five years. [146275]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available. However, for the first time, all forces will be contributing data towards the calculation of the amount of time spent by police officers on front line duties for the financial year 2003–04. The results of this will be available later this year.

  As indicated in paragraph 2.6 of the National Policing Plan 2004–07, a preliminary assessment of 35 forces outside London for 2002–03 gave an average figure of 61 per cent. This is not a baseline for future years. A number of initiatives are in train including, work force modernisation and reducing bureaucracy that will impact on the amount of time spent on front line policing and the Government look to the police service to ensure the proportion rises.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the effect of the work of the steering group reducing bureaucracy in the police force. [146278]

  Ms Blears
  I receive regular reports on the work of the Steering Group, co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office, which was set up to oversee the work on reducing bureaucracy in the police service. Among the achievements since the Group first met in October 2002, the national roll out of the fixed penalty notice scheme is scheduled to be completed by April 2004; there are currently 19 performance indicators compared with 51 in 1997; over 4,600 forms have been made obsolete in 21 forces; approximately 20 forces are using mobile telephones and handheld computers to cut down on the time officers spend returning to the station to fill in forms; and all 43 forces in England and Wales now have the capacity to undertake video identity parades to speed up the identification of suspects. I am looking to the steering group to make further substantial impact in four key areas in particular over the conning months. These are information technology; work force modernisation; efficiency; and frontline policing activity.
  664W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to make the police force an attractive career for ethnic minorities. [146279]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are committed to achieving a culturally diverse work force in the police service that is representative of the local communities it serves. We are engaged with the leadership of the police service in addressing diversity and promoting race equality in the areas of recruitment, training and development and in the conduct of the officers and staff. We support fully the Commission for Racial Equality's investigation of these issues.

  The National Recruitment Standards programme includes assessment processes which test candidates' attitudes towards race and diversity vigorously through interviews, role play and written assessment. This should exclude anyone with racist tendencies or those who do not respect differences and diversity. Those who do not score sufficiently highly in respect for race and diversity are not offered a job, irrespective of how well they do in the rest of the selection process. These processes are already in place in a number of forces and will be implemented in the remainder of the service by summer 2004. We assess candidates for unacceptable attitudes in every exercise.

  I shall further support this with a new action plan "Breaking Through" which is being launched later this month and which contains a series of actions and examples of promising practice to help forces improve the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic staff.

  A new round of the Could You Police recruitment campaign has just been launched aimed, in particular, at the recruitment of women and ethnic minorities. The campaign is supported by outreach work pilots in four forces aimed at increasing the interest of ethnic minority communities in the police service as a credible and rewarding career choice.

  Fundamental changes to the way in which probationer constables are trained are under way. The focus will be on delivery of practice-based training within the local community rather than in residential police training centres. This new approach is already being piloted in several areas of the country. Improvements are also being made to police training generally to improve awareness of race and diversity issues and increase opportunities for community involvement. There will be rigorous assessment of standards.

  There are procedures under the Police Act 1996 and the Police (Misconduct) Regulations 1999 to deal with conduct which falls below the required standard. These procedures can be invoked by way of a complaint from a member of the public or a report or allegation from any other person. This includes any complaint or allegation of racial discrimination or attitudes. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduces a new complaints system to come into force on 1 April 2004, under which serious racial discrimination is a category of a complaint that must be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which will decide how such a complaint will be dealt with.
  665W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the targets are for increasing the number of female officers in the most senior ranks of the police force. [146280]

  Ms Blears
  There are no targets to increase the number of female officers in the most senior ranks of the Police Service. Proposals for the Policing Performance Assessment Framework (Annex C of the National Policing Plan 2004–07) include measures of overall strength, retention and promotion of female officers.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been conducted on the attitude of the public towards the police, with particular reference to racism. [146273]

  Ms Blears
  The British Crime Survey and the Home Office Citizenship Survey both ask questions about people's attitudes towards the police and refer to racism. Both surveys establish the ethnic group of the respondents:The most recent relevant results from the British Crime Survey can be found in: Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume. Chapter 7. (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 01/03, Flood-Page and Matthews 2003).
  The most recent relevant results from the Home Office Citizenship Survey can be found in: 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey: people, families and communities. Chapters 2 and 3. (Home Office Research Study 270, Attwood et al 2003).
  Other Home Office studies, drawing in the perceptions and experiences of the public, have focused on key issues within police-community relations. These include: The Views of the Public on Stops and Searches (Police Research Series paper 129, Stone and Pettigrew 2000);
  Attitudes of People from Minority Ethnic Communities towards a Career in the Police Service(Police Research Series paper 136. Stone and Tuffin 2000); and
  Public Perceptions of Police Accountability and Decision-making (Home Office On-line Report 38/03, Docking 2003).

  The Home Office is also currently carrying out, or has commissioned, further research in this area. These ongoing projects seek to: understand the impact of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on the police; review the impact of police community and race relations training; examine the police handling of racist incidents; and evaluate the phased implementation of the Lawrence recommendation 61 (the recording of police stops).

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of links between an increase in the number of police officers and a reduction in crime. [143403]

  Ms Blears
  The number of police officers has increased by 7 per cent. from 127,158 in March 1997 to 136,386 in August 2003. Evidence from the British Crime Survey over a similar period (between 1997 and 2002–03) indicates that burglary has fallen by 39 per cent., vehicle crime by 31 per cent., violent crime by 24 per cent. while crime overall declined by 25 per cent.

  The Government are committed to maximising the benefits of this increase. Working with the Service and others, a police reform agenda focused on community engagement, greater local accountability, operational effectiveness and workforce modernisation will produce further improvements.

  Police Funding (Cumbria)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Cumbria Police Authority on the 2004–05 Provisional Grant Settlement; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement. [146946]

  Ms Blears
  We received representations from the Treasurer of Cumbria Police Authority on 22 December. The period of consultation on the provisional settlement closed on 9 January. All representations received will be carefully considered and will be taken into account.

  I shall send my right hon. Friend a copy of my reply to Cumbria Police Authority as soon as it is available.

  Police Funding (Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the budgets for each police force in Wales since 1979 adjusted for inflation figures. [143033]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is set out in the following table.

  £0001

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1990–12,3

  44,554

  47,084

  62,966

  148,702

  1991–922

  46,890

  48,475

  67,099

  156,126

  1992–932

  50,335

  50,206

  71,907

  164,102

  1993–942

  52,056

  51,682

  72,853

  163,391

  1994–952

  54,935

  52,964

  75,505

  163,944

  1995–96

  55,188

  59,346

  78,755

  183,311

  1996–97

  56,037

  72,418

  79,992

  174,381

  1997–98

  56,075

  72,474

  80,044

  174,500

  1998–99

  56,586

  73,138

  80,774

  176,090

  1999–2000

  59,783

  76,628

  85,362

  182,376

  2000–01

  62,261

  80,309

  88,625

  188,903

  2001–02

  64,676

  82,979

  92,000

  194,321

  2002–034

  65,332

  84,396

  93,455

  195,006

  2003–04

  69,335

  89,520

  101,850

  195,650

  1Budgets are shown in real terms using Treasury deflator as at 30 September 2003. 2002–03:100.

  2Police Authorities in Wales, prior to 1995–96, were not precepting authorities and therefore did not have independent budgets. They received Home Office police grant and levied the rest of the income from their constituent counties. The figures from 1990–91 to 1994–95 represent net current expenditure by police authorities in Wales. Subsequent figures are for police authority budgets.

  3Figures are not available for individual police authorities on a consistent basis prior to 1990–91.

  4 Budgets for 2002–03 are not directly comparable with 2001–02 owing to changes in funding arrangements for NCS/NCIS, which have been funded centrally rather than locally since 2002–03.

  Source:

  Welsh Assembly Government.

  Recorded Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage recorded crime levels have changed in the past five years. [146270]

  Ms Blears
  Police recorded crime is affected by changes in recorded practice. Revisions to the Home Office counting rules in April 1998 and the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in April 2002, have resulted in substantially more crimes being recorded. This is because more categories of crime have
  667W
  been introduced into the coverage of recorded crime, and the police are now recording a higher proportion of crimes reported to them.

  When factoring out these changes in order to produce a fairer like-for-like comparison, total recorded crime remained broadly unchanged between 1997–98 and 2002–03.

  Stoke Heath Young Offenders Institution
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children received into Stoke Heath Young Offenders' Institution in the past year were on the Child Protection Register. [145093]

  Paul Goggins
  The Local Youth Offending Team is in every case where a child is received into a secure training facility from court required to confirm whether the child's name has been placed on the child protection register. This information assists in the creation of an individual sentence plan.

  Figures are not held centrally or collated locally at Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution. Examination of the records of all the young people who have been received into that establishment over the past year could not be undertaken without disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism Act
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested for terrorist offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 since 11 September 2001; and how many of them(a) have been charged, (b) have been released without charge, (c) have been bailed, (d) are still in custody, (e) were prosecuted in court under the Act, (f) were convicted under the Act and (g) were handed over to immigration officials. [145921]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Police records show that since 11 September 2001, 530 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and that 94 of those have been charged with offences under that Act resulting in five convictions to date.

  54 people have been released directly into the custody of immigration services. A further 71 of those arrested under the Act have been charged under other legislation.

  263 individuals were released without charge or further sanction. Information on any further action taken is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Young Offenders (Education)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether children held in segregation units in young offender institutions attend normal classes for education. [145094]

  Paul Goggins
  All children held in segregation units in young offender institutions are required to be given access to education. They will be given as much access to normal classes as is practicable, taking into account the reasons for their segregation and the risks in each case as well as the facilities and resources available locally.

TRANSPORT

  Air Safety
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which airlines were subject during 2003 to safety assessment of foreign aircraft ramp checks by the Civil Aviation Authority acting on their own initiative rather than at the direction of his Department; [147558]

  (2) if he will list the UK airports at which safety assessment of foreign aircraft ramp checks were carried out during 2003, indicating the number of aircraft checked at each airport; [147559]

  (3) what criteria are used by his Department when deciding which foreign airlines and aircraft should be subject to safety assessment of foreign aircraft ramp checks; [1475601

  (4) how many safety assessment of foreign aircraft ramp checks have been carried out at UK airports on behalf of his Department in each of the last five years. [147561]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Civil Aviation Authority carry out a programme of ramp inspections on the Department's behalf. We discuss that programme regularly with the Authority advising them of any information we have about potential safety concerns relating to particular aircraft, foreign airlines or the oversight provided by foreign regulatory authorities. The Authority organises visits to airports to maximise the number of inspections they can carry out, taking account of priorities as they arise; during such visits the Authority may inspect any aircraft which gives ground for concern. The Authority also makes specific visits for inspections of particular flights when requested to do so.

  Inspections are carried out at the most appropriate airport, taking into account the routes operated by the airlines concerned. In 2003, inspections took place at the following airports:

  Airport

  Number of safety inspections

  Birmingham

  1

  Bournemouth

  1

  Bristol

  8

  Cardiff

  1

  East Midlands

  2

  Edinburgh

  1

  Exeter

  9

  Filton

  1

  Glasgow

  3

  Liverpool

  1

  London City

  12

  London Gatwick

  51

  London Heathrow

  76

  London Luton

  11

  London Stansted

  17

  669W

  Airport

  Number of safety inspections

  Manchester

  13

  Mansion

  2

  Norwich

  2

  Prestwick

  1

  Note:

  These figures include 10 inspections of corporate and privately operated aircraft.

  I refer to my answer to the hon. Member of 8 January 2004, Official Report, column 499W, which lists those airlines which have had permits to operate to the UK refused or suspended. In the case of other airlines we have not had the need to suspend or restrict permits and therefore it would not be appropriate to publish their names.

  The number of inspections carried out on aircraft operated by foreign airlines in the last five years is as follows:

  Number of Inspections

  1999

  103

  2000

  256

  2001

  221

  2002

  193

  2003

  203

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the foreign airlines that are not banned from UK airspace but are banned from airspace elsewhere in Europe, indicating(a) where, (b) when and (c) for what reason these bans operated; and whether any of these airlines have operated in UK airspace while banned elsewhere; [147567]

  (2) pursuant to his answers of 8 January 2004, Official Report, columns 429–30W, on British airspace, whether the standards that have to be met for the issue of a permit to operate a foreign aircraft in UK airspace are above the minimum required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation; [147568]

  (3) on British airspace, if he will list the foreign airlines that would be banned from UK airspace if they were to apply for a permit; [147570]

  (4) on British airspace, which foreign airlines would have had their applications for a permit turned down had they made one since January 2000. [147571]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 January 2004.Official Report, columns 545–46W, given to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). This explains the basis on which international civil aviation is governed and the conditions on which UK permits are issued to foreign airlines. That answer also explains why we are not able to give detailed information on permit action taken elsewhere in Europe.

  Each application for a permit is considered on its merits and we could not prejudge our reaction to applications that foreign airlines might make in the future. There are a variety of reasons why permits have been refused, suspended or revoked and a range of permit restrictions possible, as demonstrated in the list included in the answer I gave the hon. Member on
  670W
  8 January 2004, Official Report. column 429W. The decisions not to allow services under the safety supervision of Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and Tajikistan to operate to the UK were taken on the basis of information received about the ability of the aeronautical authorities of those countries to oversee the safety of their airlines and/or aircraft on their register. Those concerns continue, but we would be prepared to reconsider our position in the light of any additional information.

  In the case of Gambia, we have issued a permit to Gambian International Airlines but only on the basis that the airline contracts with an acceptable non-Gambian airline to provide the aircraft and crew and to operate the flights on its behalf (called wet-leasing). In this case it has wet-leased an aircraft from Futura of Spain, and the Spanish authorities retain responsibility for the safety and operation of the aircraft.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the foreign airlines whose aircraft have been subject to one or more safety assessment of foreign aircraft ramp checks during each of the past five years indicating how many aircraft of each airline were tested. [147569]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Civil Aviation Authority carry out a programme of ramp inspections on the Department's behalf. We discuss that programme regularly with the Authority advising them of any information we have about potential safety concerns relating to particular aircraft, foreign airlines or the oversight provided by foreign regulatory authorities. The Authority organises visits to airports to maximise the number of inspections they can carry out, taking account of priorities as they arise; during such visits the Authority may inspect any aircraft which gives ground for concern. The Authority also makes specific visits for inspections of particular flights when requested to do so.

  Inspections are carried out at the most appropriate airport, taking into account the routes operated by the airlines concerned. In 2003, inspections took place at the following airports:

  Airport

  Number of safety inspections

  Birmingham

  1

  Bournemouth

  1

  Bristol

  8

  Cardiff

  1

  East Midlands

  2

  Edinburgh

  1

  Exeter

  9

  Filton

  1

  Glasgow

  3

  Liverpool

  1

  London City

  12

  London Gatwick

  51

  London Heathrow

  76

  London Luton

  11

  London Stansted

  17

  Manchester

  13

  Mansion

  2

  Norwich

  2

  Prestwick

  1

  These figures include 10 inspections of corporate and privately operated aircraft.
  671W
  I refer to my answer to the hon. Member of 8 January 2004, Official Report, column 499W, which lists those airlines which have had permits to operate to the UK refused or suspended. In the case of other airlines we have not had the need to suspend or restrict permits and therefore it would not be appropriate to publish their names.

  The number of inspections carried out on aircraft operated by foreign airlines in the last five years is as follows:

  Number of inspections

  1999

  103

  2000

  256

  2001

  221

  2002

  193

  2003

  203

  Buses
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, at constant prices, the spending on public transport support for buses for each year since 1985 in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) English metropolitan areas outside London, (e) shire counties and (f) London. [147420]

  Million

  Tyne and Wear

  West Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  Merseyside

  Greater Manchester

  West Midlands

  1985–86

  287

  291

  341

  305

  357

  487

  1986–87

  257

  304

  268

  258

  267

  456

  1987–88

  243

  297

  237

  219

  310

  426

  1988–89

  247

  296

  225

  207

  297

  422

  1989–90

  244

  294

  192

  211

  291

  417

  1990–91

  230

  263

  191

  191

  270

  403

  1991–92

  220

  240

  177

  191

  260

  389

  1992–93

  189

  231

  176

  178

  252

  356

  1993–94

  182

  232

  166

  166

  236

  355

  1994–95

  170

  222

  163

  168

  226

  381

  1995–96

  168

  219

  158

  165

  224

  358

  1996–97

  165

  207

  150

  163

  212

  349

  1997–98

  161

  196

  144

  151

  211

  368

  1998–99

  154

  186

  135

  150

  217

  353

  1999–2000

  151

  180

  130

  149

  199

  353

  2000–01

  146

  189

  131

  142

  204

  353

  2001–02

  141

  181

  128

  142

  205

  352

  2002–031

  138

  181

  128

  144

  209

  350

  Motorways
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in respect of each motorway the number of occasions in each of the last five years when a carriageway has been closed for more than two hours as a result of(a) an accident and (b) an incident other than an accident. [145529]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  672W
  Mr. McNulty
  The information, in constant 2002–03 prices, is shown in the following table.

  £ million

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  English Met areas

  English shire counties

  London

  1985–86

  841

  50

  22

  406

  170

  264

  1986–87

  677

  58

  17

  329

  143

  205

  1987–88

  526

  38

  14

  218

  122

  187

  1988–89

  498

  34

  12

  182

  127

  189

  1989–90

  408

  24

  13

  152

  128

  128

  1990–91

  423

  17

  13

  139

  128

  155

  1991–92

  486

  26

  13

  146

  131

  209

  1992–93

  472

  26

  13

  140

  119

  213

  1993–94

  307

  27

  11

  126

  107

  74

  1994–95

  297

  27

  10

  123

  107

  67

  1995–96

  259

  30

  11

  119

  104

  35

  1996–97

  233

  31

  10

  123

  97

  14

  1997–98

  209

  26

  11

  111

  97

  1

  1998–99

  255

  25

  12

  121

  121

  13

  1999–2000

  263

  27

  14

  116

  136

  11

  2000–01

  353

  29

  16

  125

  142

  87

  2001–02

  458

  33

  17

  123

  145

  190

  2002–031

  618

  32

  17

  121

  142

  355

  1 Provisional.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has collated on the change in the number of passenger journeys by bus for each year since 1985 in each English metropolitan area outside London. [147421]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Commercial Vehicle Parking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the availability of overnight parking facilities for commercial vehicles in each region of the UK K. [147330]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 confers powers on local authorities to make provision for on and off street parking facilities, including facilities for commercial vehicles if these are considered necessary. We have not commissioned any research to
  673W
  evaluate the availability of overnight parking facilities for commercial vehicles. However, the Highways Agency is engaged in a pilot study in conjunction with the road haulage industry aimed at providing dedicated rest areas for lorry drivers away from the motorway network.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146862]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146878]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement; [146891]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in his Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146922]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146907]

  Mr. McNulty
  The latest available figures for the number of staff in the Department for Transport that work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire is shown in the following table:

  Location

  Number of staff

  West Midlands

  1,127

  North Staffordshire

  38

  Total

  1,165

  Lane Rental Trials
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the Government intends to consult interested parties on next steps when the lane rental trials in Camden and Middlesbrough end. [147095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The lane rental trials in Camden and Middlesbrough are due to end on 31 March. Any decision on whether to roll out lane rental more widely will need to be taken in the context of changes to the existing legislative regime for utility street works resulting from the Traffic Management Bill, including the introduction of permit schemes. We intend consulting widely with utilities, local authorities, utility 674W
  regulators and other interested parties when drawing up regulations which would allow for permit schemes, and we would consult similarly widely before extending lane rental.

  M5
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the resurfacing schedule for the M5; and what account it takes of requests to deal with excessive noise nuisance. [146477]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Resurfacing schedules are established on an annual basis, based upon an assessment of surface condition and availability of funds. Next year's resurfacing will be determined as part of the Highways Agency's business plan development.

  The 10 Year Plan for Transport includes a commitment to use quieter surfacing materials where possible during routine resurfacing. Other noise reduction measures, such as noise fencing, are considered on an individual basis.

  Railways
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public subsidy was given to each railway company in each year since 1997. [146536]

  Mr. McNulty
  Details of the subsidy paid to each train operating company, in each year, are set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's annual report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the projected investment in rail infrastructure is in Scotland over the next five years. [147685]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail's June 2003 Business Plan sets out £1.6 billion of investment in maintenance and renewals for Scottish routes (excluding the West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line in Scotland) over the period 2004–05 to 2008–09. The Business Plan is currently being reviewed to take into account the Rail Regulator's Final Conclusions on the Interim Review of Track Access Charges, which were published on 12 December 2003. The SRA's investment proposals are set out in the Strategic Plan. The latest edition was published last year and is available in the House Library. In addition, the Scottish Executive may facilitate the development and improvement of passenger rail services.

  Scotrail
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government funding is provided to Scotrail in 2003–04 in respect of its sleeper services to London. [147686]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is a matter for the Scottish Executive, which is responsible for the franchise arrangements for cross-border sleeper services.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the money raised in fines by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership was spent on traffic-calming measures and other safety projects in Essex,
  675W
  other than the installation and operating of speed cameras, in each of the last six years for (a) Billericay and district, (b) Basildon district and (c) Essex; and what percentage this represented of the total money raised in fines for each year. [147564]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Fine revenue from the cost recovery system can only be used to fund safety camera operations and not for any other purposes. Other funding sources are available to local authorities to use on other road safety measures.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed enforcement cameras have been(a) removed, (b) relocated and (c) disabled as a result of his recent letter to safety camera partnerships; and if he will place a copy of his letter in the Library. [147757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The letter from the Department for Transport to the partnerships, dated 19 December, was sent by the Head of Road Safety Division. It asked partnerships to confirm that they are adhering strictly to the guidance and rules of the safety camera netting off arrangement in siting the cameras and ensuring all requirements relating to speed limit setting and signing are in place. I shall keep the House informed.

  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 22 December 2003,Official Report, column 52W, if he will set out in respect of each safety camera partnership the last quarter for which monitoring information and data has been received by (a) his Department and (b) its consultants; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [147759]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The results of the last complete year's monitoring to 31 March 2003 will be contained in the next annual report of the safety camera programme that is due to be published in March and will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Traffic Management Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is the policy of the Government that traffic officers appointed under the Traffic Management Bill should be subject to positive vetting. [145537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The safety and protection of the travelling public is of paramount importance to the Government.

  The level of security and criminal record checks that the Highways Agency is expected to apply are equivalent to those that exist for staff currently employed by the Police service, such as Traffic Police and Community Support Officers.

  As well as undertaking a check against security service records, the Highways Agency is also in the process of registering with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Registration with the CRB will enable the Agency to pick up all criminal convictions, and carry out checks against relevant departmental and police records.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department uses to ensure that service accommodation is managed and maintained to standards that are acceptable to the tenants. [146831]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the Defence Housing Executive's Key Targets for Financial Year 2003–04, set out in my written ministerial statement of 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 19WS. The Key Targets include allocation times, repairs, upgrades and customer satisfaction. Full details are set out in the DHE Corporate Plan 2003, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Army Redress (Appeals)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the procedures are for(a) officers and (b) other ranks in the Army to appeal against army redress decisions; and if he will make a statement. [145730]

  Mr. Caplin
  The procedures governing appeals against army redress decisions are contained within section 180 of the Army Act 1955, Chapter 5 of Queen's Regulations and Army General and Administrative Instructions, Volume 2, Chapter 70. Officers and other ranks who make a complaint and who do not obtain the redress to which they think they are entitled, may submit their complaint to the Defence Council (the Army Board acting as the Defence Council). The procedures require the complaint to proceed through a series of levels in the chain of command, any of which may resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the complainant, before it is considered by the Defence Council. If officers do not obtain from the Defence Council the redress they seek, they have the further opportunity to require the Defence Council to make a report on the complaint to Her Majesty and she has the power to look into the case further, acting on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Department since 1997 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of works of art has been since 1997. [142358]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since 1997 the Ministry of Defence has purchased one painting—a portrait of Admiral Leach, at a cost of £5,000. No works of sculpture have been purchased, and no works of art have been sold.

  Cluster Munitions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the cluster artillery shells purchased from BAE Systems in 2003 have been used; how many remain in storage; and what the period of possible utility is of the unused ones. [146990]
  677W
  Mr. Ingram
  No cluster artillery shells purchased from BAE Systems in 2003 have been used in Iraq during Operation Telic. Shells purchased from BAE Systems have been put into store to maintain operational stock levels. The ammunition used during Operation Telic was from a procurement made in 1996; therefore the full quantity ordered remains in storage. This ammunition has a shelf life of 10 years.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recourse is available to armed forces personnel who consider that complaints and problems relating to their accommodation have not been dealt with adequately by the Defence Housing Executive. [147283]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) has a 5-step complaints procedure which directs the occupant through the organisation from local DHE office level to the Chief Executive. If still unsatisfied, the occupant can write to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel), DHE's owner. This procedure is fully explained in the Occupants Handbook, a copy of which is provided to all occupants of Service family housing.

  Serving personnel are also able to raise matters through their chain of command or make a formal complaint under the Service redress of grievance procedure.

  The DHE Occupants Handbook also lists bodies that may be consulted for independent advice, such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux and Service welfare organisations. Leaflets containing information about complaints are on display in community facilities in DHE estates, and reminders are published from time to time in DHE's customer magazine 'Living in Families Quarters'.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure on information campaigns and advertising was for his Department for each year since 1997. [145673]

  Mr. Caplin
  Details of the Ministry of Defence's expenditure on advertising and publicity have historically been included in the annual Departmental Performance Reports, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. For 1996–97 the information is shown on page 49 Cm 3781; for 1997–98, the information is shown on page 49, Cm 4170; for 1999–2000 the information is shown on page 60, Cm 5000; for 2000–01 the information is shown on page 68, Cm 5290 and for 2001–02 the information is shown on page 71, Cm 5661.

  Figures for 1998–99 were not provided in the Annual Performance Report and are as follows:

  Category

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Recruitment

  Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary

  6.65

  Army

  11.77

  Royal Air Force

  10.17

  Civilian

  3.27

  678W

  Catergory

  Expenditure

  PR, marketing and business support services

  0.84

  Chief of Public Relations expenditure

  2.39

  Sales promotion

  1.06

  Scholarships

  0.38

  National Employers Liaison Committee (Territorial Army)

  1.05

  The introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting in the Ministry of Defence has changed the way we account for and record our expenditure. I can confirm that the final outturn for publicity and recruitment, which includes advertising, for 2002–03 was £52.5 million. However, the detailed breakdown could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Depleted Uranium Oversight Board
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to reconfigure the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board. [146988]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has no proposals to reconfigure the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB).

  Flying Hours (RAF Marham)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many hours on average were flown by RAF pilots based at RAF Marham in each month over the past two years [141295]

  Mr. Ingram
  [pursuant to the answer, 4 December 2003, Official Report, column 127W]The information provided was incorrect.

  The information in the following table shows the correct number of hours flown on average by pilots based at RAF Marham, by month. These figures include hours flown by exchange pilots from foreign air forces serving with RAF Squadrons based at the station, as these are not recorded separately. On average there are two such pilots at the station, and they would normally fly at the same rate as RAF pilots. The figures also include hours flown by Marham-based pilots deployed on Operation TELIC, hence the increase in April 2003.

  Month

  Average hours per pilot

  December 2001

  12.02

  January 2002

  18.54

  February 2002

  15.14

  March 2002

  19.24

  April 2002

  18.49

  May 2002

  19.46

  June 2002

  17.75

  July 2002

  16.23

  August 2002

  15.85

  September 2002

  19.36

  October 2002

  20.51

  November 2002

  14.53

  December 2002

  12.63

  January 2003

  18.16

  February 2003

  11.27

  March 2003

  10.66

  April 2003

  27.43

  May 2003

  16.10

  June 2003

  21.39

  July 2003

  20.41

  679W

  Month

  Average hours per pilot

  August 2003

  14.03

  September 2003

  17.80

  October 2003

  18.19

  Future Army Structure
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Future Army Structure. [141.7726]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the Defence White Paper, 'Delivering Security in a Changing World', published on 11 December 2003, and in particular Chapter 4 'Armed Forces Capabilities', which sets out the latest position on the Future Army Structure.

  Iraq
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of civilian contractors working for the allied forces in Iraq. [145278]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 November 2003,Official Report, column 758W, to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell).

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list information technology contracts in his Department with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146189]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Jaguar
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to withdraw the RAF's Jaguar aircraft from service. [147282]

  Mr. Ingram
  Based on current predictions it is expected that the RAF's Jaguar fleet will be retired around the end of this decade.

  King's Troop, Royal Horse Artillery
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the operational role is of the King's Troop, the Royal Horse Artillery; [142712]

  (2) what the cost to public funds in 2003–04 is of the King's Troop, the Royal Horse Artillery; [142713]

  (3) what his plans are for the future of the King's Troop, the Royal Horse Artillery. [142714]

  Mr. Ingram
  In addition to its ceremonial role, the King's Troop, the Royal Horse Artillery provides personnel to support the Royal Artillery Corps and other units. Most recently, members of the King's680W
  Troop deployed with Close Support and Depth Fire Artillery units on Operation Telic. No changes are currently planned to this role.

  The cost to public funds in the last financial year (2002–03) was £5.78 million. This includes expenditure on pay, building works, food and clothing.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions to his Department have waited more than four sitting weeks for a reply in Session 2002–03. [140792]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as a guide, officials have calculated a figure based on the number of parliamentary questions tabled between 8 September to 18 September 2003 and 7 October to 20 November 2003. According to our records, 898 parliamentary questions were tabled during this period and of this number, 34 questions were answered more than four sitting weeks later.

  Defence Ministers aim to answer named day written questions on the day named and ordinary written questions within five sitting days.

  Recruitment (Security Clearance)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were refused security clearance for entry to(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Army in each of the last five years. [147259]

  Mr. Ingram
  Electronic records capable of showing those refused security clearance for entry to the Services were started during 2001. There is no practical means of obtaining and collating this information for the years prior to 2002. In 2002, six potential Royal Navy recruits, two potential Royal Air Force recruits and 38 potential Army recruits were refused security clearance. In 2003, 11 potential Royal Navy recruits, five potential Royal Air Force recruits and 40 potential Army recruits were refused security clearance.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first Sea Harrier Squadron will be withdrawn from service; and what plans he has for the disposal of the squadron's aircraft. [147281]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 June 2003,Official Report, columns 879–80W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  The first Sea Harrier Squadron will be withdrawn from service on 31 March 2004.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service personnel who are entitled to a preserved pension are not claiming that to which they are entitled. [146957]

  Mr. Caplin
  The total number of pensions currently in payment under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme is in the region of 342,000 (this includes pensions in payment
  681W
  to former Service personnel, their spouses and dependants). As at 30 November 2003, 504 ex-service personnel across the three Services have not claimed a preserved pension award to which they were entitled at age 60.

  Tornado
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF's last Tornado GR4 aircraft are expected to be retired; what aircraft type is earmarked to replace the Tornado GR4 in its role; and if he will make a statement. [147548]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently expect the Tornado GR4 to leave service around the end of the next decade.

  The Future Offensive Air System is planned to replace the offensive air capability currently provided by the Tornado GR4. No final decision has been taken on how the Future Offensive Air System requirement might best be met. We are currently looking at a potential mix of platforms including Long Range Cruise Missiles, Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles and manned aircraft.

  Unexploded Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much compensation is paid to families of(a) adults and (b) children under 16 years of age, who are (i) killed and (ii) injured as a result of unexploded British cluster bombs in (A) Kosovo, (B) Afghanistan and (C) Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [146168]

  Mr. Ingram
  When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation, we do so. The amount of compensation paid is calculated on the basis of the severity of the injury together with any financial loss. The amount payable for financial loss to an adult would likely exceed that payable to a juvenile.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Judges (Appeals)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of successful appeals made against individual judges. [147123]

  Mr. Leslie
  Judicial decisions are not a matter in which the Government should become involved, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs does not routinely monitor the outcome of appeals in relation to decisions made by particular judges. The fact that an appeal has been successful does not in itself entail any criticism of the original judge.

  Supreme Court
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what representations he has received on the proposal for the creation of a supreme court. [147125]
  682W
  Mr. Leslie
  I have received a range of representations on the new Supreme Court in response to the consultation paper issued last July. Details of responses received will be published shortly.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether he plans to have further consultation on his proposals for reform of the House of Lords. [147126]

  Mr. Leslie
  The public consultation on proposals for reform of the House of Lords ended on 12 December, and the responses are being considered. The Government does not intend to repeat this consultation. Beyond this Bill, we have made clear that there is more work to be done.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary under Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his plans for further reform of the House of Lords. [147129]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government intends to introduce legislation to remove the remaining hereditary peers and place the Appointments Commission on a statutory footing as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The Government has repeatedly stated that this Bill does not mark the end of the road for House of Lords reform.

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent representations he has received about the efficiency of the Court of Protection. [147127]

  Mr. Lammy
  No representations have been received on the court of Protection, but 26 have been made to my noble Friend Lord Filkin on the Public Guardianship Office, which is the administrative arm of the Court, since he took over ministerial responsibility for it last summer.

  Solicitors
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what initiatives are planned to improve the oversight of supervision of solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [147128]

  Mr. Lammy
  We expect to appoint a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner with powers to oversee the Law Society's complaints handling in the very near future. The powers of the LSCC can include: setting targets for the handling of complaints; making recommendations about complaints handling; requiring a failing body to submit a plan for complaints handling and levying fines if the body fails to submit a plan or comply with the agreed plan to improve complaints handling.

  Witnesses and Victims (Court Evidence)
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what measures are being taken to encourage witnesses and victims to come forward to give evidence in court. [147130]
  683W
  Mr. Leslie
  Last July, the Government published a National Strategy setting out the steps we are taking to deliver improved services to victims and witnesses in the Criminal Justice System.

  At its heart is the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, introduced last November and containing a number of measures aimed at encouraging more witnesses to come to court and give evidence.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Lord Chancellor will answer the letter to him from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood dated 28 November 2003, regarding the case of his constituent, Mr. J. Lawrence. [146952]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department is currently considering the matters raised by the hon. Member in his letter of 28 November 2003. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list information technology contracts in his Department with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146198]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information for my Department is as follows:

  LOCCS (various court-based IT systems)

  The EDS (LOGCS) contract was awarded to EDS in September 1996, to provide IT systems to Crown and county courts. The lifetime cost of the contract is assessed at £210 million.

  The initial rollout of equipment to courts was completed in August 2001. The contract was fully functional from award. The contract includes provisions to test software prior to release, and to fix software 'bugs' which are attributable to supplier software.

  The LOCCS rollout was completed to time, and subsequent major work programmes have been delivered to time.

  A major provision of new IT equipment to the Crown Court (and those county courts co-located with crown court buildings) under the LOCCS contract was agreed in 2003. This is part of the Government's commitment to modernising the Criminal Justice System. This programme of change had replaced the equipment and significantly enhanced the IT functionality available at 31 Crown and County Court centres by the end of 2003 and is on schedule to be completed in all of the 109 sites within scope by 2006. An extension to this rollout of a further 59 stand alone county courts is being planned. These additional sites will also be completed in 2006.
  684W
  ARAMIS (Resource Accounting and Management Information System)

  This is a PFI contract for the provision of accounting, financial, HR/payroll and management information services. It was awarded in December 1997 and runs until January 2007. Its current anticipated life-time cost is £207.7 million, which includes enhancements to the service during 2003.

  Most services have IT elements and are delivered across an IT infrastructure provided through the contract. However, the IT system elements of the contract are not separated out from the main business functions. All the services are being provided within the lifetime of the contract, and major work programmes have been delivered to time. Debugging of the IT system elements is a process which continues through the lifetime of the contract.

  Libra (magistrates' courts IT systems)

  The original contract with Fujitsu Systems for Libra included provision for infrastructure and Office Automation, a bespoke case management software application and systems integration.

  This contract with Fujitsu Services for the delivery of Libra has been varied twice since it was awarded in December 1998. This has resulted in changes to the baseline making it inappropriate to compare spend to date across an original and two variants of the contract. The actual spend against the original contract can be summarised as follows:
  Original ICL Contract December 1998: Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 10.5 years—£184million
  Negotiated ICL Contract May 2000: Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 14.5 years—£319 million
  Negotiated Fujitsu Services Contract July 2002: Total contract charges expected to arise over contract life of 8.5 years—£232 million
  Total contracted charges paid by year ending December 2003—£127 million

  Libra is now being sourced through three separate contracts, one to provide the underlying infrastructure and Office Automation Services, one to supply a new case management application and the third to deploy that application and integrate all systems. These include, where necessary, provisions to test the software and to fix any "bugs" which are attributable to supplier software prior to release.

  The contract signed with Fujitsu Services in July 2002 included the provision of Libra infrastructure and Office Automation only. The roll-out of these was successfully completed in September 2003.

  A further contract was signed with STL in January 2003 for £37 million to provide a case management software application. The first release of this application is due in November 2004 with two further enhancements to be completed before November 2005. STL will continue to provide support and enhancement services through to 2008.

  A contract was also signed with Accenture in October 2003 for £38 million to deploy the new application to the Magistrates' courts (planned completion by the end of 2005) and to provide on-going systems integration services through to 2008.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs on how many occasions the Secretary of State met the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to discuss(a) asylum seekers and (b) reform of the criminal justice system in the last 12 months. [146673]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the last 12 months the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has met the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to discuss asylum seekers on eight separate occasions and on 15 separate occasions to discuss reform of the criminal justice system. They will also have discussed these issues in the context of other meetings.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payments (Pensioners)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent estimate he has made of the amount of unclaimed benefits due to pensioners. [146748]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest estimates of the amount of unclaimed benefits for pensioners eligible for income-related benefits relate to financial year 2000–01. These cover Minimum Income Guarantee, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and are available in the DWP report "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 2000–01". A copy of the publication is held in the Library. Statistics covering 2001–02 will be released in February.

  No estimates are available of the amount of `unclaimed' State Pension. This is because anyone eligible for a State Pension can choose to defer taking it, and then receive a higher amount once they begin claiming. Therefore, pension that is so far unclaimed may be being deliberately deferred.

  Information relating to unclaimed disability benefits is not available.

  Number of new awards each year to people whose main disabling condition is Multiple Sclerosis or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Thousand

  Year ending

  All new awards

  New awards where main disabling condition is Multiple Sclerosis

  Percentage of new awards

  New awards where main disabling condition is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

  Percentage of new awards

  31 August 1999

  218.9

  3.1

  1.4

  1.5

  0.7

  31 August 2000

  226.1

  3.5

  1.5

  1.7

  0.7

  31 August 2001

  250.4

  3.5

  1.4

  2.0

  0.8

  31 August 2002

  256.0

  3.1

  1.2

  2.3

  0.9

  31 August 2003

  262.5

  2.8

  1.1

  2.2

  0.8

  Notes:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Total number of applications by disabling condition are unavailable.

  In order to count 'sufferers', people with multiple awards during the year are counted only once.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.
  686W
  We are unable to provide any reliable estimate of the number of unclaimed Winter Fuel Payments because some people aged 60 or over are excluded, others choose not to claim and payments are based on household composition. However, most people are paid automatically.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions further to the letter to the hon. Member for Wycombe of 18 December 2003, from Doug Smith, Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, for what reason it is not possible to provide information concerning anomalies, inaccuracies and incomplete data contained in records held by the Child Support Agency before the CSA's data migration strategy is finalised. [1470621

  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.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Paul Goodman, dated 13 January 2004:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  In response to my reply to you dated 18 December 2003 you asked for the reason why it is not possible to provide information concerning anomalies, inaccuracies and incomplete data contained in records held by the Child Support Agency before the CSA's data migration strategy is finalised.
  That is because as part of finalising the data migration strategy we are continuing to research the likely number of "anomalies, inaccuracies and incomplete data" associated with each of the options being explored.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many sufferers from(a) Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and (b) Multiple Sclerosis were awarded disability living allowance in the last five years; and what percentage of those applying that represented in each case. [146609]

  Maria Eagle
  The required information is in the following table.
  687W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on chronic fatigue syndrome in relation to benefits; [146633]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the suitability of Disability Living Allowance application forms for those suffering from variable conditions; [146610]

  (3) how many officials dealing with Disability Living Allowance have specialist knowledge of chronic fatigue syndrome; [146608]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with the Disability Living Allowance Appeals Service on how to deal with variable conditions. [146611]

  Maria Eagle
  People with chronic fatigue syndrome are entitled to social security benefits if they meet the usual qualifying conditions for them. For Disability Living Allowance, entitlement depends on the effects that severe physical or mental disability have on a person's need for personal care and/or their ability to walk, and not on particular disabilities or diagnoses.

  The Disability Living Allowance claim form is designed to enable all disabled people to give full details of the effects of their disabilities on their need for personal care and ability to walk, and specifically asks for as much detail as possible about variations in their condition. In view of the concern disabled people have expressed about the length and complexity of the form, we are developing and trialling a number of new style
  688W
  claim packs which will give even better opportunities for people to detail how their disabilities affect them on a day to day basis.

  Some 1,180 decision makers decide claims for Disability Living Allowance. All of them receive specific training on the causes, manifestations and management of chronic fatigue syndrome. Guidance about the effects of particular disabilities is available to decision makers in the Disability Handbook published by the Department's Corporate Medical Group. The section on chronic fatigue syndrome was written and compiled following consultation with experts in this area of medicine including the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association. Decision makers can also seek advice from the Department's medical services doctors, all of whom are trained disability analysts with specialist knowledge of assessing the effects of disability and who receive specific guidance on assessing the effects of chronic fatigue syndrome as one of their training modules.

  There have been no recent discussions with the Appeals Service on how to deal with Disability Living Allowance claims from people with variable conditions. The Appeals Service is an independent body and it would not be appropriate to seek to influence how they might deal generally with cases involving particular disabilities. On individual cases being considered by the Appeals Service, however, it is open to the Department to express its views about whether the conditions for entitlement to benefit are, or are not, met. In this connection, the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the case of "Moyna" ([2003] UKHL 44) confirmed that the correct approach to entitlement to Disability Living Allowance for people with variable conditions is to take a "broad view". This judgment is binding on both decision makers and the Appeals Service.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Start-ups
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to help people in the North East who are 50 and over who are not working to set up their own businesses. [144769]

  Jacqui Smith
  Self-employment provision is delivered on behalf of the Government primarily through the Small Business Service by Business Link Operators, and their network of providers.

  This provision is aimed at all who want to start-up, without any form of prejudice, and regardless of their employment status. They work hard to create effective and efficient referral mechanisms (commonly known as brokerage) to ensure that each customer gets appropriate support for their needs–regardless of ethnic origin, age, gender, sexual orientation or residential location.

  Business Links in the NE work with all potential partners and stakeholders, including Jobcentre Plus, who deliver the self-employment option of New Deal 50 + through their network of providers.

  The standard model in New Deal provides:

  An initial awareness session for potential participants during the New Deal "Gateway" period;

  A period of supported business planning with a business expert, and

  A period of "test trading", whereby participants start their business while continuing to receive benefits to help them over any initial transitional hurdles. This period can last up to a maximum of 26 weeks.

  New Deal is just one of many support programmes for budding entrepreneurs. A range of initiatives exist within programmes, focussed upon "deprived areas" (Employment Zones, Action Teams and New Deal for Communities) and groups, and advice and support is also provided by the Small Business Service (DTI), with funding from the European Social Fund and the Prince's Trust Business Programme (which is partly funded by DWP) underpinning much of the support.

  NE Business Links all seek to provide on-going support for all who come through this process.

  The Regional Development Agency, One North East are currently providing funding to the national organisation for promoting enterprise amongst the over 50s, PRIME to the tune of £185,550 to provide assistance to promote/assist self employment/business start-up to people over 50 in the North East.

  This has a special focus on those who are economically inactive, unemployed, and/or a financially and socially excluded background.

  This is delivered thought local partner organisations which contract with PRIME to supply marketing and
  690W
  outreach programmes, as well as business start-up services from pre-start up advice through to post startup support and mentoring.

  The project also makes available PRIME loans to provide "last resort" start-up finance to non-working people over the age of 50 for promising business ventures. ONE NE's funding also provides the resources for the PRIME regional development officer, who has specific responsibility to co-ordinate delivery of the PRIME initiative in the North East region. It also provides financial incentives to PRIME loan associates and their approved contractees to target the economically inactive and unemployed over 50s. Business Link Tees Valley, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, is one such loan associate.

  NE Business Links actively work with their networks of enterprise training and development providers to ensure that information, advice and assistance is provided to people aged above 50, which match their individual circumstances. The PRIME scheme is introduced to people where appropriate.

  Business Support Schemes
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was been spent on(a) regional venture capital funds, (b) Faraday Centres, (c) University Challenge Seed Funds, (d) SMART schemes and (e) Enterprise areas in each year since each was established. [146146]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information is as follows:

  (a)Regional Venture Capital Funds:

  Regional Venture Capital Funds were launched in 2001. DTI spend has been as follows:

  Year

  £million

  2001–02

  2.1

  2002–03

  9.1

  Total

  11.1

  (b)Faraday Centres:

  There is no Faraday Centres scheme, but the DTI supports Faraday Partnerships. Faraday Partnerships aim to bring new products and processes, based on the UK science base, to the market more effectively. DTI and the Research Councils support 23 of the 24 Faraday Partnerships: the other is supported by the Scottish Executive and DEFRA.

  DTI spend on Faraday Partnerships to date has been:

  Year

  £

  2000–01

  1,915,311

  2001–02

  3,351,631

  2002–03

  5,903,343

  2003–041

  2,904,500

  Total

  14.074,786

  1First two quarters

  691W
  (c) University Challenge:

  University Challenge has had the following amounts allocated to it:

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  10

  2001–02

  20

  2002–03

  5

  There are no current plans for any future separate funding for University Challenge. The sorts of activities which UC funded will in future be supported through the expanded Higher Education Innovation Fund.

  (d) Smart (including SPUR):

  DTI expenditure on Smart (including the SPUR scheme which was fully incorporated into Smart in 1997) has been as follows:

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Expenditure

  1988–89

  3.0

  1989–90

  5.0

  1990–91

  9.0

  1991–92

  12.3

  1992–93

  18.0

  1993–94

  21.5

  1994–95

  21.9

  1995–96

  20.1

  1996–97

  20.5

  1997–98

  25.8

  1998–99

  24.9

  1999–2000

  26.5

  2000–01

  27.3

  2001–02

  23.7

  2002–03

  32.1

  (e) Enterprise Areas:

  Enterprise Areas are not a scheme but are a designation of the 1,997 most deprived wards in the UK. A range of policy measures are available to help people and businesses in Enterprise Areas. They provide a focus for local and regional organisations to tackle market failures and the barriers to enterprise that their communities face.

  Government is encouraging key organisations; Local Authorities, RDAs; Business Link Operators and Local Strategic Partnerships to work with the business community to raise awareness of the help and support available and to co-ordinate their activities in order to target their efforts on Enterprise Areas.

  Company Administration
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will investigate the fees paid to firms charged with undertaking the receipt of companies into administration. [146496]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Neither my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any power to intervene in the fees charged by administrators. Rule 2.47 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 692W
  sets out the basis for fixing their remuneration and, where it is not fixed by the creditors' committee or the creditors, the administrator may apply to the court.

  Debarred Directors
  Mr. Mike Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what circumstances she is able to take action to debar directors of companies; and what plans she has to extend those powers. [146514]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Following a company going into liquidation, administration or administrative receivership or an investigation into its affairs under the Companies Act 1985 or Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient in the public interest, she may apply to the court for an order (or accept an undertaking) under the Companies Directors Disqualification Act 1986 which disqualifies an individual from being a director of any company for a period of up to 15 years.

  The court may also disqualify a director who is guilty of certain offences in relation to companies, persistent breaches of company legislation or a breach of competition law.

  There no plans to amend these powers.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how officials from her Department made contact with the British-based companies alleged to have breached Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development business ethics guidelines in the last report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of the Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; what responses have been received so far; whether responses will be placed in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [146414]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises contacted some of the companies mentioned in Schedule 3 of the UN Panel report directly, the remaining companies made contact with the NCP. In all cases this resulted in face-to-face discussions with either the company or their legal representatives. In all cases the companies denied any wrongdoing and indicated their willingness to act in accordance with the OECD Guidelines. In the absence of evidence of specific instances of breaching the Guidelines, the companies have not—been in a position to respond substantively to the allegations by the UN Panel. All communications with the Panel are undertaken within the confidentiality provisions of the Guidelines and consequently the Government will be unable to place a copy of any response in the Library. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mullin) made a statement to the House on 17 December 2003,Official Report, columns 142–44WS, regarding the UN Panel of Experts report and I have nothing to add to that statement at this time.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response her Department has received to its request to the UN Panel of Experts on the
  693W
  Illegal Exploitation of the Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for further information and evidence on the allegations against British-based companies contained in its last report; whether this information can still be provided by the UN following the disbandment of the Panel of Experts on 31 October 2003; what the process is for obtaining information from a UN Panel of Experts which has been disbanded; if she will place a copy of her Department's request to the UN Panel of Experts' response in the Library once it is received; whether her Department made representations to the UN with regard to the disbandment of the Panel; and if she will make a statement. [146415]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following oral requests by the UK Mission at the UN to the Chairman of the Panel of Experts for evidence of specific instances of breaching the OECD Guidelines, a letter was sent to the UN Secretariat on 17 November and resent again a week later. To date there has been no reply to either letter.

  The National Contact Point (NCP) has repeatedly attempted to telephone the Political Secretary to the Panel and has left messages without response. Consequently we are about to make further representations to Ambassador Kassem who chaired the panel to provide the necessary evidence.

  Members of the panel indicated in April 2003 that they were in possession of a good deal of documentary evidence, none of which has, thus far, been provided. We believe the disbanding of the panel should not necessarily affect the early availability or provision of this documentation. As you will be aware from the ministerial statement made by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 17 December 2003, Official Report, columns 142–44WS, NCPs from all countries involved have been assured that this information would be provided and are frustrated that this has not yet happened.

  All communications with the Panel have been conducted under the confidentiality provisions of the Guidelines and consequently the Government will be unable to place a copy of the request, or any response, in the Library.

  My department made no representations to the UN with regard to the disbandment of the Panel, whose original time-limited mandate had already been extended on several occasions

  Departmental Grants
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent by her Department in establishing the Benchmark Index for business. [145512]

  Nigel Griffiths
  £4 million was spent before this financial year, with a further £0.5 million allocated up to 31 March 2004.

  The DTI Small Business Service's Benchmark Index service enables companies to assess where they stand against their competitors in about 80 different aspects of performance. Around 9,000 benchmarks have been carried out.
  694W
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been provided by her Department to fund the Connect website for small businesses. [145516]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The CONNECT website has been funded to a total of £125,000.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff in her Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146905]

  Ms Hewitt
  Three hundred and eighty nine DTI staff work in the West Midlands and a further 25 in Staffordshire.

  ECGD
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which unrecovered claims outstanding with the Export Credits Guarantee Department her Department has established as unrecoverable; who the debtor is in each case; what the amount of outstanding debt is in each case; and what the project type is. [144807]

  Mike O'Brien
  It would not be possible to provide the majority of this information except at disproportionate cost. Some of the information could not be disclosed in any event, as to do so could prejudice negotiations ECGD is having or will have about recovering debt. Furthermore, it is only possible to say with confidence what is unrecoverable once recovery action is complete.

  Economic Partnership Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list Economic Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. [146636]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The requirement for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations is set out in the EU/ACP Cotonou Agreement. No EPA has yet been agreed between the EU and an ACP region. Phase 1 of the negotiations began in September 2002. The EU announced the launch of EPA negotiations with the Western and Central African regions—CEMAC (Central African Economic and Monetary Community) and ECOWAS (Economic Community of Western African States) in October 2003. Launches of negotiations between the EU and other ACP regions are expected to take place later this year. EPAs are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2008.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the economic partnership agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on the economies of the(a) ACP countries and (b) European Union members. [146638]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My officials regularly seek progress updates from EU (European Union) officials on the required Sustainable Impact Assessments on the effect of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.
  695W
  The first phase of this work is currently being finalised by the EU and is expected to be published on the EU's website later this month. My officials will liaise with the EU on issues arising from this assessment work.

  Electrical Waste Directive
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive for(a) manufacturers and (b) retailers. [146983]

  Mr. Timms
  The implications of the EU directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) for local authorities, manufacturers, retailers and others are set out in a consultation paper which the Government published on 25 November 2003. This is available at or may be downloaded from the Department's website at http://www.dti.gov. uk/sustainability/weee/index.htm. Copies are available in the House Library.

  This consultation paper invites views on the Government's preferred approach to implementing the directive. It includes proposals for implementation of the directive's provisions on producer responsibility and retailer take-back.

  The WEEE directive places no obligations on local authorities. The Government have made clear that there will be no new unfinanced burdens on local authorities as a result of the directive. However, the Government aim to encourage increased separate collection of WEEE in line with the directive's objectives and, in this context, it makes sense to build on existing collection activity at civic amenity sites. The Government wish to encourage local authorities to consider upgrading and/or introducing WEEE collection facilities at their amenity sites. It is proposed that money will be made available, via a fund, into which local authorities may bid to finance improved or greater separate collection of WEEE at their civic amenity sites.

  The consultation suggests that this fund would be provided through a retailer take-back compliance scheme. The Government propose that the retailer scheme should provide funding initially of at least £5 million for civic amenity site upgrades in each of the five financial years between 2005–10, with an interim review in 2008, when the directive is expected to be revised. It is expected that most of the early expenditure would relate to capital costs and any initial operating costs.

  The Government have included in its consultation package a report by consultants Network Recycling on the scope for upgrading and expanding WEEE collection at civic amenity sites around the UK. In summary, this report indicates that over half of civic amenity sites currently collect some WEEE and that there is significant scope for expanding this on the basis of site space available. It suggests that the baseline costs of such upgrades are in the region of £6-12 million, depending on the approach taken; and that on-going staffing and training costs could be in the region of £4-9 million per annum.
  696W

  Energy Consumption
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much energy was consumed per person in(a) the UK and (b) other EU countries in 2001. [147404]

  Mr. Timms
  Data on EU and worldwide energy consumption are collated annually by the International Energy Agency. The final consumption data for all EU countries relating to 2001, are shown in the table. Final consumption excludes energy used for transformation into other forms of energy.

  Country

  Final consumption of energy per person, in tonnes of oil equivalent during 2001

  Austria

  3.17

  Belgium

  4.19

  Denmark

  2.83

  Finland

  4.86

  France

  2.89

  Germany

  2.99

  Greece

  1.83

  Ireland

  3.05

  Italy

  2.32

  Luxembourg

  8.55

  Netherlands

  3.76

  Portugal

  1.95

  Spain

  2.32

  Sweden

  3.92

  UK

  2.75

  Average for all EU countries

  2.82

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much energy efficiency has improved in(a) the UK, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales in each year since 1997. [146124]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  At present, figures are available only for the household sector, and for the UK as a whole. Figures for UK industry will be available in the spring. The household figures are:

  Household energy efficiency

  Improvement on previous year (percentage)

  1997

  2.2

  1998

  0.5

  1999

  1.3

  2000

  2.1

  2001

  2.5

  2002

  2.5

  The figures for 2002 are provisional.

  The figures fluctuate considerably from year to year, but no more than historically, with the average annual improvement over this particular period very similar to that for the whole period from 1990, around 1.7 per cent. pa.

  Energy Research and Development
  Llevv Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on research, demonstration and development, since July 2001, on(a) active solar power, (b) passive solar power, (c) wave power, (d) tidal power, (e) geothermal powers, (f) onshore wind powers, (g) offshore wind powers, (h) biomass energy, (i) hydrogen conversion technologies, (j) fuel cells, (k) nuclear fission, (l) nuclear fusion, (m) clean coal,

  million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Solar–Active (including PV)

  0.1

  0.3

  0.1

  0.9

  0.7

  0.6

  0.7

  0.9

  1.7

  1.7

  2.0

  5.3

  Solar–Passive

  2.8

  2.6

  2.9

  2.2

  1.6

  1.5

  1.3

  0.5

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Wave

  0.6

  0.4

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.5

  0.9

  0.9

  Tidal

  2.4

  2.1

  0.7

  0.3

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  2.4

  Geo Themal

  2.0

  1.5

  1.4

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Wind–Onshore

  8.1

  10.6

  9.0

  4.0

  4.2

  2.9

  1.6

  1.3

  1.1

  0.9

  1.3

  0.9

  Wind–Offshore

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.4

  0.4

  0.8

  Biomass

  1.5

  2.4

  3.0

  3.4

  3.2

  2.6

  1.9

  1.8

  2.2

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  Fuel Cells

  0.4

  0.5

  1.1

  1.3

  1.6

  1.2

  1.2

  1.6

  1.6

  1.8

  1.7

  1.4

  Nuclear (see Note 2)

  93.6

  85.5

  76.9

  28.4

  21.7

  21.4

  17.6

  14.2

  16.8

  16.8

  16.4

  16.7

  Clean Coal

  7.4

  6.8

  12.0

  8.0

  7.8

  6.9

  3.1

  2.9

  2.5

  4.3

  4.4

  4.5

  Combined Heat and Power

  0.3

  9.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.7

  1.0

  1.3

  1.9

  2.5

  2.8

  3.0

  Notes:

  1. Separate research programmes do not yet exist for hydrogen conversion technologies or combined-cycle gas.

  2. Of DTI's total spend on nuclear R&D given above, about £15 million annually is on fusion research; there is. also some additional expenditure in support of Meteorological Office emergency response arrangements which currently accounts for approximately £2.1 million. Fusion expenditure for 2003—04 is £15.6 million. The Research Councils expenditure on fission was ca 300k pa in 2001–2 and 2002–3. In addition, £5 million has also been earmarked for fission research but has not yet been awarded.

  3. The table sets out identified Government spend and excludes, for example, spending by Research Councils. Spending by relevant publicly owned utilities could not be separated in the manner requested without disproportionate cost.

  4. DTI's sustainable energy R&D programme also includes support for activitieswhich are not technology specific, for example, export, commercialisation, marketing and international activities.

  5. For combined heat and power, Govewrnment expenditure is through DEFRA.

  Payment appropriations from EC Budget to Euratom and to the European Commission's joint research centre 1991–2003

  €million

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  JRC

  261

  257

  257

  269

  240

  234

  232

  236

  243

  259

  249

  250

  n/a

  Euratom

  —

  —

  —

  —

  156

  235

  261

  176

  426

  173

  187

  200

  86

  Notes:

  1. EC budget payments to Euratom began in 1995.

  2. Euratom spending. Figures are based on payment appropriations in the available EC budget documents for 2001–2003 and reflect spending on the specific programme (Euratom) for research and training in the field of nuclear energy.

  3. The main Euratom activities fall under budget titles 6 (Energy and Transport) and 8 (Research), as well as some external actions lines. The figures presented are based on payments made.

  4. Nuclear expenditure currently accounts for approximately 28 per cent. of the JRC's budget.

  My Department annually pays the UK's assessed contributions to the Regular Budget and to the Technical Co-operation Fund of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These are as follows:

  Annual payments to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1995–20041

  £ million

  1995

  Regular Budget Subscription

  8.0

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  1.9

  1996

  Regular Budget Subscription

  9.1

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.2

  1997

  Regular Budget Subscription

  7.7

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.3

  1998

  Regular Budget Subscription

  6.0

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.5

  1999

  Regular Budget Subscription

  6.1

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.3

  698W
  (n) combined heat and power and (o) combined-cycle gas by (i) the Department and (ii) relevant publicly owned utilities in each year since 1991; and what payments have been made to (A) Euratom, (B) the European Commission's joint research centres and (C) the International Atomic Energy Agency in each year since 1991. [146582]

  Mr. Timms
  Available information is set out in the tables.

  Annual payments to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 195–20041

  2000

  Regular Budget Subscription

  6.3

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.4

  2001

  Regular Budget Subscription

  6.6

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.6

  2002

  Regular Budget Subscription

  27.5

  Technical Co-operation Fund

  2.5

  2003

  Regular Budget Subscription

  8.0

  2004

  Regular Budget Subscription

  37.6

  Technicial Co-operation Fund

  32.3

  1 Comparable figures for years before 1995 are unavailable.

  2 Corrected figure from that stated in Hansard 16 January 2003: column 792W.

  3 Provisional

  In addition to the regular annual payments, my Department has made additional small voluntary contributions, which are summarised annually as follows.
  699W

  Voluntary contributions to the IAFA from 1999–20031

  £ million

  1999

  0.2

  2000

  0.1

  2001

  0.3

  2002

  0.5

  2003

  20.8

  1Comparable figures for years before 1999 are unavailable.

  2Provisional

  European Constitution
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the United Kingdom's policy is in the negotiations on the new European Constitution on the integration and scope of Euratom within the Constitution's framework. [147023]

  Mr. Timms
  The Convention on the Future of Europe proposed that the Euratom Treaty should remain separate from a new Constitutional Treaty for the EU. The Government was content with this as a basis for discussions in the context of the negotiations at the IGC. During the negotiations, a draft Protocol was considered which would be annexed to the new Constitutional Treaty, incorporating some of its institutional and financial provisions into the Euratom Treaty. As the IGC did not reach final agreement at the December Council, the Irish Presidency are now looking at how to take negotiations forward and will be reporting back at the Spring Council.

  European Standard Funds
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the mid-term verification of additionality document on the European Standard Funds submitted by her Department to the European Commission. [147727]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no requirement and therefore no intention to publish the mid-term additionality verification documents produced by DTI for the UK Objective 1 areas.

  The verification data supplied to the Commission for the mid-term additionality exercise showed that average annual expenditure in the period 2000–02 was equal to or better than that forecast in the 2000–06 ex-ante tables published in the original Single Programming Documents for each Objective 1 area.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that workers who take up flexible working options do not suffer from(a) poor career prospects and (b) poor job security [146947]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  According to the Labour Force Survey Spring 2003, 5.5 million employees work through some form of flexible working arrangement—equivalent to 22 per cent. of employees.

  The Department surveyed employers and employees on work-life balance in January 2003, and specifically addressed the issues of job security and progression:
  700W

  The study of employers revealed that they largely reject the notion that flexible working can have an adverse impact on an employee's chances of promotion. Three-quarters (74 per cent.) of employers agreed that people who work flexibly are just as likely to be promoted as those that do not, while 15 per cent. neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know. The study of employees has only preliminary findings currently available, which can be found on the Internet (www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/). We expect to publish the full report soon.

  The Government are seeking to affect a culture change in the workplace where flexible working is seen as the norm and there is no question of poor career prospects or job security. We are looking to do this in two main ways:

  Through the DTI's Work-Life Balance Campaign we are encouraging employers to offer flexible working opportunities across the workforce. In April 2003 a new law giving parents the right to request flexible working was introduced, placing a statutory duty on employers to consider the request seriously. This was targeted legislation for parents of young and disabled children as they face particular challenges.

  The DTI is collecting evidence from a number of sources to monitor the impact of its action to promote flexible working practices:

  We continue to work with key intermediaries, such as Working Families and Maternity Alliance, who are collating data through member/supporter surveys. The Department has commissioned questions specifically relating to job security and progression which currently appear in the Office of National Statistics' Omnibus survey. The results of these are due in spring 2004. To provide a direct comparison over time, it is planned that both Work-Life Balance surveys will be repeated in 2005.

  The information collected will contribute towards the review of the flexible working law that the Government have said will begin in 2006. This provides time for the legislation to bed down and have effect, alongside the on-going promotion of best practice. Collected information will also provide early warning of any problems or unintended consequences associated to flexible working and for the development of future policy.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how her Department plans to promote flexible working, with particular reference to male workers. [146948]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In addition to the detail I provided in my answer to my hon. Friend on 5 December 2003,Official Report, column 446W, I can confirm that as part of the on-going awareness raising campaign, adverts specifically targeting fathers are appearing in national newspapers throughout January, covering news and sport sections, with another burst of activity planned for March.

  The Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund has also recently supported projects promoting flexible working in oil and engineering companies, which are traditionally considered to be male dominated industrial sectors.

  Friction Dynamex
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received following(a) the dismissal of workers at Friction Dynamex and (b) their failure to receive money awarded to them by the industrial tribunal; and if she will make a statement. [146829]
  701W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Throughout the dispute at Friction Dynamics and the subsequent tribunal process representations have been received on a number of issues from the TUC, the workers involved, the T&G union representing the workers, other interested unions, MPs and individuals.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has carried out into the use of washable solvents in aerosol paint sprays as a means of combating graffiti. [142840]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such research has been carried out.

  Industrial Disease
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of claims that could be lodged for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and if she will make a statement. [147200]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 4 January 2004, we have received over 383,000 claims and these continue to come in at a rate of around 8,000 per week. If it continued at the present rate, the level of claims will reach approximately 480,000.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers who won their cases, since 1997, at industrial tribunals have failed to receive payments awarded; what sums have been defaulted upon in each case; what steps she is taking to resolve the problem; and if she will make a statement. [146513]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Individuals who do not receive sums awarded to them by employment tribunals are entitled to enforce those awards through the civil courts.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made since September on negotiations with the European Commission to reinstate the Generalised System of Preferences in Iraq. [145606]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has continued to make representation to the European Commission on Iraq's eligibility under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), conveying the UK Government's wish to reinstate GSP in Iraq as soon as possible. The UK will continue to press for progress on this matter. DG Trade in the Commission have indicated their agreement of the importance of re-establishing GSP in Iraq as soon as possible.

  With Iraq, the situation remains the same and a suitable body to take responsibility for the necessary administration of GSP has still to be identified.

  Local Newspapers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of regional and local newspapers are owned by the five largest newspaper groups; and what proportion were owned by those groups in(a) 1990 and (b) 1997. [146822]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This information cannot be provided from official statistics. However, some industry statistics relating to the question are available through the Newspaper Society.

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the work of the Manufacturing Advisory Service within Coventry and the West Midlands since it was established; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure more manufacturers engage with their local MAS centres. [147242]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]Since its launch in September 2002, the Manufacturing Advisory Service's regional centre in the West Midlands has achieved considerable success as a source of advice and support for manufacturers. It has responded to 2,377 inquiries from firms seeking advice, visited 895 companies to carry out initial health checks and completed 395 in depth consultancies in the West Midlands. It has worked with 88 companies in Coventry and 200 in the Coventry and Warwickshire Business Link catchment area, accounting for 4.3 per cent. and 9.9 per cent. respectively of the total number of manufacturers it has engaged with.

  All the regional centres of the service have active programmes for marketing their services to local manufacturing firms. This, combined with the excellent reputation that the service has achieved among manufacturers, has resulted in a sustained and substantial increase in demand for its services. So far the MAS has dealt with approximately 15,500 inquiries and carried out over 4,500 diagnostic and advisory visits. The actual total value added it has given UK manufacturers is now approaching £30 million.

  Ofgem
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what happens to the money raised in fines levied by Ofgem from power companies found guilty of erroneously transferring customers. [147422]

  Mr. Timms
  Section 59(10) of the Utilities Act 2000 requires that any sums received by Ofgem following the imposition of a financial penalty should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  Photovoltaic Cells
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of photovoltaic cells(a) currently in use in the UK and (b) which will be in use in (i) 2005, (ii) 2006 and (iii) 2007. [147048]
  703W
  Mr. Timms
  Installed capacity at the end of 2002 was 4.14MW. Figures for 2003 are not yet available, but we expect capacity to have increased to around 6MW. By the end of the first phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme in 2005–06, we would expect that to have increased to between 12 and 15 MW. Predictions beyond that timescale are much less certain.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants are available to promote the use of photovoltaic cells by(a) industry and commerce and (b) domestic consumers; and how much has been paid in grants in each case in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [147049]

  Mr. Timms
  The £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme is open to all applicants, including industry, commerce and domestic consumers. The programme was launched in April 2002, and in the first year, £428,000 was paid out in grants to small-scale applicants (Stream 1, less than 5kW each). However, total grant committed was £1,220,000 for Stream 1 and £5,610,000 for Stream 2 (group housing and medium/large-scale non-residential buildings). There is normally a delay of three to 12 months between applications being approved and the PV systems being installed, depending on size.

  So far during the second year of the programme, £730,000 of grants have been paid out for Stream 1 and £260,000 for Stream 2. Grants committed in the second year to end December are £1,700,000 for Stream 1 and £5,300,000 for Stream 2. Under Stream 1, about 70 per cent. of grants are going to domestic consumers, and about 6 per cent. to small and medium-sized enterprises. Under Stream 2, about 10 per cent. of grants have gone to industry and commerce.

  Post Offices
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) urban and (b) rural post offices there are in each constituency; and how many post offices in each (i) constituency and (ii) region (A) have closed and (B) are expected to close as part of the Government's modernisation of the post office network. [147067]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]Post Office Ltd. produces lists, updated annually, of post offices, classified as urban or rural, in each parliamentary constituency. The most recent list showing the position as at the end of April 2003 is available in the Library of the House. Post Office Ltd. expects that up to 3,000 urban sub post offices could close under the network reinvention programme but there is no list and the precise number of closures under the programme will not be known until it ends.

  Final decisions on post office closure arrangements are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked its Chief Executive to respond directly to the hon. Member on the number of closures under the urban reinvention programme.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices in Scotland have been scheduled for closure by the Post Office under 704W
  the Network Reinvention Scheme in each of the last four months, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [147469]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals put out to consultation for, and subsequent decisions on post office closures under the urban reinvention programme are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which sub-post offices in Scotland scheduled for closure under the Network Reinvention Scheme remained open following public consultation on the proposal. [147470]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme following public consultation are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Power Cuts (Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many power cuts there have been in(a) the area for which Yorkshire Electricity provides power and (b) Haltemprice and Howden in each of the last five years; and what estimate she has made the cost to local businesses in each case. [147243]

  Mr. Timms
  Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Ltd. have advised that the number of interruptions affecting one or more customers per annum are as follows:

  (a) Yorkshire Electricity area

  (b) Haltemprice and Howden (including surrounding areas)

  1999

  10,430

  429

  2000

  10,995

  438

  2001

  11,549

  486

  2002

  13,581

  446

  2003

  12,109

  417

  In 1999, Ofgem estimated that the value of each undelivered MWh of electricity represented around £3,000 in lost output to the economy. Quantifying the loss to a local area would be very difficult since it would be necessary to establish the monetary loss to each business on each occasion.

  Strikes (Dismissal)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers have been dismissed after striking for longer than eight weeks in each year since 1997; and which companies were involved in each case. [146830]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This information is not collated in official statistics. Protections were established by the Employment Relations Act 1999 against unfair dismissal for striking workers for an eight-week period from the start of official, lawfully organised industrial action. Only one case that we are aware of, that of Mr J. Davies v. Friction Dynamics, has arisen under the jurisdiction and an employment tribunal found in favour of the workers. Analyses by the Office of National Statistics suggest that over a three-year period 93 per cent. of strikes lasted less than eight weeks.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will bring forward legislation preventing auditors from selling tax avoidance schemes to their audit clients. [146534]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  No. The Government concluded in January 2003, in the light of the Report of the Coordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues, that standards on auditor independence, including on the provision of non-audit services to audit clients, should be set by the Auditing Practices Board (APB). The Government invited the APB to look in particular at the provision of a number of non-audit services including taxation services. Following this, the APB published a consultation paper, "Draft Ethical Standards for Auditors", in November 2003. Paragraphs 4.40 to 4.52 of the consultation paper and paragraphs 51 to 66 of draft Ethical Standard 5 address the provision of tax services by audit firms to their audit clients. In addition, the revised Combined Code on Corporate Governance, published by the Financial Reporting Council in July 2003, places on the audit committee in a listed company responsibility for developing and implementing policy on the engagement of the external auditor to supply non-audit services.

  Uzbekistan
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on trade relations with Uzbekistan since 2001. [145756]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK's trade with Uzbekistan is at a relatively low level. Bilateral trade totalled £36 million in 2002. Uzbekistan is a difficult market for exporters and investors. The Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council (UBTIC) meets annually to discuss issues related to the development of bilateral trade.

  World Trade
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1)what discussions she has had since 17 September 2003 with(a) the World Trade Organisation, (b) the European Commission and (c) the United States about the use of special and differential treatment; [146584]

  (2) what progress has been made with the establishment of an expert working group on special and differential treatment to report to the General Council of the World Trade Organisation. [146644]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is important that WTO rules more fully reflect different WTO members' implementation capacities and stages of development. We are therefore disappointed at the lack of progress which has been made in addressing special and differential treatment issues post-Doha.

  We had hoped to see agreement in Cancun to at least an initial package of measures, however limited, which might then have opened the way to a wider dialogue on special and differential treatment within the WTO, perhaps through the creation of an expert working group. In the event, no such package of measures
  706W
  was agreed and no progress made on establishing a wider dialogue, through an expert working group or otherwise.

  We will continue to press the case for appropriate special and differential treatment within the WTO system with all relevant interlocutors.

HEALTH

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to the NHS of timesheet fraud by agency staff was in each of the last six years. [147258]

  Mr. Hutton
  Estimated figures of timesheet fraud by agency staff across the whole national health service are not available. The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service has, however, investigated cases of timesheet fraud committed by both bank and agency staff that have resulted in 33 criminal prosecutions. Information will be sent to the NHS in England and Wales on how to improve systems and stop the fraudulent practices.

  Animal Insulin
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the continuing availability of animal insulin; [147016]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the difference in cost to the NHS of prescriptions of animal insulin as compared to GM insulin per 1,000 prescriptions; [147017]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits of GM insulin as against animal insulin. [147019]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are two companies supplying animal insulin in the United Kingdom. The Department is in regular contact with these companies and both have confirmed that they will continue to supply animal insulin for the foreseeable future.

  There has been no assessment or forecast made of the difference in cost of prescriptions of animal and genetically modified insulin per 1,000 prescriptions. However, the table shows the number of prescription items that were dispensed in the community in England, and their cost, in the 12 months ended June 2003 and the average net ingredient cost per item.

  Number of prescription items, net ingredient cost and average net ingredient cost per item of insulins that were dispensed in the community in England for the 12 months ending June 2003

  Number of prescription items (£000)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Average net ingredient cost per item (£)

  Highly purified animal

  128.1

  4.217.2

  32.92

  Human sequence (GM insulin)

  3,522.0

  150,528.8

  42.74

  All insulins

  3,650.0

  154,746.0

  42.40

  Notes:

  1. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system which covers all prescription items that are dispensed in the community in England. This does not include drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.
  707W
  2. Insulins are those defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) paragraph 6.1.1, "Insulins". Insulin drugs have been grouped into highly purified animal and human sequence (GM) insulin in line with the British National Formulary (BNF)

  3. Doctors write prescriptions on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost (which the dispenser is reimbursed) of the drug before discounts and does not include drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Choice and Plurality Policies
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of patients on waiting lists who will accept the offer of an alternative provider under the Choice and Plurality policies; and what assessment he has made of the capacity available to meet the demand. [140620]

  Mr. Hutton
  All strategic health authorities have completed robust plans for the implementation of choice for patients waiting six months for elective surgery during April 2004 to December 2005. The plans anticipate that some 85,000 patients who have waited over six months will accept the choice of moving to another hospital for further treatment. From December 2005, choice will be offered at general practitioner referral, benefiting 10 million patients each year.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether alternative medicine will be available to patients within the NHS under the Choice and Plurality policies. [140622]

  Mr. Hutton
  The need to develop a framework for access to complementary medicines was raised by the task groups in the National Consultation on Choice, Equity and Responsiveness. This suggestion will need further exploration and development and the Department will bring forward proposals for action in 2004.

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in his Department. [146004]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest staffing data, as at 1 April 2003, shows that in the Department and its agencies there are nine senior civil servants who have declared that they have a disability. This represents 2.4 per cent. of the total number of senior civil servants in the Department on that date.

  Statistical information about senior civil servants with disabilities is available on the Civil Service Statistics website at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/ documents/pdf/disability-oct03.pdf.

  This information is also available in the Library.

  Paediatric Continence
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been conducted on links between bowel and bladder problems in children and child abuse; [146723]

  (2) how many parents have been (a) accused of and (b) admitted to abuse of their child as a result of nocturnal enuresis or daytime wetting; [146724]
  708W
  (3) what research the Department has conducted into the prevalence of continence conditions in (a) children of offenders, (b) children in care, (c) children of asylum seekers and (d) children in lower socio-economic groups; [146725]

  (4) which primary care trusts have dedicated paediatric continence services. [146726]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health has not commissioned any recent research on links between bowel and bladder problems in children and child abuse.

  Data on the number of parents accused, and admitting to abuse of their children as result of enuresis are not collected centrally.

  A study published in 1997, based on data from the national study of health and growth, found that a father's social class was associated with enuresis only in girls, with a higher prevalence in those whose fathers were manual workers.

  "Good practice in continence services", issued by the Department in April 2000, provides guidance to primary care trusts (PCTs) on continence services. This includes that PCTs should have specialist continence services in place, which provide patients with an individual assessment of their needs. Provision of these services in England is a matter for PCTs, which are responsible for determining the level of services required to meet the needs of their local populations. The Department does not monitor provision in this level of detail.

  Toilet training for children is considered in the Department of Health guide, "Birth to Five", available free to first time mothers and at www.doh.gov.uk/birthtofive/. The Department has not commissioned any recent research on toilet training for children.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the delay in publishing the Continuing Care (National Health Service Responsibilities) Directions 2003. [147036]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As a result of amendments made to the Delayed Discharges (Continuing Care) Directions in response to external consultation with key stakeholders, the Continuing Care (National Health Service Responsibilities) Directions required consequential amendments, and further consultation. This has delayed the expected date of publication.

  Dementia
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with dementia live in residential care(a) in Cambridgeshire and (b) in England; and how many people with dementia in residential care are funded by the NHS. [146439]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There were 160 adults aged 18 and over with dementia receiving residential care in Cambridgeshire and an estimated 16,000 in England in 2001–02.
  709W
  Information on the number of people with dementia in residential care funded by the national health service is not available.

  Departmental Job Losses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the Executive Agency review into job losses in his Department will be published. [143055]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's review of its arm's length bodies will take place in the first half of 2004 and will cover executive non-departmental public bodies and special health authorities as well as executive agencies. No decision has yet been taken on publication of the results of the review.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [145931]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is as follows:
  Percentage of staff over 55 years of age: 7.26

  Number of staff over 55 years of age: 378

  Percentage of staff over 55 years of age recruited over the past 12 months: 3.52

  The Department has implemented the recommendations of the Government's "Winning the Generation Game" report. Equality of opportunity for all staff is a key feature of the Department's employment policy. There are no age barriers to employment and retirement age is determined on business needs only.

  Drug Prices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figure has been used by his Department in calculating drug price inflation in each of the last six years. [144144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures that reflect drug price inflation in each of the last six years are shown in the table.

  Percentage growth due to price

  1997–98

  4.60

  1998–99

  3.87

  1999–2000

  7.94

  2000–01

  1.74

  2001–02

  2.17

  2002–03

  6.26

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total NHS drugs bill was in each of the last six years. [144149]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total National Health Service drug spend for the last six years is shown in the tables.
  710W

  £ million

  Cash

  Primary Care

  HCHS

  Total Drug Spend

  Year

  Gross outturn

  Net outturn

  outturn

  Gross Outturn

  Net Outturn

  1997–98

  4,107

  4,085

  1,088

  5,195

  5,173

  1998–99

  4,356

  4,339

  1,211

  5,567

  5,550

  1999–2000

  4,851

  4,833

  1,369

  6,220

  6,202

  2000–01

  5,168

  5,161

  1,530

  6,698

  6,691

  2001–02

  5,559

  5,552

  1,740

  7,298

  7,292

  2002–03

  6,217

  6,209

  2,013

  8,230

  8,222

  Note:

  Cash Figures:

  1. Primary care figures include amounts paid to pharmacy and appliance contractors by the PPA and amounts authorised for dispensing doctors and personal administration in England, for financial years April to March. The data do not cover costs for drugs dispensed in hospital, drugs prescribed in hospitals but dispensed in the community or private prescriptions. Note, Primary Care actual drug cost = Net ingredient cost + VAT + container costs—discount allowance.

  2. Primary Care NET figures include Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) receipt savings.

  3. Hospital and Community Health Services expenditure on drugs includes medical gases.

  Source:

  NB. Resource figures have been available only for the last three years.

  £ million

  Resource

  Primary Care Drug Spend

  HCHS

  Total Drug Spend

  Year

  Gross outturn

  Net outturn

  outturn

  Gross Outturn

  Net Outturn

  2000–01

  5,160

  5,158

  1,530

  6,690

  6,688

  2001–02

  5,714

  5.707

  1,740

  7,454

  7,447

  2002–03

  6,349

  6,344

  2,013

  8,362

  8,357

  Note:

  Resource Figures:

  1. The total actual cost of drugs and appliances prescribed by GP/Nurses within England plus any central budget expenditure or locally authorised payments.

  2. Primary Care NET figures include Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) receipt savings.

  3. Hospital and Community Health Services expenditure on drugs includes medical gases.

  4. 2002–03 figures are provisional and are still to be confirmed with accounts.

  Source:

  PPA England

  NB. Resource figures have been available only for the last three years.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of discharged patients aged 75 years and over were readmitted within one month as emergencies in each quarter since 1997. [147308]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department collects information on emergency re-admissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge. Between 1997 and 2002, this information was collected for those patients aged 75 and over.

  Monitoring information is now collected on an all ages basis to avoid perverse incentives that could lead to older people being denied care in hospital when this is necessary.

  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  711W

  Financial year

  Quarter

  Number of people aged 75 and over discharged from hospital

  Number of people aged 75 and over readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge

  Rate of 28 day emergency readmission for people aged over 75 (%)

  2003–04

  Q2

  2003–04

  Q1

  2002–03

  Q4

  2002–03

  Q3

  2002–03

  Q2

  2002–03

  Q1

  2001–02

  Q4

  437,034

  31,493

  7.2

  2001–02

  Q3

  429,124

  31,427

  7.3

  2001–02

  Q2

  422,143

  30,083

  7.1

  2001–02

  Q1

  408,817

  29,878

  7.3

  2000–01

  Q4

  409,335

  31,538

  7.7

  2000–01

  Q3

  411,137

  29,896

  7.3

  2000–01

  Q2

  406,761

  28,820

  7.1

  2000–01

  01

  390,010

  28,735

  7.4

  1999–2000

  Q4

  377.277

  28,611

  7.6

  1999–2000

  Q3

  368,244

  26,523

  7.2

  1999–2000

  Q2

  368,329

  26,758

  7.3

  1999–2000

  Q1

  346,079

  26,702

  7.7

  1998–99

  Q4

  365,801

  29,933

  8.2

  1998–99

  Q3

  361,266

  29,110

  8.1

  1998–99

  Q2

  357,275

  28,839

  8.1

  1998–99

  Q1

  342,787

  29,213

  8.5

  1997–98

  Q4

  343,170

  24,435

  7.1

  1997–98

  Q3

  335,188

  23,771

  7.1

  1997–98

  Q2

  333,781

  22,385

  6.7

  1997–98

  Q1

  326,996

  23,557

  7.2

  1996–97

  Q4

  339,389

  23,625

  7.0

  Financial year

  Quarter

  Number of people of all ages discharged from hospital

  Number of people of all ages readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge

  Rate of 28 day emergency readmission for people of all ages (%)

  2003–04

  Q2

  2,405,479

  131,981

  5.5

  2003–04

  Q1

  2,402,573

  135,153

  5.6

  2002–03

  Q4

  2,501,481

  138,742

  5.5

  2002–03

  Q3

  2,429,606

  131.704

  5.4

  2002–03

  Q2

  2,334.696

  124,176

  5.3

  2002–03

  Q1

  2,313,818

  125.085

  5.4

  Gas Price Increases
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the NHS of planned increases in gas prices; and what assumptions were made in the comprehensive spending review about the cost of gas and electricity supplies to the NHS. [146354]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service gas is bought on a variety of contract options, contract start dates and differing indices. This limits exposure to severe increases across the portfolio, although individual sites may have experiences significantly above or below average, largely due to timing.

  The total actual increases in gas costs for the NHS in 2003–04 will be approximately £7 million over and above the 2002–03 figure. If all gas had been bought at the highest peak prices so far in 2003–04, the increase would have been approximately £15.1 million.

  As far as I am aware there are no further planned increases in gas prices beyond usual market forces.
  712W
  In the comprehensive spending review, in 1998 and subsequent spending reviews in 2000 and 2002, there has been no special provision for inflation in gas and electricity prices. These have been covered by the general prices inflation.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioner partnerships and (b) single-handed practices have closed in (i) England and (ii) each strategic health authority in each of the last six years. [144319]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected. Successive annual censuses, published as "Statistics for General Medical practitioners in England", which is available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/stats1.htm, shows a steady trend towards larger partnerships with more general practitioners working in the national health service than ever before.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for general practitioner pay adjustments in areas not covered by the new General Medical Services contract. [144447]

  Mr. Hutton
  The benefits of the new general medical services (GMS) contract are potentially available to all general practitioners. However, over 40 per cent. of GPs have opted, over a period of time, for locally agreed personal medical services (PMS) contracts. In order that these GPs can also benefit from the key provisions of the new QMS contract, it has already been agreed, and communicated to the profession, that similar benefits will also be available to PMS practices. The benefits for which they will be eligible are:Comparable new investment to that proposed for QMS
  Comparable investment for delivering quality outcomes
  Improved seniority pay
  Improved pension benefits
  Increased investment in and modification to information management and technology systems
  More flexible premises arrangements
  The same ability to opt out of out of hour responsibilities

  Therefore, comparable arrangements will be available to all GPs under either the new QMS or PMS contracts.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of general practitioners who will retire in the next five years. [1144604]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the estimated number of general practitioners who will retire in the next five years is not available.

  NHS Land
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS land his Department is planning to sell at the latest date for which figures are available. [144944]

  Mr. Hutton
  The planned receipts from land sales are £185 million for 2004–05 and £140 million for 2005–06, as set out in the Department's Capital Investment Strategy.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide earmarked funding to local authorities to(a) increase capacity and (b) modernise services for adults with learning disability. [146735]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have no such plans.

  Our proposals for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers are set out in the White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (Cm 5086), published in March 2001. The White Paper announced the creation of two new funds to support its priorities, the Implementation Support Fund from April 2001 and the Learning Disability Development Fund from April 2002. Our annual report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC 514), published in April 2003, announced that the Support Fund would continue until March 2006; the Development Fund will also continue until March 2006. A copy of the report was sent to all English hon. and right hon. Members.

  In addition, over £3 billion a year is spent on health and social care provision for people with learning disabilities. People with learning disabilities also use mainstream health and social services and benefit from increased expenditure on those services.

  National Service Framework for Older People
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place to monitor the implementation of the national service framework for older people; what proportion of primary care trusts (PCTs) have implemented it; by what date PCTs should have implemented it; and what sanctions will be applied to PCTs that fail to do so. [146576]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The main service development milestones in the national service framework (NSF) for older people: specialist stroke services, joined-up mental health services for older people and more intermediate care services by April 2004, and the development of integratedfalls services by April 2005, are being monitored centrally as these are specific targets in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform": the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006. The Commission for Health Audit and Inspection, with the Audit Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection will be conducting a study in 2005 to determine how well the NSF is being implemented.

  Overall responsibility for ensuring that the NSF is implemented rests with individual strategic health authorities.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the national service framework for older people. [146577]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Good progress is being made with the implementation of the national service framework (NSF). The majority of organisations met the early milestones putting in place the structures and people needed for implementation.
  714W
  The three key NSF milestones regarding the development of specialist stroke services, joined-up mental health services for older people and integrated falls services, and capacity assumptions for intermediate care services are included in the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006 as "must do" targets. Most strategic health authorities are planning to meet these milestones. An on-going dialogue is taking place with the few who are not.

  NHS Beds
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS beds are single room beds, broken down by hospital trust. [145045]

  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested has been placed in the Library. The proportion of single rooms will vary from trust to trust depending on the services provided. Where primary care trusts have beds it is usually in a single hospital and where this provides mental health services, treatment patterns are likely to dictate a high proportion of single rooms.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the per capita expenditure was in each health authority in England and Wales in each year since 2000. [144630]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to the per capita expenditure by English health authorities for 2000–01 and 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. Information relating to the strategic health authorities for 2002–03 (the latest year available) has also been placed in the Library. Information for Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  NHS Professionals
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have been recruited through NHS Professionals since its inception. [145668]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of 63,363 temporary staff members have been recruited through NHS Professionals to date, of whom 60,463 were nurses, midwives or health visitors and 2,900 were doctors.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications to train as(a) general practitioners, (b) social workers and (c) physiotherapists have been received in each of the last six years. [144290]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national recruitment office for general practitioner training collects data on the number of applications and applicants to train as a GP. It has been in existence for 12 months and holds data for recruitment to GP training posts to commence August 2003 and February 2004. These are shown in table 1.

  Prior to March 2003, information on the number of applications and applicants to train as a GP was not collected centrally. Information on the number of applicants for February 2004 is not yet available.
  715W

  1. Applications and applicants to train as a GP August 2003 and February 2004

  August 2003 posts

  February 2004 posts

  Number of applications

  4,339

  4,602

  Number of applicants

  2,373

  —

  Notes:

  1. August 2003 figures include English deaneries only. Northwestern deanery does not recruit to February posts.

  2. For February 2004, some deaneries re-advertised unfilled posts. This data is not available yet.

  Information on the total number of applications and applicants to train as social workers in England is not available centrally. However, the General Social Care Council collects information on applications made via the social work admissions system (SWAS) and this is shown in table 2. Only about 50 per cent. of all applications were made through SWAS, with the remainder made through the Universities and Colleges Admissions System (UCAS), or directly to colleges and universities. Comparable UCAS data is not available. Until 1998, data on applications was only collected on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

  2. Applications through the Social Work Admissions System in England 1997–2002 for the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW)

  Number of applications

  1997

  n/a

  1998

  4,800

  1999

  4,049

  2000

  3,667

  2001

  3,678

  2002

  3,880

  The number of applications and applicants to physiotherapy courses through UCAS by year of entry is shown in table 3.

  3. Applications and applicants through UCAS in England 1997–2002 to train in physiotherapy

  Main scheme applications

  Main scheme applicants

  1997

  28,428

  7,057

  1998

  27,829

  6,589

  1999

  26,162

  6,184

  2000

  24,849

  6,077

  2001

  21,535

  5,383

  2002

  22,629

  5,683

  Note:

  Each applicant can make up to six choices on the UCAS form for physiotherapy courses at different higher education institutions.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff have left NHS Estates (Inventures) in each of the last three years. [145021]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of Inventures permanent civil servants leaving central Government for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 was 28,53 and 34 respectively.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-clinical staff are employed in each primary care trust in England, broken down by grade. [145937]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 January 2003]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Midwives
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many United Kingdom trained nurses were not registered to practise in the UK in each year since 1996; [147245]

  (2) how many United Kingdom trained midwives were not practising in the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. [147246]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect the information requested.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council collects information on the number of midwives intending to practise in the United Kingdom as a proportion of effective midwives. This information can be found at www.nmc-uk.org.

  Pain Management
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting-time was(a) from written referral from general practitioner to first out-patient appointment with a pain management consultant and (b) for patients waiting for elective admission where the main specialty is pain management in (i) England, (ii) each NHS region and (iii) each strategic health authority in each of the last five years. [146217]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Physician's Assistants
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential role of physicians' assistants in the UK. [144603]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has commissioned an independent evaluation of the role of physician assistant. The evaluation began February 2003 and will run until 2005.

  In the meantime, the national health service is developing roles similar to that of the physician assistant. These are being termed practitioner-level roles, and are designed to provide early assessment, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment, and so help improve the quality and timeliness of the care patients receive.

  The Department is evaluating the success of these roles through a series of national trials in surgery, emergency care and anaesthetics. It is planned to include primary care in the trials, early in 2004. The trials will assess the benefits of the new ways of working for both patients and staff. The assessment will include measures of improved access to care, and of the reduction in the number of health care professionals a person has to see before treatment.

  Population Growth
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact population growth will have on East London primary care trusts reaching their capitation funding targets in the current
  717W
  three year funding period to 2005–06; and whether there will be adjustments to national resource allocation policy to recognise population growth; [146411]

  (2) whether additional health funding provided to meet population growth will be provided in advance of population increases. [146412]

  Mr. Hutton
  An assessment of the impact on capitation funding targets for primary care trusts in East London has been made using population projections produced by the Greater London Authority.

  We are considering whether further analysis is needed and whether additional funding is necessary to meet the health needs of rapidly growing populations in these areas.

  Professor Sir Roy Meadow
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Professor Sir Roy Meadow(a) holds a post in and (b) receives a retainer from his Department. [144995]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Professor Sir Roy Meadow neither holds a post in, nor does he receive a retainer from the Department.

  Professor Sir Roy Meadow was invited to be a consultant adviser to the Chief Medical Officer by Sir Kenneth Calman in April 1997. The post of consultant adviser was part of an established system which Sir Kenneth used as a means to gain advice at short notice. There were approximately 50 advisers covering different specialities. The advisers were paid an honorarium of in the region of £750 per annum. The post would usually last for three years, but Sir Roy resigned due to retirement with effect from the end of December 1998. He was therefore in post for 20 months. The present Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, dismantled the consultant adviser system. He prefers instead to work through medical Royal Colleges, specialist associations and other networks of experts to identify the best people to advise on the particular issue covered.

  Public Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received a copy of the report by the Royal Statistical Society's Working Party on performance monitoring in the Public Services, Performance indicators: Good, Bad, and Ugly; and if he will make a statement. [146336]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal Statistical Society has called for independent scrutiny of performance data. The Commission for Health Improvement is already the independent regulator of national health service performance and is responsible for developing indicators and publishing NHS performance ratings. Ministers are not responsible for their calculation and publication.

  From April 2004, responsibility for the rating process will pass over to the independent Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.

  Respiratory Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of treating and managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in each of the last five years; [146213]

  (2) how many finished consultant episodes there have been for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for (a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996, broken down by age. [146215]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health does not have precise estimates of the cost of treating respiratory disease. However it was recently estimated that respiratory disease accounts for approximately 6 per cent. of hospital expenditure, 13 per cent. of primary care expenditure and 12 per cent. of pharmaceutical expenditure.

  Details of the Primary Diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease count of Finished Consultant Episodes by region and strategic health authority of treatment and age grouping in national health service hospitals in England from 1996–97 to 2002–03, have been placed in the Library.

  Sexual Intercourse
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to measure the success of the Investing for Health target for the percentage of young people who have not experienced sexual intercourse before the age of 16. [145317]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  This will be determined from the Young Persons Behaviour and Attitudes Survey.

  The results of the latest survey are likely to be available in Spring 2004.

  South and East Dorset PCT
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will correct the information on the NHS website relating to bed occupancy in the South and East Dorset Primary Care Trust; [147565]

  (2) for what reason his Department refused the request of the South and East Dorset Primary Care Trust that inaccurate information in relation to the trust on the NHS website should be corrected. [147566]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on average daily bed availability and occupancy during 2002–03 was published on the Department of Health website on 11 September 2003. Final information for South and East Dorset Primary Care Trust was supplied on 2 July and no amendments were received after publication.

  Information on bed availability and occupancy is published as final data and is generally not subject to further amendment once published. Any requests for major amendments would be considered on merit while maintaining the balance between ensuring consistency in published data and accuracy.

  Speech Therapy
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant posts for speech therapists there are in the NHS in England. [147089]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service vacancy survey collects information on the number of vacancies in the NHS lasting three months or more. As at March 2003, there were 150 three-month vacancies for speech and language therapists, a fall from 240 the previous year.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists are employed by the NHS in England. [147090]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at September 2002, there were 5,960 speech and language therapists employed in the national health service in England, an increase of 1,090, or 22 per cent., since 1997.

  Systematic Spirometers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability and use of systematic spirometers in(a) primary and (b) secondary care settings. [146209]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information is not held centrally.

  Primary care trusts, in partnership with local stakeholders, have the responsibility for deciding what services to provide for their populations, including those with respiratory disease. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  Variant CJD
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many recipients of blood products have died of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease since 1993. [145449]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No recipients of blood products have died of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his oral statement of 17 December 2003,Official Report, column 1571, what assessment he has made of the likelihood of the donor and the recipient of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease infected blood having independently contracted variant CreutzfeldtJakob Disease. [145454]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is possible that both individuals acquired variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by eating infected meat products. While it is impossible to be certain how the patient who received a blood donation from a person who went on to develop variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) contracted vCJD, in the light of the case history and the research evidence, the possibility of the route of transmission eing transfusion-related cannot be discounted.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his oral statement of 17 December 2003,Official Report, column 1571, what assessment he has made of the state of health of the second recipient of blood from the donor who later died of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. [145459]
  720W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The patient died of causes unrelated to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for an initial referral to a consultant rheumatologist is in each strategic health authority. [144547]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows average waiting times for a first rheumatology out-patient appointment following general practitioner (G(D)P) referral.

  Average (median) waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment following G(D)P referral: rheumatology specialty: Strategic health authorities:

  England: Quarter 2 2003–04

  Strategic health authority

  Median waiting times (weeks)

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  11.1

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  9.9

  Essex HA

  8.3

  North West London HA

  10.2

  North Central London HA

  8.6

  North East London HA

  10.8

  South East London HA

  9.1

  South West London HA

  14.0

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  7.6

  County Durham & Tees Valley

  7.7

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  10.5

  West Yorkshire HA

  8.8

  Cumbria & Lancashire HA

  9.7

  Greater Manchester HA

  10.6

  Cheshire & Merseyside HA

  10.2

  Thames Valley HA

  7.7

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  7.8

  Kent and Medway HA

  9.6

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  8.9

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire HA

  8.7

  South West Peninsula HA

  10.6

  Somerset & Dorset HA

  7.2

  South Yorkshire HA

  8.0

  Trent HA

  8.7

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  10.4

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  11.1

  Birmingham and The Black Country HA

  8.2

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and

  Worcestershire HA

  12.6

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Brownfield Sites
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the planned new communities development in the south-east is to be undertaken on brownfield sites; and if he will make a statement on criteria used in choosing between brownfield and greenfield sites. [147025]

  Keith Hill
  Through Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing (PPG3) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 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, we have a national target that, by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional
  721W
  housing should be provided on previously-developed land and through conversions of existing buildings. Performance against this target has risen from 58 per cent. in 1998 to 64 per cent. in 2002 for England as a whole. In the south-east, including London, the proportion is about 75 per cent.

  The Sustainable Communities Plan sets out a strategy for carefully planned, sustainable growth which will protect communities from unplanned suburban sprawl. Much of the £610 million the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is ploughing into the four growth areas through the Sustainable Communities Plan will go into reclaiming poor quality brownfield land, or into transport improvements which will enable high density developments. For instance, the development of new communities at Ebbsfleet, Eastern Quarry and Barking Reach within the Thames Gateway all involve the redevelopment of large redundant industrial sites. However, in some cases sustainable urban extensions involving some greenfield land will be necessary.

  Detailed planning of individual sites within the housing growth areas is not yet complete and it is not therefore possible to provide a figure for the proportion of development which will occur on previously developed land. The sequential approach described above will, however, apply.

  Energy Performance of Buildings
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies he has commissioned regarding the policies being adopted by other member states of the European Union concerning obligations on owners of larger privately-owned buildings to implement Article 7.3 of the energy performance of buildings directive. [147406]

  Phil Hope
  By January 2006, the energy performance of buildings directive requires the United Kingdom to oblige owners of larger buildings, occupied by certain types of public authorities and institutions, to openly display energy performance labels. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering how best to implement the directive, and, whilst the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not yet commissioned studies of other member states' intentions, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seeks relevant information in due course.

  GP Services (Thurrock)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers and additional resources are available to Thurrock Urban Development Corporation(a) to stem the reduction in general practitioner services within Thurrock and (b) to attract additional general practitioners to meet the projected growth planned by the urban development corporation; and if he will make a statement. [147011]

  Keith Hill
  The statutory objectives and powers of the Thurrock Urban Development Corporation (UDC) are set out in section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The Thurrock UDC's overriding objective is to secure the regeneration of its area and to achieve this it has a general power to "… do anything necessary or expedient for this purpose, or for purposes incidental to those purposes".
  722W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has earmarked an initial budget in the region of £60 million to enable the UDC to kick-start the growth, development and regeneration of Thurrock over the next three years. In order to access this funding the UDC's Board will need to develop a comprehensive area strategy, which clearly demonstrates how its intervention will achieve the regeneration of Thurrock.

  As part of its work, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would expect the UDC to liaise with other Government bodies and agencies that, while not directly involved in regeneration activity, are responsible for the wider social infrastructure that will influence the UDCs ability to deliver sustainable, balanced communities in Thurrock. To this end the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would expect the UDC to assist and/or influence local, regional and national social/health care providers in the development of plans and strategies that directly relate to the growth, development and regeneration of Thurrock.

  Local Government Funding (Nottinghamshire)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the grant settlement for Newark and Sherwood District Council was for each of the last five financial years, and what the provisional grant settlement for 2004–05 is, in(a) cash and (b) percentage change terms. [146847]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows the grant settlements for Newark and Sherwood District Council for the period 1999–2000 to 2003–04, and for the provisional 2004–05 grant settlement.

  Year

  Previous years grant adjusted on a like-for-like basis with the current year (£ million)

  Current years grant (£ million)

  Change (£ million)

  %change

  1999–2000

  6.854

  7.041

  0.187

  2.7

  2000–2001

  7.041

  7.300

  0.259

  3.7

  2001–2002

  7.349

  7.676

  0.327

  4.4

  2002–2003

  7.570

  7.881

  0.311

  4.1

  2003–2004

  7.699

  8.610

  0.911

  11.8

  2004–2005

  7.830

  8.065

  0.235

  3.0

  During the above period, there have been a number of changes to the functions and funding of local services that have affected Newark and Sherwood. For this reason care must be taken in looking at year-on-year changes. The above table shows the year-on-year changes on a like-for-like basis over the period.

  Mayor of London
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of financial provision estimated for the Mayor of London is for the financial years(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06 is. [147160]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Greater London Authority will receive the following funding for 2004–05 from the Government for itself and its four functional bodies (Transport for London, Metropolitan Police Authority, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and London Development Agency):
  723W

  Grant

  £ million

  GLA general grant

  36.3

  GLA transport grant (for TfL)

  2,224.5

  Police grant (for MPA)

  1,123.1

  Revenue Support Grant (for MPA and LFEPA)

  796.5

  Non-domestic rates (for MPA and LFEPA)

  171.3

  LDA grant

  1326.4

  Total

  4,678.1

  1 This figure is still indicative, and does not include LDA's share of the RDA performance fund.

  Funding for 2005–06 will be decided later this year following the Government's 2004 spending review which will be concluded in the summer.

  Planning (Housing and Car Parking)
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice was last sent to planning authorities about car parking minimum requirements for new housing development; and when it was sent. [147735]

  Keith Hill
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) makes it clear that car parking policies should not be expressed as minimum standards. It advises that car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments.

  The most recent advice for local authorities was set out in an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Parliamentary Statement of 17 July 2003. This clarified that the PPG3 car parking policy did not expect that 1.5 spaces per dwelling should be provided for every dwelling in all new developments. Parking needs vary and that's why it was announced in the Statement the intention to carry out research to consider how varying car parking levels can be achieved in ways consistent with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's policy on securing sustainable residential environments.

  Regional Chambers and Local Authorities
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) regional chambers and (b) local authorities which have an office situated outside the United Kingdom; what the annual expenditure of each was since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [147185]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are offices in Brussels representing each of the English regions. Some of them have been established for many years. They represent a range of regional and local interests. The lead organisation for the office and the interests it represents varies from region to region.

  The Local Government Association has an office in Brussels and there are also offices for the counties of Cheshire, Essex, Kent, and Lancashire. Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and West Sussex have a shared office.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold details of the annual expenditure on these offices; such information would need to be sought from the individual bodies/authorities concerned.
  724W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what process the composition of regional chambers is determined. [147289]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The composition of the voluntary regional chambers is a matter for each chamber. However they are designated under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 as representative regional bodies to scrutinise the plans and activities of the regional development agencies. To meet the criteria for designation and receipt of grant their membership needs to be representative of the range of views and interests within the region. The Government expect at least 30 per cent. of Assembly members to come from stakeholder groups, including representative of business, trades unions, environmental, consumer and other groups.

  The remainder come from local government, and reflect the broad political balance across the region. The selection process for membership varies from region to region.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of members of regional chambers are local councillors. [147290]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proportion will vary slightly between regional chambers but in order to be designated under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 as representative regional bodies must not exceed 70 per cent. of the total membership.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list each member of each regional chamber; and what the(a) political and (b) trade union affiliation of each is. [147291]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not record such information. It is up to each regional chamber to decide its own membership within the guidelines that, for designation, at least 30 per cent. of members must come from stakeholder groups.

  Supporting People Programme
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) progress has been made and (b) resources have been allocated to the Supporting People programme in (i) Redbridge and (ii) Waltham Forest; and if he will make a statement. [147378]

  Keith Hill
  Last October, the Government announced funding of £1.8 billion for 2003–04 financial year for the Supporting People programme in England of which Redbridge was awarded £4,466,479 and Waltham Forest £7,934,650.

  The Government also announced an independent review of the Supporting People programme to gain a full picture of how the funding is being utilised. The Government have now received a report from the independent review team and are carefully considering its content. A response will be published in due course, and in time for local authorities to plan their 2004–05 budgets.

  Transitional Protection Scheme
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister further to HB/CTB circular S9/2003 paragraphs 46–51, whether he is planning any consultation with local authorities on the ways in which the Transitional Protection Scheme will operate in 2004–05 and 2005–06; if he will provide exemplifications to local authorities before 1 January 2004 setting out the potential financial implications for 2004–05 and 2005–06 at an individual authority level of the transitional protection scheme; and what guidance the Government will be providing to individual local authorities. [145191]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authority representatives have been consulted, as part of the wider review of subsidy, on the operation of transitional protection in 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Transitional protection will limit the impact of the change in the housing benefit/council tax benefit subsidy regime from April 2004. The financial implications will not be known until authorities have their subsidy claims audited, after the end of the year. It will then be possible to compare the difference in subsidy under the old and new subsidy regimes.

  HB/CTB circular S9/2003, a copy of which is available in the Library, gave an outline of the new subsidy scheme. Further guidance for authorities on how the transitional protection scheme will operate will
  726W
  be provided in the near future. This will provide further advice and information which will enable authorities to estimate possible gains/losses under the new subsidy system and consequently whether they may be affected by the transitional protection arrangements.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service (Pay Dispute)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to resolve the pay dispute involving Civil Service employees. [146303]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1996 pay bargaining below the Senior Civil Service has been delegated to individual departments and agencies. Where disputes in departments and agencies exist it is a matter for the relevant department's management and their trade unions to resolve.

  Hutton Inquiry
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of memoranda he has submitted to the Hutton Inquiry since the conclusion of the Inquiry's oral evidence sessions. [147060]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by Lord Hutton on this matter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Priorities and Budget 2004–06
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Following consultation on the Government's Draft Priorities and Budget for Northern Ireland which was launched on 6 October 2003, I am today setting out the Government's priorities and spending plans for Northern Ireland Departments for the next two years 2004–05 to 2005–06.

  When devolution was suspended in Northern Ireland we pledged that we would work tirelessly to rebuild trust across the political parties and bring about an early restoration of devolved Government. We have, and we will continue to work towards that aim. However, for as long as direct rule continues we are determined to govern in an open and fair way to improve the delivery of public services for the people of Northern Ireland in ways that meet their needs and expectations.

  The Priorities and Budget which we are publishing today builds on the progress made by the Northern Ireland Executive under devolution and continued by Northern Ireland Ministerial Team since devolution was suspended. It is our view that the policies and priorities identified in the former Executive's Draft Programme for Government in September 2002, and continued in the "Building on Progress Priorities and Plans" which I announced in December 2002, remain relevant in the context of the economic and social challenges facing Northern Ireland. For this reason we have retained the five priorities as the basis for our work over the coming year.

  The continuing priorities for delivery of public services in Northern Ireland therefore are:

  Growing as a community;

  Working for a healthier people;

  Investing in education and skills;

  Securing a competitive economy; and

  Developing North/South, East/West and International Relations.

  We want to ensure that the four key cross cutting themes announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement on "Progress and Priorities" in June last year are fully reflected in all aspects of our work. These themes are:

  (i) Tackling sectarianism, community division and disadvantage;

  (ii) Equality, rights and victims;

  (iii) Improving service delivery; and

  (iv) Reinvestment and reform.
  24WS
  These priorities and themes are central to the work of Government in Northern Ireland and as such they are reflected in, and permeate through, all aspects of the Priorities and Budget we are announcing today.

  Sectarianism and inter community conflict act as barriers to social and economic growth and recovery and as a disincentive to investment. Building trust and confidence between and within communities, promoting equality of opportunity and justice, for all, developing social capital and tackling sectarianism are key priorities for us.

  Tackling poverty and social exclusion continues to be a key priority for us. Under devolution the former Executive adopted New Targeting Social Need as its strategic approach to combating poverty and committed to evaluating the effectiveness of this approach. This review is now complete and we will soon publish and consult on proposals for future policy and strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion.

  We are committed to working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector, which plays a vital role in community development and in helping to promote social inclusion, tackle disadvantage and community division. We will therefore continue to support and facilitate better partnership working with the sector.

  In pursuing these priorities we will seek to work in partnership with social and economic partners and to harness actions within and across departments and agencies to achieve measurable improvements in equality, poverty and disadvantage and community cohesion. We will continue to promote respect for cultural diversity and community understanding through a broad range of policies and programmes.

  We remain fully committed to driving forward the equality and human rights agenda, which was central to the work of the former Executive. Work will continue across departments and agencies to ensure that equality considerations are fully mainstreamed into policy development across Government, and that there is effective operation of the statutory duties under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  In acknowledging our fundamental accountability to the people of Northern Ireland we recognise the importance of being able to demonstrate what is being achieved from the resources available to us. A particular focus of the Priorities and Budget we are announcing today is on improving the delivery of public services. We are committed to ensuring better public services for the people of Northern Ireland through improvements in the delivery of these services.

  Last spring, departments published reform plans setting out priorities for reforming key services to improve the quality and delivery of services to the public. Those plans represented a useful first step, but the challenge now is not only to identify new ways of

  25WS
  improving service delivery through reform and modernisation but also to demonstrate how and when improvement has been achieved. For this reason we have selected a number of key targets in the Public Service Agreements which are of particular importance and which my Ministerial colleagues and I will review on a regular basis over the coming year and beyond. These key targets reflect the cross cutting themes underlying the Priorities and Budget and cover a number of key public services including Health, Education, Employment; the Environment, Roads and Transport and Economic development.

  Turning specifically to the Budget, I am now in a position to confirm our plans for 2004–05 and 2005–06, building on the proposals we outlined in the Draft Budget which we launched in October last year. The key development is a clear shift of spending power from consumption to investment. This is a clear step to increase the drive for significant reforms in the way public services are delivered in Northern Ireland, so that we can do even more to promote reinvestment than we had planned up to now.

  In the course of last year's national Spending Review, the Chancellor allocated significant additional resources to Northern Ireland for the period up to April 2006, and the region's share of the sustained additional provision for health in 2006–07 and 2007–08. This year the resources available to us remain essentially those allocated at that time, supplemented by local revenue and the use of the borrowing power available under the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative as well as some £15 million for Northern Ireland announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report in December.

  As I have indicated, improving the delivery of public services is a key focus of the Budget being announced today. We will do this by ensuring that the progress of reform and modernisation is accelerated so as to provide better public services, and by continuing to take forward the significant programme of infrastructure development initiated under the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative. This means some significant downward pressure on administrative costs in departments and Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

  The budget allocations we are announcing today have been determined taking account of the level of revenue necessary to secure access to borrowing under the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative. After taking account of the additional revenue from the introduction of rating of vacant property and the phasing out of industrial de-rating an increase of approximately 9 per cent. on the domestic regional rates and 3.3 per cent. in the non domestic sector is necessary. If we assume that district councils increase their domestic rates by around 6 per cent. this will mean an increase of around £35 per year—less than 70p a week—in the average domestic rates bill and will ensure the continuation of the infrastructure development necessary for our public
  26WS
  services. The Strategic Investment Programme which I announced in February last year provided for spending on infrastructure development in excess of £2 billion. The continued access to borrowing, which has been secured through increased revenue from rates means that we can continue to maintain the momentum of the Strategic Investment Programme, the total value of which is now in excess of £2.7 billion.

  The resources available to us over the next two years provide for an increase of nearly 14 per cent. on spending on services. This is a substantial allocation which will provide for sustained economic growth and development across all key public services. The budget allocations reflect our commitment to improve public services through sustained investment. Capital allocations for almost all of the key public services have been increased above the levels in the draft Budget.

  In seeking to provide better service delivery a key objective of this budget is to ensure more resources are directed to front line services by reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. The budget provides for a reduction in departmental administration costs for the majority of departments of around 2 per cent. for next year, with further reductions in 2005–06, compared with the draft Budget in October.

  Health remains the Government's top priority in Northern Ireland. The Budget provides for a rise of more than 16 per cent. in spending on health over the next two years. This will enable investment in priority services such as renal, cancer and other critical care services and will provide for enhancement to community, primary and intermediate care services and services for the elderly and those with mental illnesses.

  Spending on Education will increase by almost 11 per cent. over the Budget period. The increased resources will enable schools to build on the impressive educational achievements of pupils in Northern Ireland. It will also enable Government to address a number of pressing issues in the educational sector including the continuation of existing support measures for schools in interface areas which are being adversely affected by continuing community tension. The schools estate will benefit significantly from investment under the Strategic Investment Programme with projects in excess of £246 million being taken forward over the next two years.

  The Budget provides for increased spending on Regional Development of more than 15 per cent. over the next two years. This reflects the substantial additional resources for investment in roads, water and transport infrastructure, including a number of major capital programmes, and Public Private Partnership schemes to the value of some £530 million.

  In agreeing the Priorities and Budget we have sought to ensure that resources are allocated to key public services to secure continuation of the required infrastructure development, fundamental to the

  27WS
  effective delivery of key services such as Health, Education and Regional Development. At the same time we have sought to ensure that the planned allocations and the processes for managing them will secure the necessary improvements for better public services.

  The Priorities and Budget fully reflect our determination to ensure that during this continuing period of suspension we will govern in an open and fair way to improve the delivery of public services for the people of Northern Ireland in ways that meet their needs and expectations.

  I have placed copies of the "Priorities and Budget 2004–06" document in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Since the last report to Parliament,Official Report, 28 January 2003, column 34WS, new authorisations have been made to the Assets Recovery Agency and to the Chief Land Registrar, HM Land Registry from 20 February and 1 October 2003 respectively.

  The authorisations were made subject to the condition that recipients comply with the provisions of the civil service management code as amended from time to time. Copies of the civil service management code are available in the Library of the House and electronically at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/managementcode/index.htm.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Lord Carswell
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Douglas Carswell, Knight, a Lord of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created Baron Carswell, of Killeen in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and the Lord Hutton.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
The Right Honourable Sir Simon Denis Brown, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created Baron Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, of Eaton-under-Heywood in the County of Shropshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Woolf and the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.

Companies: Outsourcing
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to impose a levy on companies that are making profits in the United Kingdom but outsourcing their work to foreign countries for cheap labour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have no plans to impose a levy on companies that outsource their work to foreign companies to take advantage of cheap labour. We take seriously concerns raised about recent off-shoring announcements but recognise that those are commercial matters for the companies concerned, who are operating in an increasingly competitive world economy. To help to identify the right policy responses, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has published a consultation document and will host a round-table seminar in early February.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that, in the past two years, 50,000 jobs have been outsourced by 28 firms, many in the financial sector, but that there are good companies, such as Nationwide building society, which is providing jobs in the UK? It reopened its call centre in Swindon yesterday and will open a new centre in
458
Sheffield shortly. Does he agree that, when the Government talk about rights and responsibilities for individual citizens, there is a responsibility on companies that make profits here in the UK to provide jobs here, too? Can he assure the House that local authorities and government departments will be discouraged from outsourcing council tax. housing benefits, pensions and other services abroad?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are no clear statistics on the number of jobs that have been outsourced to other countries, nor on those that have flowed into the UK from abroad, but the figure that the noble Lord gives is probably correct. There are also cases where companies have brought back jobs from abroad because the service levels that they have achieved have not been good enough. We recognise that those are commercial decisions to be taken by companies, but equally we feel that there is too much emphasis simply on cost reduction rather than the service given to customers. There may already be a realisation that the British public does not feel that it is getting a good service from call centres abroad.
Those are commercial decisions to be taken by companies. So far as local authorities and government are concerned, it would be very difficult, in view of our international obligations, to take a position where services bought in the marketplace were not subject to competition from other countries. As a country with a large balance of trade favourable to us in services, and as the second largest service exporter in the world, it is not clear that protectionist measures would be very sensible.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, how does the Minister measure the effect of regulation on UK labour costs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a very interesting question that has nothing to do with the subject in hand. Any number of international comparisons show that we are extremely attractive as a country, recognised around the world for the amount of overheads compared with other countries.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that Her Majesty's Government's policy is firmly to reject any protectionist policy for industry? In doing so—I am sure that he will—will he confirm that there is a problem in certain areas of the country, particularly where there is one employer who decides to relocate overseas? Will he confirm the Government's intention to work closely with regional development agencies in those areas to ensure the minimum disruption to the workforce? Is he prepared to confirm that he thinks that, in certain cases, employers have not carried out adequate consultation, and that the social and corporate responsibility of industries should reflect those obligations for consultation in those circumstances?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I will confirm what I said in my original Answer; that is, that we are clearly against any kind of protectionist policies here.

459
We have a comprehensive package of support for those facing redundancy, including the rapid-response service operated by Jobcentre Plus. We are always keen to encourage consultation over and above that required by legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the intervention from this Front Bench had very little to do with the substance of the Question, which concerns the quality of service, and that his reply addressed that intervention? In the end, the quality of service required in this country will be the market provided by this country.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I pointed out that the question was not entirely relevant to the Question on the Order Paper, but I am afraid that my natural politeness made me answer it at the same time. I apologise for that. It is always true that the quality of service will determine essentially the whole issue.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the pleasure that his answers give to the Conservative Benches, which is not altogether shared by everyone on these Benches. Could he give us the merest hint, in his usual far-reaching view of these matters, how the element that he referred to in his first Answer—the responsibility to look at things apart from the question of reducing cost and thereby increasing profit—will be reflected in the forthcoming government review of legal responsibilities on public company directors, on which he has issued a consultative document?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, nothing is to be gained by ignoring the issue or pretending that we will introduce protectionist policies to deal with it. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has pointed out in the consultation document, the only way that we will deal with it is by raising the performance of our call centres so that we can compete effectively against competition from abroad. The quality of legal directors elsewhere is a different question.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, much though we may be tempted to agonise about outsourcing, it is a potentially beneficial effect of technological advance and globalisation with which we must learn to live?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously that is a commercial decision. In some cases it will be advantageous for low-level back-office facilities, such as data entry, to be transferred abroad. That will obviously increase competitiveness. It may be often found that customer-facing activities are best dealt with in this country. I am sure that customers are already aware of that.

Data Protection Act 1998
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in light of the deaths of Mr and Mrs Bates of Tooting and the handling of personal data relating to Ian Huntley, they have any plans to clarify the way the Data Protection Act 1998 protects vulnerable people of all ages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I have discussed those tragic cases with the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for ensuring the effective operation of the Data Protection Act. Our initial view is that no change is needed to the Act itself. But there is obviously a need to ensure that organisations properly understand the Act, have clear compliance procedures and exercise sensible judgments. The commissioner today announced a package of measures to help to prevent future misunderstandings and provide improved access to advice.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I fully understand the points that he has made and that we must wait until Sir Michael's inquiry before we know finally what the outcome will be. In the tragic case of Mr and Mrs Bates, the Data Protection Act's vital interest exemption should be speedily clarified and perhaps broadened so that employees of firms such as British Gas or people working in statutory agencies do not feel, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot pass on their concerns. Does the Minister agree with me that we must not put the protection of data before the protection of vulnerable people? I hope that he will put that point to the Information Commissioner.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree explicitly and exactly with that point; the Information Commissioner is also well aware of it. The Act posits no such conflict in the way that that has been articulated. It is perfectly possible to fulfil what common sense would tell us one should do; that is, to disclose personal information when there is a wider interest in doing so. In the specific example of the Bates case it is not right that I go into great detail but, relying on the coroner's report, it is clear from what that said and from what British Gas said that British Gas was of the view that those persons were not vulnerable, and therefore there was not a need or requirement to disclose to social services. Had it judged otherwise, it was aware that it could have disclosed the information to social services.
Lord Henley: My Lords, while accepting that we have to wait as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, for the Sir Michael Bichard report—and I agree with that—would the noble Lord also agree that there is a duty on the Government to offer further advice on the workings of the Data Protection Act 1998?

461
Would he also bear in mind the words of the then Solicitor General, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when speaking at Third Reading,
"we have not been shy to acknowledge that we may not always have got everything absolutely right the first time, or even the second time".—[Official Report,024/3/98; col. 1135.]?
Is it possible that they have not even got it right the third time, and that they will he able to offer further advice on the workings of this Bill?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, again in a word, yes. We are certainly looking at whether there is more that could sensibly be done, which is why we are looking with ACPO and the Home Office to see if there is further advice and guidance that might be useful to police forces. It was clearly no lack of clear advice on the Humberside case that led to the issue, in that the ACPO guidance is explicit that unproven allegations of sexual crimes can be retained on file and divulged in the circumstances of Soham. It spells that out in words of one syllable.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that in fact the law relating to the Data Protection Act 1998 is extraordinarily complicated. The application of the fairness principles might have allowed the authority to release information in the Bates case, but interpreting that is way beyond the capacity of the sort of individuals in the utilities who must do that. Would the Government consider reintroducing into the Data Protection Act 1998 an exemption that was in the Data Protection Act 1984, which allowed urgent disclosure where there was a risk of real harm, that disclosure being in the interests of the person likely to be harmed? That would be extraordinarily helpful in a practical way.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am pretty confident that the existing law allows exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has advocated. He is right that the Act is not the simplest to understand, but of course practitioners and administrators in either public or private sector organisations do not work their way through the Act. They look at the guidance that is produced by a wide range of bodies—the Information Commissioner, trade organisations and the like—who have worked from the Act to provide practical advice. I am clear that it is the quality of advice that matters, but perhaps even more so it is organisations giving very clear signals that the Data Protection Act 1998 matters, and in two respects. It matters to protect personal privacy when it is right and proper to do so; it also matters to make sensible decisions about when information should be released, because there is a wider interest either in terms of the safety of the individual concerned, or the wider public interest in terms of the prevention of crime.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tone of his responses today will be welcome? Would he agree that a culture of over-formulaic adherence to process in matters of data protection, which loses sight of the fundamental objectives of the policy, can have grave, adverse
462
consequences, not only in the cases that have been alluded to, but in many other areas, including medical research?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, in general I agree that it is important for people at whatever level in organisations exercising judgments as they must on the Act almost to apply tests of common sense and to check whether those tests of common sense comply with the law. I wish to emphasise that perhaps these are calls to all organisations, including central Government, not to say that the Act needs changing—albeit that it may not be the clearest—but to see whether there is more that we need to do to try to get the double objectives of the Act lived in practice throughout our organisations. That is what we should all do, including the DCA.
Lord Laming: My Lords, would the Minister agree that perhaps the Government could be clearer in the guidance that they give? There is now a widespread belief among professionals across the services that they cannot exchange concerns about the well-being of a child unless there is clear evidence of child abuse. That is a serious inhibition to good practice.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, coming from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I will take that question very seriously indeed. I will undertake to look with officials and the Department of Health at the charge that he has posited that there is confusion in social services in these matters. It is critical that we minimise any confusion and that people do not hide behind a convenient excuse that they cannot do things, when common sense tells them they ought to be doing them. That is the thrust of what I have learned from many of these issues. One then has to see if one can test whether the law, as we believe it does, allows them to do so. I will undertake such an informal review in the way that I have indicated.

Georgia
3.6 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support more active British and European Union engagement in assisting political and economic transition in Georgia and in supporting its territorial integrity, in the light of the recent presidential election.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to President Elect Saakashvili to say that the United Kingdom stands ready to help Georgia to tackle the many political and economic challenges ahead. We support the efforts of the European Union to provide targeted assistance to help to meet Georgia's needs. Our special representative to the South Caucasus, Sir Brian Fall, continues to play a full part in the international community's efforts on questions

463
of territorial integrity. In addition, DfID is working with the Georgians to help to identify priorities for economic assistance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she agree that it has been unfortunate that the conflict in Georgia has pulled that country apart over the past few years and that it has lost control of much of its territory, and that the slow diminution of EU influence since the early 1990s, as people like me will have observed, has left US and Russia competition as one of the problems for Georgia? Does she accept that this is a tremendous opportunity to help the development of a stronger democracy and the restoration of territorial integrity, and that the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom, could do more in assisting with retraining of forces in adding Georgia to EU neighbourhood policy and in providing the political as well as the economic support needed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord should not underestimate the considerable support that the European Union is devoting to Georgia already. The Commission said that it is accelerating a 5 million euros payment for food support and a 2 million euros payment for election preparation. This year, Georgia should receive about 12 million euro support for the reform process and 4 million euros' for rehabilitation. If agreement is reached with the IMF, Georgia could also apply for a further 12 million euros for food security and 40 million euros for exceptional financial assistance. An EU humanitarian assessment mission will be visiting shortly. Sir Brian Fall, who I mentioned in my initial Answer, is in Georgia at the moment looking at the question of territorial integrity. Considerable assistance is going to Georgia both from the EU and the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in this situation, as in so many, education is the key? Can she assure the House that any British efforts to help Georgia will focus on education at all levels and in support of the excellent work of the British Council in Tbilisi? As a Council of Europe observer in the recent presidential elections in Georgia, I saw the dire need in the educational field, if only in that the schools, which were in use as polling stations, were absolutely freezing cold. That was bad enough on polling day; for children going there on a day-to-day basis it must be awful.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, education is always important, when we are considering programmes of reform. However, there are many different priorities struggling to gain the attention of the world community in decisions about the way in which aid is distributed. There are also important questions about how we get stability in Georgia and deal with terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and, to a certain degree, corruption.
464
DfID has devoted £2.1 million for various programmes in Georgia this year, including some relating to governance and civil society. I shall convey to my colleagues in DfID the point that the noble Baroness made about schools.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the instability in the region and the fact that Georgia has been a conduit for terrorism, drugs and other illegal activities. Does she agree that we should help that country and its new government to become an East-West conduit for energy and trade?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is much in what my noble friend says. There is the interesting development in trade, which he mentioned, and the impact of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline through Georgia, which should be a means of generating more income for that country.
It is also important that, at some stage, the EU again considers the good neighbours policy. That is a matter that the EU would have to consider. If sufficient progress is made on issues relating to reform in Georgia, there ought to be a positive response to the possible inclusion of Georgia.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will agree that by no means all the problems facing Georgia should be laid at the door of the former president, Eduard Shevardnadze, to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude for his earlier work. He showed great courage in returning to his country to try to put it in order. Georgia's difficulties are more attributable to long-standing historical and cultural problems that dominate that poor emerging country.
Does the Minister acknowledge that certain lessons may be learnt from what has happened in the Ukraine? The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I served for some years on the advisory council there only to find ourselves trying to cope with competing advice from different Western sources. Will the Minister try to ensure that the help and advice given by Britain and the European Union is integrated with that of other helpers to give the new president of Georgia a coherent framework of support and advice? He has a huge struggle ahead of him.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with almost every word that the noble and learned Lord has uttered. With regard to the origin of Georgia's many problems, the difficulties created by various territorial claims are a long-standing source of instability. We support the efforts of the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to find a political solution to that problem.
The noble and learned Lord made a particular point about Mr Shevardnadze. Mr Shevardnadze made a historic contribution to the end of the Cold War and has played a significant role in Georgia since its independence. I agree strongly that it is important that we support the reform process under the new leadership

465
in Georgia, and I hope that my answers so far have indicated that Her Majesty's Government are certain that that is the right way forward.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I appreciate and applaud what the Minister announced in respect of moneys being made available through the European Union. May I impress upon her that, for all the idealism and competence of Mikhail Saakashvili, the country could implode, unless it receives exceptional assistance? During the latter time of Shevardnadze's rule, corruption was rife. Does the Minister believe that there is any potential for exerting influence on Russia through the Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member, along with Georgia and ourselves?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Russia has an important part to play in supporting the future stability of Georgia. I mentioned the visit of our representative, Sir Brian Fall, which is taking place this week. Sir Brian will also visit Russia at the same time as he visits Georgia.
The noble Lord spoke of the exceptional assistance that would be needed. I agree with him that the matter should constantly be revisited. At the same time, it is important to stress that we want to see a real engagement in reform by the Georgians themselves. It is important that we prioritise properly what must be done in that country and that it is done by experts. We have put in somebody from DfID to examine in particular the way in which priorities should be considered, but we also need to see willingness—not just words, but actions—from Georgia with regard to a reform programme.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is time for the next Question.

Adam Smith Institute: DfID Contracts
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they considered before giving the Adam Smith Institute £7.6 million in aid money last year for consultancy work.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Department for International Development awarded three contracts to the Adam Smith Institute worth a total of £7.7 million in the past financial year. Each was awarded following open international competition on the basis of published evaluation criteria.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she content that the Adam Smith Institute has sufficient expertise in development issues to justify giving it such a large sum? Does she
466
share my concerns about its overt agenda? Has she seen its website, on which the institute gives as its two main "heroes" Hayek and Milton Friedman? It features a recommendation to scrap the UK's "awful" Department for Education and Skills and lists the latest publication by its international division as building support for privatisation. Given that unfettered markets can benefit the strong, rather than the weak, is the noble Baroness content to rely on an organisation with such a strong agenda to identify how best to help the poorest people throughout the world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we put this in context. DfID awarded 800 contracts last year, three of which went to the Adam Smith Institute. Adam Smith International Limited, which is the consultancy arm of the institute, is a separate organisation. It is affiliated to the institute as a self-financing commercial organisation.
The work that has been carried out is significant. The three contracts awarded last year included one for support services for public enterprise restructuring in South Africa; one in Afghanistan to provide support in capacity building for the Ministry of Finance and the central bank; and one in the Kyrgyz Republic for pilot training and capacity building in international waterhouse law. There is a range of projects.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we fully support the good work of the Adam Smith Institute and any increase in trade that helps to alleviate poverty. Does the Minister agree, however, that a vast amount of money is involved, in comparison to the sums given to many of the aid programmes funded by DfID, especially the redirection of funding, away from the middle-income countries? Does she agree that Labour has adopted the Conservative policy of privatisation? They opposed it in the UK but are now happy to impose it on the developing world.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness does not entirely understand the nature of the consultancy work in which such organisations are engaged. What happens is that a developing country will identify its priorities and seek assistance with that work. We will produce terms of reference and evaluation criteria. Countries and organisations will then be asked to bid. There is an open international process for contracts over £100,000. There will then be a tender panel, usually comprising someone from the developing country concerned, as well as DfID experts. It is work for the developing countries.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the noble Baroness and her department accept my congratulations on using an organisation that has the principles explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and extols the virtues of small government, low taxation and

467
reductions in regulation? Will she communicate the benefits of using such an organisation to her Cabinet colleagues, including, perhaps, the Chancellor?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Baroness, although I know that she will be disappointed to hear this, that that is not the basis on which we awarded contracts to the Adam Smith Institute.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council enlighten us? She has just said that of more than 800 DfID contracts three were awarded to the Adam Smith Institute. How many were for more than £7 million?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord about that. The information is available on the DfID website, but I do not have it with me at the moment.

Ambulances: Speeding Tickets
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to deal with the number of speeding tickets issued to ambulance drivers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, we are aware that some ambulance trusts are incurring unnecessary administrative costs processing speeding tickets that are automatically issued via safety cameras by police forces. We are working closely with the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to resolve the problems involving emergency vehicles detected by safety cameras. We hope to achieve a workable solution that reduces bureaucracy shortly.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether ambulance drivers will he subject to the provisions announced yesterday whereby a levy will be added to speeding fines in order to augment the compensation scheme for victims? Does he not agree that the idea that ambulance drivers, even notionally, might be paying a price towards serious criminal activity carried out by others will be abhorrent to the general public and runs the risk of undermining the public support that we need in order to gain support for speed management measures?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness may not have been listening carefully enough to my Answer. We were trying to get across the message that it was inappropriate that ambulance trusts should be paying those particular fines. So I do not think that they are a ready source of revenue for the Home Secretary or any other member of the Government if they are looking in
468
that particular direction. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has issued a consultation paper on which he will note responses and act accordingly.
On the particular question raised by the noble Baroness, clearly, we are talking to other people about the proper application of the ACPO guidance, which is being administered by many police forces quite sensibly and is leading to ambulance trusts not paying fines.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is it not the case that ambulance drivers, like other drivers of blue-light vehicles, have an exemption from observing speed limits if they are travelling on a genuine emergency? Is not the main problem the fact that the word "emergency" is not properly defined and that, therefore, there is a dispute about what constitutes an emergency? Is not the answer to the problem that ambulance drivers, and other drivers of blue-light vehicles, should know exactly when they may speed and when they may not?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there is in operation at the moment guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers that invites police forces to apply the criteria that they apply for police vehicles to kindred emergency service vehicles. A large number of police forces are applying that guidance. There is a difference of practice, which is why we are engaged in discussions with the Home Office and ACPO to try to resolve the problems identified in the noble Baroness's Question.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a number of ambulances have been damaged by speed bumps?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of that, but, as I understand it, so have private cars.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if ambulances have been damaged by speed humps, what has happened to the individuals inside the ambulances?
Lord Warner: My Lords, on a number of occasions the House will have heard me say that we are shifting the balance of power to the local level, so that information is not held in Richmond House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, pursuing that point, does the Minister accept that there is a clear link between response times on the part of ambulances and the survival of patients? Does he also agree that speed humps have a damaging effect on the ability of ambulance drivers to respond as quickly as possible in life-threatening situations? In the light of that, does he agree that the emergency services should be consulted on traffic-calming schemes in order to ensure, if possible, that alternative equidistant routes are available to most areas in the event of an ambulance being called out?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: response times to life-threatening calls are very important. I draw his attention to the fact that these

469
response times have improved dramatically since 1997. At that point, virtually no ambulance trusts were reaching more than 65 per cent of those calls within eight minutes. Now, almost all are reaching that target, saving hundreds of extra lives. That is despite speed humps. What is more, it has been achieved against a background of a huge increase of more than 40 per cent in the number of emergency calls during the past five years.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16,

Schedule 1,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 to 22,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 23 to 26,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 27 to 31.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it is unusual for me to intervene at this stage to ask questions, but the Minister is aware that I wish to do so. These are rather unusual times for the Bill. Yesterday, the Government published a consultation document on compensation and support for victims of crime. On page 5 of the document, and in a Written Statement in another place, but not in this place, the Home Secretary states that any legislation that is necessary to implement these proposals that are at a consultation stage will be inserted into this Bill, which is the subject of the noble Lord's Motion today.
Noble Lords will be aware that we start Grand Committee on this Bill next Monday. The consultation period is to be 11 weeks. My questions therefore bear in mind the extensive discussion set out on page 55 of the paper. Can the Minister explain why the Government did not see fit to inform this House in both the opening and closing speeches at Second Reading on 15 December that significant additions to the Bill could be brought forward by amendment? Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the Bill will not leave Grand Committee until those amendments have been tabled and noble Lords have
470
been able to give full consideration to them? If he is unable to do that, can he give the House an assurance that the new clauses will be considered by way of recommitment when the matter returns to this House after consideration by the Commons? Noble Lords, of course, take scrutiny of legislation very seriously.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her comments, in particular on the issue of scrutiny. I shall not go any further into detail because she gave much of the important detail. The consultation process is not planned until 29 March. Good Friday is on 9 April. It therefore seems very unlikely that any amendment will be drafted and available to Parliament until after the Easter Recess. By that time, the Bill, under its current timetabling, will have reached the House of Commons. We would be able to consider the new amendments in this House only as Commons amendments to the Bill as sent to the House of Lords, which would be a most difficult time at which to give the amendments the scrutiny that they require. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory answer to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I note that the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is not in his place, but the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and his colleagues will have heard what the two Front Benches have said. I hope that on the issue of possible recommitment they will pass the remarks made by the two Front Benches to the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving me advance notice of her questions. I am most grateful to her for that. I appreciate the points that have been made in your Lordships' House today on these matters. My noble friend Lady Scotland, at Second Reading, made plain that there would be consultation on these issues. She made that very clear in her comments at Second Reading. I cannot give commitments from the Dispatch Box today about recommitment and such issues. However, I can tell your Lordships that there will be ample time for consultation. Obviously, the Bill will proceed following that consultation and, no doubt, a view will be taken as to how best to proceed.
I cannot comment on timetabling in detail. That would be quite wrong. That is a matter quite properly for the usual channels. I will, of course, reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and ensure that the Chief Whip is fully apprised of the issues raised this afternoon in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 5,

Clause 16,

Schedule 3,

Clause 17,

Clauses 6 to 11,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 12 to 15,

Clause 18,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 19 to 23.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, on this occasion we are being asked to consider the clauses and schedules of this Bill out of their numerical order. That has sometimes been done in the past but the advantages of doing so have always been outweighed by the disadvantages. It always caused confusion.
Can the noble Lord say what argument the Government are putting forward to justify taking these clauses and schedules out of order?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord recognises that it is not unprecedented to move a Motion to indicate that clauses will be taken other than in numerical order. He will of course recognise that this Motion has been the subject of discussion through the usual channels and it is on that basis that I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, though that course has been followed in the past, the practice has fortunately fallen into disuse? Why is it being revived on this occasion when no advantage will be gained?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question, I observe that Clause 16 is to follow Clauses 2 to 5. Everything else in the proposal is perfectly logical but that appears to be illogical. Can the noble Lord explain?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the clauses grouped together relate to the criminal justice system. It was considered therefore that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that debates revolving around this specific area of the Bill should be grouped together. I understand that this procedure was the subject of discussion by the usual channels.
I recognise the point made by the noble Lord that this course should be followed only on exceptional occasions—I agree that it is more difficult for a Committee than going through the clauses in numerical
472
order. However, occasionally there are good reasons why certain clauses should be grouped together and that is the reason on this occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before we commence the debate on the Defence White Paper, perhaps I can bring to the attention of noble Lords that more than 20 Members have indicated a wish to speak today. Should Back-Bench speeches each last for 10 minutes, the House should rise by the target rising time of 10 p.m. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that noble Lords followed a similar rubric yesterday in an excellent debate, which enabled the House to rise before the target time.

Defence
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Defence White Paper: Delivering Security in a Changing World(Cm 6041).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence published a Defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, on 11 December, just one month ago.
Noble Lords will recall that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a Statement at the time in another place, which I repeated in this House. I am glad that today your Lordships' House has been given an early opportunity to debate the White Paper at greater length than was possible before the Christmas Recess.
In opening this debate I am sure the House will be delighted to hear that I intend to be short, for this is a chance for the House, with its abundance of military experience and knowledge, to express its views. I am particularly pleased that four former Chiefs of Defence Staff and a number of former Ministers and other experts in this field intend to speak. But one voice which will be absent today is that of Lord Hardy of Wath, who will be very much missed by the House in a debate of this kind.
I have particular reason outside of this House, from some years ago, for being grateful to Lord Hardy. He was an acknowledged expert on defence and the House will miss his expertise not just today, but also in the future.
I shall do my best to sum up and answer questions at the end. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I undertake to write, addressing any points that I am unable to address today.
This is the first occasion in 2004 on which this House has had the opportunity to debate the business of my department. Before I go on to focus on the subject of our debate—related as it is to high level defence policy

473
and the future structure of our Armed Forces—I want to pay tribute to the many thousands of service personnel, sailors, soldiers and air force personnel, who have been serving their country on operational duties over the Christmas and New Year period, most obviously in Iraq but also, it should not be forgotten, in the Balkans, Afghanistan, West Africa, Northern Ireland, the Falkland Islands and Cyprus. Those young men arid women have gone about their business with the steely determination, professionalism and good humour for which the British Armed Forces are deservedly renowned. They and their families deserve our thanks and admiration in equal and generous measure. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing them well.
It is a truism that since the fall of the Berlin Wall there has been a period—at least in our lifetimes—of unparalleled change in the world of defence and security. Our predecessors had to deal with it and we have to deal with it now. The massive, monolithic threat of the past has gone and the world is undoubtedly the better for that. But gone too are the old certainties. The strategic landscape is very different now from that which we faced 20 years ago. The threats we face are increasingly unpredictable.
The challenge for those engaged in the nation's defence has always been to ensure that the military and other capabilities they sustain match the threats we face, just as at critical moments in our nation's history we need to adjust the capabilities, skills and structure of our Armed Forces to ensure that they are best placed to meet the challenge of today and tomorrow. Resting on the laurels of yesterday is simply not an Option.
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review and the SDR New Chapter, that we published in 2002, unquestionably moved our Armed Forces in the right direction. But the strategic environment does not stand still. And nor must we. Our Armed Forces must continue to evolve if they are to be best placed to confront the key challenges of the early part of this century—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the threat posed by international terrorism; and the consequences of failed and failing states.
The White Paper provides a comprehensive statement of defence policy set against the context of the strategic environment in which we operate. In doing so, it presents the case for more flexible Armed Forces structured and equipped to deal with the demands of multiple, concurrent small and medium-scale operations; forces that must be capable of operating across the operational spectrum, from war fighting to enduring peace support operations.
Of course, those forces must also retain the flexibility to allow them to be able to reconfigure at longer notice for the much less frequent, large-scale operations, for the most demanding of which it is almost inconceivable that the United States would not be involved, either leading a coalition or as a part of NATO. The White Paper sets out to strike that balance.
Military action is, of course, used only as a last resort when the cross-government effort in crisis prevention and management has been exhausted. The Government
474
are clear that it is most effective when brought to bear through multinational coalitions and alliances. The ability to operate alongside others, particularly our NATO and EU allies and partners, therefore remains at a premium. We must ensure that our Armed Forces are prepared and equipped to lead or act as a framework nation for ESDP or similar ad hoc coalitions where the United States is not engaged. Interoperability, whether with our European, American or other allies, will be at a premium.
As my right honourable friend said on 11 December in his Statement in another place, the department is currently undertaking a significant examination of its capabilities and overheads to establish the precise nature of an appropriate and sustainable force structure and future investment programme to support the policy set out in the White Paper.
A great deal of work is going on within the MoD to examine different aspects of military capability. I should stress that, as with the Strategic Defence Review and the New Chapter before it, this involves expert military and civilian personnel.
One thing is clear. We must exploit new and emerging technologies so that we can exploit the full potential of our military capability and deliver ever more rapid and precise military effect. Critical to this will be the development—and I hope that the House will forgive me if I descend for a moment into the vernacular—of what we call network enabled capabilities. By that I mean the more effective knitting together, via sophisticated communications networks, of intelligence collection, analysis, command and strike assets. Or, put more simply, linking the sensors more effectively to the shooters.
The drive to developing network enabled capabilities will allow us to capture the operational benefits that modern technology, particularly in the realm of communications and information technology, has to offer. It will allow us better to understand developing crises and threats; more effectively to plan for military contingencies; and, ultimately, to conduct military operations faster and with greater precision.
But, my Lords, this is not only about investing in high-tech equipment. Rather it is the restructuring of the Armed Forces so that they are better able both to make use of it and, critically, to undertake the three concurrent small and medium-scale operations, including peace support and counter-terrorism operations that have already become the norm and which we can expect in the future.
Painful as it always is, we must not shirk from making tough choices. In the last spending review we announced the largest sustained increase in planned defence expenditure for 20 years. But our resources must now be directed at those capabilities that are best able to deliver the full range of military effects that we require. We must be rigorous in dispensing with those capabilities that do not. In today's world, not to do so is simply not an option.
The exercise that we are engaged in is about reprioritising. It is about restructuring our Armed Forces and their supporting infrastructure

475
appropriately to meet the changed strategic environment outlined in the White Paper. And it should be seen in the context of the increased resources that were made available to the MoD in the 2002 spending round.
As was indicated in the White Paper, this may mean reductions in some of the older surface vessels, heavy armour and single-role fast jets, but this will be offset by investment in new medium-weight forces and network enabled capabilities. We have already announced the creation of a new light brigade in lieu of one of our armoured brigades, and we expect to be in a position to make further announcements later in the year.
In a changing world, our Armed Forces must continually adapt if they are to stay ahead of potential adversaries. This is nothing new: historically, our Armed Forces have a proud record of adapting successfully to meet the threats with which they are confronted. This White Paper provides the security and policy baseline against which decisions will be made to ensure that our Armed Forces are equipped and structured to meet the challenges of the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Defence White Paper: Delivering Security in a Changing World(Cm 6041).—(Lord Bach.)
3.44 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to participate in this exceptionally important debate and I should like to thank all noble Lords for taking part in the assessment of the White Paper. I am also very pleased to see that the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, are all contributing to this debate. With their wealth of military experience, I ask your Lordships to pay particular attention not only to their remarks today, but also to the astute and very wise contributions that the noble and gallant Lords made during the Loyal Address.
This debate on the Defence White Paper sets the scene for the future defence of the realm. The White Paper was disappointing in the way that it failed to address the financial implications of what is intended to be a major reorganisation of our Armed Forces. It was also alarming and particularly damaging to the morale of all our servicemen and women in that there was virtually no detail showing how this major reorganisation would take place, what cuts it may involve and over what time-frame. However, it must be said that the morale of troops deployed on operations is currently as high as it has ever been.
The defence of the realm is to protect the United Kingdom and its overseas territories from military threats and terrorism; to safeguard the national interests of the United Kingdom wherever they are threatened and to contribute to world-wide peace and security.
476
Within this future security environment, the Armed Forces face a broader range of tasks across a wider geographical area than before. The United Kingdom will not be able to contribute militarily to every international crisis. Participation will be in coalitions with other countries. The United Kingdom's Armed Forces must be prepared for asymmetric attacks including the use of weapons of mass destruction and they must be equipped and configured to fulfil the roles of homeland defence, countering international terrorism and high-intensity warfare.
There are three major standard planning assumptions which must not create overstretch through over-commitment. The first is to deal with enduring medium and small-scale peace operations, including a small intervention operation at brigade and battle group level. The second is in a crisis in which the United Kingdom should rapidly carry out the same operations, including a limited duration medium-level intervention operation. Thirdly, the United Kingdom should be capable of carrying out a large-scale intervention operation at divisional level, including a small-scale peace support operation.
What I have briefly outlined are the proposals in the Defence White Paper, with which we do not disagree provided that Her Majesty's Government can give an assurance that there are, and will continue to be, sufficient resources of personnel and equipment for these planning assumptions. However, what is not suggested is how this vast reorganisation is to be achieved through any detailed structural change, apart from on the land forces side, turning the 4th Armoured Brigade into a mechanised brigade and converting the 19th Mechanised Brigade into a light brigade. This lack of information has been especially harmful to the morale of the troops and it is now essential that the MoD states in detail how this reorganisation is to be carried out or whether this White Paper is just another smokescreen disguising severe cuts for the future.
Turning to the maritime situation, delivering a land attack capability and securing access to the theatre of operations are identified as future priorities. The introduction of the future carrier and the joint strike fighter are regarded as vital to increasing the ability to project air power from the sea. The Type 45 air defence destroyer will also be crucial for enhancing the protection of joint and maritime forces and assisting force projection. Will the Minister now confirm how the Royal Navy is to be restructured? How many Type 23 and Type 42 frigates will be paid off; how many of the 12 Type 45 air defence destroyers will actually be ordered; and can the Minister also confirm that the SSN Fleet will shrink to as few as five boats and that they will be delayed coming into service?
Can the Minister confirm that the carrier programme is also being scaled down from the advertised 60,000 tonnes to as little as 50,000 tonnes? This would mean that fewer than 150 joint strike fighters would be ordered. In addition, it remains likely that the in-service date of 2012 will slip to 2015. Furthermore, the Sea Harrier is being withdrawn from this year and the fleet will have no organic air defence cover for 10 years or more. The noble and gallant

477
Lord, Lord Boyce, in his excellent maiden speech, alluded to the fact that however clever the technology, it does not deliver the capability to be in two places at the same time, and cutting the number of ships will certainly prevent this.
Turning to the Army and our land assets, the White Paper assesses that the future security of the United Kingdom requires a reorganised force structure and new capabilities. In order to increase the flexibility of the Army to respond to crises a new complement of medium weight forces requires to be developed, as was seen when both 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade required heavy armour in order for them to achieve their objectives in Iraq.
It is envisaged that a move towards a more graduated and balanced structure of light, medium and heavy forces will over time lead to a reduced requirement for main battle tanks and other heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery. However, it would be most unwise—indeed dangerous—to reduce too much of the Army's heavy weaponry. Just over 17,000 vehicles of ex-Soviet equipment with a heavy war Fighting capability remain in service scattered throughout the world. The military doctrine aims of mobility and lightness are required to be balanced against retaining firepower and protection.
As I have already mentioned, the White Paper outlines the intention to create a new light brigade and reduce the number of armoured brigades from three to two. While this reorganisation would certainly allow for more rapid deployment, no restructuring and no loss of manpower should take place until the future rapid effects system vehicle is in service. It has been ascertained that on present planning some 480 Royal Armoured Corps trained personnel will be lost. This should be prevented, particularly as it is assumed that there will be a requirement for two future rapid effects system regiments when they come into service. Even now the four existing armoured reconnaissance regiments require a fourth Fighting squadron, as was shown in Iraq.
As at 1 October, the Army was below strength by some 4,700 trained troops and in June 55 per cent were deployed on, recovering from or preparing for operations. There is absolutely no justification for any reduction of regiments, battalions or units. Cutting numbers would be an act of sheer folly. If the White Paper involves cuts in any way, we shall oppose them vigorously from these Benches. In fact we need to recruit the under-strength figure of 5,000 as quickly as possible.
The former Chief of Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, warned during the Loyal Address against the great dangers in concentrating our efforts to too great an extent on one emerging threat, forgetting that there are other threats which have not gone away and for which we should still be prepared. Numbers of Armed Forces personnel still matter, particularly involving low intensity operations, as shown by the British contingent in Iraq.
478
It also enables the Army to retain personnel and allows them sufficient time for training and courses, so vital to ensuring successful operations, which I shall cover in a moment. Without the correct number of established troops the gap between operational tours reduces from the recommended 24 months down to as low as six months in some cases, and on average down to 10 months. The more experienced petty officers and NCOs not unreasonably wish to spend more time with their families, and the White Paper has nothing to suggest that there will he less separation. In fact it expresses the exact opposite: that the serviceman's and woman's life will become harder; that there will be more frequent operations at a higher tempo; and that they will he liable to even more separation than before.
Turning to air assets, the White Paper focuses on the projection of air power from both land and sea, offering capabilities across the range of air operations but with a clear emphasis on offensive effect. There has been much speculation about cuts to the Eurofighter. Will the Minister clarify the situation regarding the numbers that will be ordered in tranche two and whether tranche three will he cut completely?
Will the noble Lord also confirm that the Tornado 3 will now not get the helmet-mounted sight for ASRAAM and that Brimstone is being cut back? Will he also confirm that not all the GR7s will get the Pegasus engine and that none of them are getting ASRAAM? Finally, would there not be a saving if the contract for the A400 transport aircraft was cancelled in favour of purchasing more C130s and Cl7s?
I was unable to find any meaningful comment about the defence budget in the defence White Paper. The SDR stated that 2.5 per cent of GDP should be reserved for defence, but the figure has already fallen to 2.3 per cent and is now heading for around 2.2 per cent. As I have said before, we believe that the budget is deeply in the red and that the equipment and the personnel budgets are overspent this year. I wonder whether it is true that cuts of £1 billion per year for the next four years will have to be made.
The Minister, in his courteous reply to me on the recent Statement, although agreeing that sufficient funds would be made available for network-enabled capability, stated that it might not be possible to procure all the other measures that we would like to. If this is the case, what are the projects that will not be funded and, therefore, cancelled?
I now turn briefly to the vital issue of training. Due to budgetary concerns and the shortage of time between operational tours, personnel have not been carrying out sufficient training, leading to a skill shortage among the most experienced soldiers. This involves both field training and individual courses and leads to a loss of crucial battle-winning skills. If we do not allow our forces to have the time to train properly, we will start to lose battles and lives will be lost quite unnecessarily. If this should happen it will not be the fault of commanding officers but of the Government. who have not allowed the resources to be made available for a full-strength army and yet are frequently prepared to over-commit the Army time and time again.

479
The MoD lists some 350 planned exercises each year. Seventy-two percent of these exercises have been cancelled due to the increased level of operational activity; namely, due to Operations TELIC and FRESCO. Eleven per cent have been cancelled due to decisions by host nations and a further 11 per cent have been subsumed into other exercises or rescheduled for this year. In total some 94 per cent of exercises were lost last year. This situation should be rectified immediately.
In conclusion, we are not giving our Armed Forces a fair deal. At regimental level—although not when troops are operationally deployed, as I have already mentioned—morale is low and has been made worse by publishing a White Paper without the required detail. This has given rise to uncertainty within the ranks as to where their future lies. Many are considering early release. The Armed Forces do not understand why the armed services should be reduced when the threats are greater than ever. They believe that they have put their lives at risk and now they find that their jobs are at risk. They consider that EU defence ambitions pose a threat to NATO and that government cuts are causing unacceptable reductions in operational exercises and readiness, a subject that I have not covered today as there have been two major debates recently on the issue.
Our Armed Forces are the best and command great respect throughout the world even though they are under-equipped and over-stretched, as verified in the recent NAO report. They are to be congratulated on their outstanding achievements in Iraq. I praise our Armed Forces for their dedicated loyalty, their professionalism, their highly efficient skills and their willingness to serve the country. I pay great tribute to their families for the support they provide to their husbands or wives at all times.
It is our duty to ensure that our Armed Forces receive a fair deal and that we provide the resources to ensure that their lives are not put unnecessarily at risk. Currently, I regret that I do not feel that we are giving them the fair deal that they so justly deserve.
4 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the debate, and echo his words about Lord Hardy of Wath. He will be missed not only by those on his own side but by all Peers in the House.
The Defence White Paper is a short, aspirational document with exceptionally good photographs. We welcome it, but I hope that the Minister will not be too upset if I start with a complaint. I shall not report him to the ombudsman about it, but perhaps to the campaign for plain English. The MoD may even win an award for this one.
The second paragraph of the second column in Chapter 1 states:
"Military effectiveness would be enhanced through increased 'Jointery' between the Services".
480
"Jointery" has been given a capital letter. Is it a new expression that will become common parlance in the MoD? I very much hope not, as it is an ugly word, which, although I have not read the report fully, I believe we could do well without.
There is little to disagree with the sentiments set out in the White Paper. However, by reading between the lines, I have one or two concerns about the implications of some of the proposals. Paragraph 3.5 of Chapter 3 states:
"The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO".
Obviously the state and the size of our Armed Forces means that that is the case. However, I do not believe that the presumption should be made that we would only go into a US-led coalition—not that I am saying that we would not, but I have an issue with the fact that no mention is made of the United Nations or, indeed, a United Nations mandate. It seems that the state of operations has changed somewhat if we can start talking about a coalition of the willing involved in state intervention without a UN resolution. That may not be the intention, but it seems to be the implication of what has been written. While I do not deny the importance of NATO, or, indeed, the importance of the US—I could not do so with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, giving me one of his looks—it is unfortunate that this was stated in such a way.
I believe that even the Americans will have difficulty in looking at state intervention in the short term—especially with our present commitments. The Foreign Secretary said that it is unlikely that we will leave Iraq until 2007 at the earliest. I have been given no specific dates on when we will leave Afghanistan. We still have significant commitments in the Balkans. However, we cannot overlook this issue, as it is the basis of overstretch. We have many troops overseas, and I echo the Minister in welcoming the incredible efforts of our armed servicemen —especially those who were serving overseas during the holiday period.
The nature of our present commitments will determine our future commitments. These are not operations in which we put people in and then take them out again; they are all operations where we were involved in the fighting in the first place. We now have a significant and long-term commitment in peacekeeping and peace making.
That is one of the implications of the SDR, which did not envisage such long-term commitments. We cannot depend on high-scale technological innovations to deal with peacekeeping, which relies on boots on the ground and has implications as to how many troops the Armed Forces will require.
Paragraph 3.5 continues:
"Where the UK chooses to be engaged, we will wish to be able to influence political and military decision making throughout the crisis, including during the post-conflict period".
That is an important point, and one that needs further debate. I hope that the Minister will say whether a report is being written about our effect on political decision

481
making and our effect on the post-conflict situation. That will have a major effect on whether we are involved in any further action.
Moving to another aspect of the report, I shall focus on missile defence technology. Paragraph 3.12 is a masterpiece of equivocation. I was most heartened in reading it because it gives no indication that we will spend money on missile defence technology. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, talked about defence cuts. We could save an enormous amount of money by not getting involved in this area in the first place.
The national missile defence programme is not something that can be viewed in the abstract. It has already caused the end of the anti-ballistic missile treaty; it has destroyed an international treaty. Although there might be cost benefits in the development of interceptor technology, the Government will have to be extremely careful about the costs that they will be expected to pay in initiating research and development. Even increasing the missile shield to this country would not outweigh those costs considerably. The size of the budget needed to contemplate an effective missile defence capability would be enormous, and I question from where the budget for such expenditure will come. Obviously, in the short term—up to 2012–2015—there will be considerable difficulties. Any further massive commitment before then is unachievable.
I turn now to the good news that was announced in a Statement yesterday in another place, which is in today's Hansard. I refer to the achievement of the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces to full operating capability. This is a valuable step forward for the reserve forces and should be welcomed. I have a couple of questions about the capabilities of this organisation. The Territorial Army and the reserve forces have had their man-training days cut a number of times. To make that body effective and to have the ability to deal with NBC threats, many man-training days will be needed. I know that because I instructed on NBC drill when I was in the Territorial Army. It was a particularly unpleasant experience standing in a tent filled with CS gas. It is vital that the lessons are learnt properly.
A further question is whether the necessary kit will be available to the Territorial Army to meet that capability. It is a fact that most territorial units do not have the necessary kit to deal with hazardous materials. They have the kit necessary for training, but it does not work. That failure cannot be taken lightly.
Following my comments on kit, I refer to the sad events in Iraq where soldiers lost their lives because of the lack of body armour. That vital piece of kit should now be considered essential to every soldier. Each soldier should he issued with a set of body armour that follows him from each posting as part of his personal kit. It should not be issued "as and when", depending on the operation. I know that there are cost implications, but the sad loss of life means that such body armour is essential.
The Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, which has recently been introduced, pertains to the White Paper. because it refers to this issue. I have asked
482
this question before; I am particularly concerned about it, although I know it will be debated in another place and in this House. The Secretary of State talked about the pensions review being cost-neutral. However, we have already been told that there will be winners—partners are to be considered for pensions. This will have a cost implication, and if there are winners there will also be losers. There is an assumption among members of the Armed Forces that officers' pensions will be raided to meet this added financial commitment. I hope the Minister can assure us that if there are to be losers, the cost-neutral option will not be invoked but new funds will instead be found for it.
I finish on one point that struck me while reading this document. It is a short document, so I was able to read it quite carefully. I refer to defence diplomacy, which seems to have garnered a new meaning in this document. The assumption is made that we will be looking at further state interventions, but of course state interventions will be based on political objectives. These must be considered very carefully. One of the political objectives for going to war was to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. We on these Benches are concerned that the very case for going to war is disappearing quite rapidly. A couple of recent comments caused concern, particularly those made by Mr Bremer, who said that the network of tunnels and laboratories was a red herring. Could the Minister comment on that?
When is the Iraq Survey Group to make its final report? We know that the interim report has been made. A large percentage of personnel have been taken off the Iraq Survey Group and David Kay has resigned from it. On that basis, the survey group must be coming to the end of its natural life, so surely a final report can be expected. I very much hope the Minister can tell us when the ISG will report.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest, as a non-executive director of Thales UK plc. I also lead the British delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for the very kind remarks they made about Peter, Lord Hardy of Wath. Peter and I entered the other place in June 1970 and I am very much aware of all the interest he showed in both Houses in defence matters. It was typical of Peter that at his funeral service a poem on flight was read out by a former pilot officer, because he loved the RAF. He had the RAF flag draped on his coffin, and there was a very fine guard by the local ATC, a subject that Peter raised repeatedly on the Floor of the House. We shall miss him, especially in these defence debates, to which he brought a great deal of conviction and belief.
I echo what has been said, and is always said, about the quality of our Armed Forces. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who said that they were simply the best, and they are. I hope that I am not causing offence to anyone if I say that it is quite remarkable that, generation after generation after

483
generation, such a high quality of men and women join the ranks of the armed services. The offence that I might cause—but hope I have not—is that I suspect that the young men and women in the forces today are better than the ones who went before. They are certainly as evenly matched. It is a great credit to our country and to the armed services that such qualities of bravery, statesmanship, diplomacy and service are shown among our young people. It gives us a great deal of hope.
Equally, I am delighted that we are having this debate today. It is right and proper that we have an early debate on the White Paper. I am delighted that it is a short document; it builds on the original SDR in the new chapter, and allows us to study it very carefully—almost word by word, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has demonstrated. If there is a watchword in the White Paper, I guess it is flexibility. That is right and proper.
I am also conscious that in this debate, which I am looking forward to, we have so much expertise, experience and knowledge. I am sure the Ministry of Defence and Ministers will listen to what is said by those who have so much experience of these issues.
I mentioned NATO. I am delighted that almost at the beginning of the White Paper, the Government state unequivocally where they stand vis-a-vis NATO. Paragraph 2.18 says:
"The UK recognises the pre-eminence of NATO".
That is right—it is how it should be and how it must be. There has never been a defence path that has been so successful, against such odds, over such a long period, covering such a wide diversity of nations. As long as we keep NATO at the heart of our efforts, I am quite convinced we will have a robust and credible defence for this country.
Having said that, I am also conscious that there are movements in the European Union which some seek to portray as trying to wreck NATO. That is not how I see it, and I do not think it is how our North American colleagues see it. They have gone on at great length to we Europeans about taking defence seriously—I get it increasingly at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The reality is that probably only our own country and our neighbours across the Channel in France are devoting sufficient of the national resources to the defence effort. We must find a way of persuading our other European neighbours that they must take defence seriously, and that means spending a bit more money on it. I hope that we will persuade the European Union that if it wants to be taken seriously in defence with the ESDP, it must put some money into it.
Equally, I am conscious that the agreement reached on 12 and 14 December, when we had the failed convention, was a step forward. I do not share the view that the installation of a new planning cell within the ESDP is weakening NATO. What was agreed on 12 and 14 December was a scaled-down operational planning unit, independent of NATO but amenable to the United States.
484
It is worth repeating in this House what the spokeswoman for the EU High Representative, Mr Solana, said. She said that the planning cell will operate only on very specific types of operations—ones that NATO has passed on to the EU. In that situation, the Berlin Plus arrangement will apply.
It is also interesting to see what else the spokeswoman said. She pointed out that the planning cell combined both the civilian and the military and that it would basically be concerned with reconstruction missions. Thus planning for combined combat missions is not foreseen. As she said:
"We are not a military organisation. We are a civilian organisation that makes use of military assets".
As long as the planning cell focuses on that, we need not be too concerned about the effectiveness of the NATO planning cell.
I mentioned earlier that I thought flexibility was the watchword of the White Paper. It has to take into account the changes of threats—the buzzword is the asymmetric threat, which is certainly true—and the changes in technology. We are starting to utilise technology in the military field to the advantage of our servicemen and women and in order to achieve our objectives. Programs such as Fist or Watchkeeper and the other programs that the Government are advancing will help us along these lines.
However, I wish to raise the matter of communications with the Minister. Communications are critical—they are one of the four C's—to all that we achieve and need to achieve in theatre and in the strategic area. Noble Lords will be aware that the National Audit Office is no soft touch—it is its task to be robust—but its excellent report on Operation TELIC, the UK military operation in Iraq, is well worth reading. Tucked away there, in paragraph 4.8, it says:
"The majority of communications equipment worked well in the operation, although the force sometimes"—
this is the point I want to raise with the Minister—
"had difficulty maintaining strategic communications between the UK and units in theatre".
The report goes on to say that most operations in theatre itself were very effective and achieved their objectives but it pointed out, in a very delicate way, that there were breakdowns between the strategic centre in London and the combat zone.
Indeed, this was further highlighted in Jane's Defence Weekly on 7 December 2003. An officer is quoted describing how a vital secure satellite communications link failed, just as the UK commanders in Qatar were trying to receive authorisation from government Ministers in London to allow the bombing of buildings in Basra. Obviously, this was critical. The report goes on to say that:
"On the first day of the war, secure communications between London and the commander of UK forces in the Middle East, Air Marshal Brian Burridge at the US Central Command headquarters in Qatar, also failed after a contractor at a switching centre in London fitted new equipment without authorisation".
Clearly, that cannot be right. One of the key findings of the NAO report and experience in Iraq is that it is important to learn the lessons. I leave that thought

485
with the Minister, together with the thought that central government is not always very good at IT. Is it not time to think about appointing a chief defence information technology officer to co-ordinate all this and make sure nothing goes wrong in future?
4.20 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I support what has been said from other benches about Lord Hardy of Wath; I wonder what his greyhounds are going to do without him.
On around 31 May 1940, my father, having just disembarked from HMS "Worcester", was standing amid a great many dirty, dishevelled and wet soldiers who had, like him, come back from Dunkirk. Suddenly there was a shout and a battalion of Grenadiers—clean, boots clean, marching to attention and having all their small arms with them—came down from a ship and marched ashore. My father said that this convinced him that we were not going to lose the war, that there were these qualities of discipline in the British Army, at least in parts. This was probably largely due to the Guards depot at Caterham where the discipline was incredibly harsh and where soldiers were taught how to behave and how to carry themselves under arms.
Today, 63 years later, one cannot expect the same qualities as were seen then. Life has changed so enormously that this cannot be expected. Nevertheless, a man joining any one of the services has relinquished some of the rights that he has in civilian life. He must do so because it is the only way to get an effective force. In those days, and in the 1940s and the 1950s, great noncommissioned officers, like Regimental Sergeant-Major Lord of the Coldstream Guards and Lynch of the Irish Guards, shouted. They shouted very loudly, but it was through that that much of the discipline was achieved. Today, it is still necessary for non-commissioned officers to shout and attempts that have been made to do I know not what—to transmit orders by e-mail perhaps—are not acceptable. An order is an order. It is not a helpful suggestion.
However, if we say that about discipline, we must differentiate clearly between discipline and bullying. Discipline must be fair. Treatment by senior officers and non-commissioned officers must be seen to be fair and they must tolerate what is needed by a man who comes from civilian life and from a very different sort of behaviour. The discipline is backed by a series of inquiries and of courts, ranging from that of a company commander to a court martial. Here, with the courts martial, we must have considerable doubts as to what is going to happen. I have a Question down for next week which, if I get an answer from the Minister, I shall withdraw. It is undoubtedly true that there is some doubt about the Court of Human Rights and courts martial. I believe I am right in saying that the Navy has suspended all courts martial because the judges in them are naval officers in uniform. That is considered unfair. I do not know when any miscarriage of justice has been carried out since Admiral Byng, but this is the thought.
486
The discipline that we see is at present different in all three services. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that, as I have been chasing him. the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, before them, to ask what on earth is happening about the tri-service discipline Act that we were led to believe we would get. It has certainly been discussed in the Ministry of Defence since 1991, and I believe that it was discussed a good deal earlier than that.
A tri-service Act is absolutely essential with the jointery—my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—that we have seen among the services, and the operations carried out by people in different services who may have different discipline. That cannot be allowed to continue. I ask the Minister that very urgent steps be put in hand to put a tri-service discipline Act before your Lordships and another place.
It is ironic, given the length of time that has been taken, that the White Paper talks about a new initiative for joint service discipline. Generally, I would not like to insinuate that the Armed Forces are not disciplined; they are, much more so than the Americans or the Israelis. However, we need to he sure that the men whom we send into action are both disciplined and fit.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his place, and I am delighted to follow him.
Twenty-four hours before the defence White Paper was published, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the other place:
"British inflation has been at its lowest for 30 years: interest rates are their lowest since 1955 … economic growth in this country is now strengthening … In a world downturn, Britain has achieved growth with low inflation and with high employment".—[0fficial Report. Commons, 10/12/03; col. 1061.]
I felt optimistic. If there were good arguments for sustaining—even increasing—the defence budget, the Government were in a sound financial position to do so. But the MoD faces the institutional Treasury view that defence is more than adequately funded.
The Treasury approach seems to be that the Armed Forces have consistently and magnificently achieved good results. The Cold War was won. When faced with the totally unprepared-for invasion of the Falkland Islands, the services surmounted incredible difficulties and succeeded in recovering the islands with some severe losses of ships to air attack but, mercifully, relatively little loss of life. More recently in the Balkans, Afghanistan and now Iraq, and in lesser numbers elsewhere, our services, alone or in conjunction with allies, have met all tasks and challenges. As Mr Hoon says in his foreword to the White Paper,
"the UK's Armed Forces have consistently risen to the challenges set them, continuing a military tradition of which the whole nation can be proud".
How true. So the Treasury can claim that the MoD has been adequately funded, even though the Armed Forces have been grossly over-stretched over many years by the scale and number of commitments thrust upon them.

487
On the other side of the Treasury's defence balance sheet are the frequent, almost yearly, adverse reports of the National Audit Office and others into waste and poor procurement practices by the MoD. The outrageous delays and cost overruns in getting Eurofighter/Typhoon into Royal Air Force service is a prime example. That and the other many failed procurement fixes in the past 40 or more years do not say much for smart procurement.
There has to be some recognition of the Treasury view that, given better housekeeping and management by the MoD, areas where the shoe is pinching in the defence budget could be helped without dipping further into the nation's resources. So what new thinking has emerged from the MoD's latest work? More resources are clearly not expected.
The White Paper combines to be both opaque and startlingly novel. It is opaque about what will actually be the out-turn for the size and shape of the three services. A series of revelations in the course of this year is promised. One came last week with the announcement that four Type 42 destroyers, the backbone of the fleet's air defence capability, will be mothballed. When the decision to withdraw air defence Sea Harriers was announced in 2002, noble Lords were assured that the fleet would have adequate air defence because of its Type 42s. Now the Royal Navy is going to be in even worse straits if attacked from the air. What more risks must we ask our servicemen and women to endure? Are the lessons of the Falklands conflict, when the fleet air defence was inadequate and half a dozen ships were sunk in as many days by enemy aircraft operating at extreme range from their bases, all forgotten?
The novel aspect was the statement that the Government do not expect to become involved in medium or large-scale operations without the United States. Given the pressures that the US so often places on the UK to participate with it, does that mean that we shall always be playing second fiddle to US foreign and defence objectives? While the government of the day may well wish to work with the United States government, is it really the case that, if faced with a problem of critical importance to the United Kingdom but not so viewed by the United States, such as the Falklands, the Government will not prepare for or be able to deal with it by military force? What valuable intelligence for a potential enemy.
Nevertheless, I welcome the White Paper's endorsement of participation with United States forces, particularly in the air. 1 shall quote from an interesting story among the lessons of Iraq, which reads:
"Eight thousand miles away and ten time zones to the west, a US Air Force captain was remotely operating a Predator UAV"—
an unmanned aerial vehicle—
"in the skies over Tikrit…The UAV's sensors were searching the ground for signs of Iraqi activity and sending the imagery via satellite back to the continental US. Ordering the Predator to zoom in on a suspicious object, the captain quickly identified an Iraqi SA-2 SAM system that had moved into a position from which it would be able to threaten friendly coalition aircraft".
488
Precise target information was passed to airborne RAF Tornado bombers, which were ordered to attack the SA-2. With a United States Navy carrier-borne jammer aircraft flying in their support, a Tornado crew launched a laser-guided bomb against the target.
Moments later, the Predator's laser designator was switched on to illuminate the SA-2 and guide the bomb to its destination. The Tornado crew watched their target take a catastrophic direct hit. After topping up their fuel from a VC-10 tanker aircraft, the Tornadoes returned to their holding orbit to await their next task. By any measure, that was a fine and by no means unique example of inter-service and international joined-up operations.
An Iraqi staff officer reported after the conflict that the Republican Guard divisions were essentially destroyed by air strikes when still 30 miles from their destinations. The Iraqi will to fight was broken from the air outside Baghdad. The contribution of air power as the arm of first choice for governments and its ability to hit hard—or the possibility of being hit hard by an enemy if our own air defences are inadequate—is an all-important lesson.
While air power played a key role in fighting and winning the war, it falls mainly to ground forces in large numbers to cope with the post-hostilities phase. Only last week the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers were predicting that substantial British Armed Forces will be in Iraq until 2005 or even longer. That concerns me, as it does other noble Lords, because of the numbers of ground and other forces and equipment that will be required to sustain our presence by roulement.
It seems also to contradict the view in Essay I where, following our early involvement we,
"would expect to play a lesser part in enduring operations where many other countries can contribute".
Servicemen and women are the essential element to make all this work. Their motivation and commitment are essential. Therefore, soon after they have been under very great pressure is surely not the time to start cutting back people and equipment required to carry out demanding operational and continuing peacetime tasks.
Given the fine words of the Chancellor on 10 December the forces will feel demoralised and aghast by a whole series of cut announcements. Without reassurance of government support at all levels, retention, reserves and even recruitment will be hit. Commitments would then have to be curtailed even further or the Government will run the risk of some military catastrophe that should not have been allowed to happen.
Finally, I noted the content of the Written Statement of 6 January by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It reports the implications of the ECHR judgments on two appeals by servicemen who were tried and convicted by their service courts martial. Their sentences were upheld by their service reviewing authorities and their appeals to the courts martial appeals court were unsuccessful. In the case of the naval accused, the European Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights because his court martial

489
used serving naval officers. The court judged that this did not provide a sufficiently strong guarantee of the independence of naval courts martial. When the Human Rights Bill was in Committee in February 1998, in answer to concerns which I and other noble Lords had raised about the impact of the Bill on the Armed Forces, the then noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col.768.]
The continuous erosion of longstanding and well understood arrangements for service discipline, of which this ruling about naval courts martial is but a further example, is most unhelpful and damaging to the essential trust and respect that must underpin the relationship between those in authority and those they command in the three Armed Forces. Once again, the assurance that the human rights convention poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces is seen to be false.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. As noble Lords have said, we sadly miss my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath—Peter, as we all knew him.
Had this debate taken place this morning, I should have had to declare an interest as chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Since I signed off the report at lunchtime today, I have a freedom which I should not otherwise have had. Perhaps I am a "has been"; I do not know.
I do not want to talk about the number of ships or planes but about the personnel who operate those ships, planes and tanks and who take part in the infantry. Every year seven colleagues on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and myself were able to meet in groups of 10 or 12 about 3,000 personnel in the three services. We talked to them without their superior officers present and obtained a clear view of how they felt about service life.
Whenever there is a debate in this House or another place everyone refers to the professionalism of the UK Armed Forces: that they are the best in the world and how proud we are of them. Those statements are absolutely correct. However, in some areas they are wearing thin. When visiting Kabul in Afghanistan the year before last, I was at a meeting with about 12 young soldiers from the Anglians, two of whom were just 18, straight out of training and into an operational situation in Afghanistan. In the middle of the meeting there was thought to be a rocket attack on the building we were in. I was proud of the way in which the soldiers, including the 18 year-olds, reacted. I believe that it could not have happened without the wonderful training that the Armed Forces give those young people.
That belief was reinforced when I went to Harrogate and met 16 and 17 year-olds who, for the first time in the lives of many of them, had an investment in them
490
and care and support for them which they had not experienced in their family lives. There is no doubt that the training they receive is first class. Following that training, the responsibility they are given at such a young age would never be given in private industry in Britain. So we are right to be proud of our services. But it is no good saying that we are proud of them. We have to back it up by putting our money where our mouths are.
While in Kabul, I also had meetings with General McColl who was highly regarded by the people there, whether young soldiers or some of the civilian population. He demonstrated the best of British leadership in the British Armed Forces. I do not refer just to the soldiering that they undertake but to the sensitive dealing with quite threatening situations by young solders of Tland 19 in the Balkans conflict. Without wearing tin hats or body armour, they dealt sensitively with traumatised members of the population. Often they were young women who had been even more than traumatised and were not wanted by their own community.
In the early 1990s John Major appointed me as a trades union member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. There is no doubt that pay was then the number one issue. It is still an issue as it is for anyone who works to earn money. We could always pay people better. We commissioned a survey of 11 peer countries on the overall remuneration package over a career. Britain can, rightly, be proud of its reputation. We come in the top three with regard to every measure in the overall remuneration package. Current pension changes are a concern. Armed Forces need stability and certainty about their lives.
However, the concern expressed this year at every meeting relates to overstretch. The word is used a great deal but it pervades much of the Armed Forces life. Chapter 1 of the White Paper refers to, "more numerous crises", a "wider range", and "frequency and duration" of conflict than were envisaged in the Strategic Defence Review of 1998. I agree with that assessment which was confirmed during our visit.
When considering the recent conflict in Iraq, we mobilised more Armed Forces in a shorter time than in the Gulf War a decade earlier, alongside Operation FRESCO where 19,000 personnel were committed to cover for the fire-fighters' dispute. The White Paper refers to the impact of that on training. But overstretch affects family life. Leave with one's family is cancelled and other issues are involved. For instance, "You have a promotion, but you must miss your leave to take it. If you do not, you will lose your chance of promotion and not have the opportunity of using the training already taken".
The Secretary of State, in an interview in December, said that the average period between tours was 10 months as opposed to the 24 months laid down in the Strategic Defence Review. We know people who have experienced a shorter period between tours. All that comes down to the issue of overstretch. To the Armed Forces, Operation TELIC stood for "Tell everyone leave is cancelled" and they were right.

491
Every year, the review body conducts a survey on lost leave and hours of work. Until the past two years, the trend had been positive, but it then began to creep back up to the level at which it stood some years ago. That is concerning, but the reason is obvious. Service personnel in a conflict expect to work long hours—frankly, what else is there to do when you are in the middle of a desert in Iraq?—but the average hours worked annually by the forces in Northern Ireland are much longer than those of the civilian population.
The White Paper contained a document called the "essays" and I am particularly interested in Essay 5. It stated that a plan would be in place by April this year. Will we have an opportunity to debate that plan when it is drawn up? I would welcome that. I hope that it contains a section dealing with defence medical services, too. Great efforts are being made to improve them, but there must be a long-term plan with year-on-year improvement.
Recruitment in the Armed Forces has greatly improved, which is to be congratulated. Last year, more than 26,000 personnel were recruited against a, target of 25,000. But having got them in, we need to ensure that they have a modern contract or compact—an overall term of engagement—with the nation. On that, I particularly welcome the White Paper. In many respects, the understanding has not kept pace with how their equivalents in civvy street see their employment and career opportunities. My noble friend Lord Clark mentioned flexibility, but I see it in a different way. People want control over their own lives and contracts and they want choices. Difficult as it is, the Armed Forces must move towards that understanding.
Separation from families is also a difficult area. When I went to Iraq in June, the welfare package was more advanced than it had been the previous year in Afghanistan. The MoD and the Armed Forces are getting much better in that. I accept that the nearness to the UK, the terrain and the environment in Iraq were different, so we would expect it to be better, but it was better. I sincerely believe that the welfare package and the understanding of the arrangements for families has risen up their priority agenda.
I welcome the White Paper and the opportunity to discuss these issues. I welcome the progress that has been made, but there is still a long way to go. I return to where I began: everyone says that we want UK Armed Forces to be proud of. That is a two-way stretch. We can be proud of them, but they need to believe that we share a concern and that we will resource them properly. Many improvements have been made, but the elastic has stretched too far. If we are to maintain our commitments—and we have over-committed—it is essential that the Armed Forces have the resources to back them up. Yes, improvements need to be made, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said. Yes, there might be a view that no matter how much money is poured into the MoD it will spend it and want more. The blunt fact is that we must ensure that the Armed Forces have the resources they need to carry out the job we expect of them.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and other noble Lords concerning the late Lord Hardy of Wath. He was an excellent chairman of the House of Lords Defence Study Group and a very nice man who I was proud to count as a good friend.
As has been emphasised in several excellent speeches in this timely debate, including that of my noble friend Lord Vivian, and in the media, the Defence White Paper is long on policy objectives—mostly welcome on this side of the House it extremely short on detail. However, if leaks and gossip are to be believed—and I would like the Minister to confirm or deny them—the Armed Forces plan to accelerate the retirement of four destroyers; to accelerate the demise of two of the three Invincible-class carriers before their time; and the already announced deplorable departure of the Sea-Harrier jump-jets which play such a vital role in defending the fleet. If these are true, there will be a potentially dangerous series of gaps in the Navy's ability safely to carry out its present and ongoing remit in the next 10 years or so.
I shall now limit my questions and remarks to the two projected aircraft carriers. Am I right in the belief that they are to be called "Queen Elizabeth" and "Prince of Wales"? That sounds entirely appropriate and I hope that it is the case.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, as usual.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am grateful indeed to the Minister for that confirmation. When the project to build these carriers as replacements for the Invincibles was announced, I, like I suspect many of your Lordships, was delighted. However, I wondered even then whether there might be problems with funding and we might find ourselves with only one or even none. I also wondered where they might be built. Well, it appears that we are going to get two carriers—I am delighted—and that they will be built in Britain—and I am even more delighted. The tripartite arrangement between BAE/Thales and the MoD should make for the best of all worlds, provided—and it is a big "provided"—that it works in practice. Is it working as the Minister would wish? Is there a fully integrated management team to run the project?
Can the Minister comment on the various rather dispiriting reports concerning the budget for building these ships? Is it true that whereas the MoD has allocated some £2.8 billion for the construction, the contractors have said that the figure should be more like £4 billion in order to achieve the specification laid down? It has even been suggested that to meet the shortfall the Type 45 destroyer and Astute submarine programmes will be drastically cut. If that happens, would it not seriously affect the protection available for the carrier battle group when it deploys? Who can tell whether a future opponent might have some viable submarines or missiles? Remember the Falklands.

493
Another solution suggested has been to cut the size of the carriers. This would surely mean that fewer combat aircraft could be carried and it would not be possible to deploy fixed-wing aircraft to scout well ahead of the fleet to give the earliest possible warning of incoming attacks. And it might not be possible to use either ship as a proper floating command and control centre at sea. I understand that there are doubts as to whether the American STOL version of the joint-strike fighter will be ready on time, so it would seem to be essential to provide for the capability to deploy conventional versions of the fighter which it is planned to build and which may be ready earlier. If that is the case, might that not open up the possibility of co-operation with France on its projected new carrier— hence possible cost-sharing, which I am sure would he welcome? What type of engines are envisioned for the carriers? Are we considering nuclear power, as used most successfully by the French and United States carriers? There is also the question of stability. A 60,000 tonne vessel is surely much more efficient at launching and recovering aircraft in rough weather than one of 50,000 or 40,000 tonnes.
Can the Minister assure us that the March deadline for agreeing the production contract is still in place, or has it slipped to June, as suggested in the media? We know where they will be built in Britain, in four different shipyards, and that they will be constructed in individual large blocks that will be shipped on barges to the site for final assembly. Can the Minister assure us that that procedure is both practical and cost-efficient?
Will there be any spare space built into the design of those ships? After all, they will not come on-stream until 2012 and 2015—is that correct?—with a life expectancy of at least 30 years, probably. Surely it is most likely that future advances in technology will require accommodation within the hull of the ship, with little extra cost at the planning stage. As the battle fleet will consist of only two capital ships, rather than the present three, all except major repairs and maintenance will surely have to be carried out at sea when operations are ongoing. In which case, will there not be a requirement for extra Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to provide on-station engineering facilities?
We have a tradition in this country of being immensely proud of our great ships. The two aircraft carriers are the first proper capital ships to be built in and for this country for more than 50 years. Let us hope that they will be built to be fully capable of doing what the Navy requires. If that turns out to be the case, we shall have ample reason to be enormously proud on the day that they first sail into Portsmouth harbour.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I want to express my admiration to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and to the Minister for this early defence debate—and not even on a Friday. That is very gratifying. Its purpose is to discuss the Government's plans, as set out in the latest White Paper, for the
494
future of our Armed Forces, to which the whole country manifestly owes so much—as so many noble Lords have already said, and as the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister emphasised when he was in Basra.
It was therefore to be hoped—and certainly what the Armed Forces deserve—that there would be a clearly stated intention to match resources to current and likely future commitments, such as probably having to keep troops in Iraq until 2006, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said in her marvellous speech, to put right the chronic weaknesses of manning overstretch and, in a few cases but significant respects, equipment shortages.
Sadly, we are presented instead with a document that is long-winded, repetitive and, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, strong on lofty sentiments and virtuous expressions of intent but singularly ill-definedln detail on how those worthy aspirations are to be achieved.
Of course, there are some good things to report on both the capability and performance of our forces, and some sound, if transparently obvious, things to say about the combat and security scenarios and challenges that our forces may face in future. But many of those things are pretty old hat and merely reflect the direction in which our Armed Forces have been moving during the past 20 years.
No—and this is my main criticism—the White Paper represents more an elaborate distraction from the real problems that beset the services, especially from the impending Treasury cuts that are undoubtedly in the wind. In fact, its main purpose seems to be to create a plausible rationale for why certain reductions could be made within a coherent policy, irrespective of the fact that some of them would be damaging to the morale and effectiveness of the Armed Forces, and therefore not in the national interest.
To do that, the White Paper champions at least three illusions or fallacies. First, although, perhaps understandably, not mentioned in the text, but made great play of by Ministers when defending their policy, is that for the first time in about 17 years, the defence budget is actually being marginally increased in real terms during the current three-year period. Incidentally, without that expectation, the Armed Forces would not have been able to deploy for war in Iraq as effectively as they did. But that is largely an illusion.
I suggest to the Minister—he can deny it hotly if I am wrong—that those boasted-about increases are in fact being off-set, and more than off-set, by the money that the Treasury now wants back from the Ministry of Defence because of the new accounting system. That accounting system was forced on the department by the Treasury and is working greatly to its disadvantage because of the large number of expensive pieces of capital equipment on the defence books. That is a clear case of moving the goal posts. In reality, therefore there will be a lower, not a higher, cash flow on which to draw and virtually every vote holder will once again be compelled to do so much, if not more, with less. Hence the injunction to find savings.

495
The first fallacy centres on the first of two potentially damaging phrases that are given prominence in the White Paper. That is;
"the requirement for our Forces to be structured and equipped to deploy rapidly for small and medium scale operations".
There is nothing wrong with that. But it adds—and this is the point—that those forces must be,
"capable of reconfiguring at a longer notice for the less frequent, yet more demanding, large scale operations".
That is manifestly seeking licence to reduce and save, in men and equipment, on heavier armoured formations.
Even allowing for the premise of longer notice—although deployment in both Gulf Wars and other campaigns had to be at short notice, once political decisions had been made—and ignoring the fact that even medium-scale operations require heavy armour and fully mechanised armoured personnel carriers both for protection and to dominate the opposition, such a deferred reconfiguration makes absolutely no allowance for regular unit and formation training in the operational role with equipment similar to that to be used in war. That could have serious repercussions.
The second fallacy is based on a second damaging statement—again highlighted as especially significant. It states:
"The focussing of our planning should be on the military effects we require of our Armed Forces"—
generated, presumably, by emerging technology—
"rather than on simple calculations on platforms and unit numbers".
Again, that is an attempt to obtain licence to remove platforms and units at will.
Such a policy might have some substance if warfare was always to be of short duration and involve no lengthy aftermath. However, recent events have confirmed that it is invariably easier to get into a conflict than to get out of one; and that to win the peace properly requires troops on the ground for a considerable period, with even more troops, ships and aircraft in the background to help relieve them to sustain the commitment.
No, figuration or configuration of the forces is not the problem. The problem is manning—now and in future—and the stretch to which that manning contributes. Go around any units in the field and that message comes through loud and clear—the noble Baroness has done this; I am sure she has received the same message. The order of battle, which was established by the admirable, albeit progressively underfunded, Strategic Defence Review, has served the country well. It has enable the Armed Forces to move swiftly and easily from internal security, through peacekeeping and peace enforcement, to low-intensity operations and finally to high-intensity warfare. It has not fallen down on rapid deployment for any of those situations. At the same time—this is important—it has provided a proper roulement so that the operational formations have time for unit and formation training, which are so essential for a proper war-fighting capability. However, even that deployable strength has not been able to produce a reasonable interval
496
between operation and training tours away from the home base and families. This is not therefore the time to abandon that order of battle but to strengthen it and to see that it works properly in respect of stretch as well as operations and training.
I am not saying that combat units, particularly infantry, cannot be reorganised to give stronger, more battle-ready and more homogeneous units within a broader regimental system, which would save on overheads and movement costs and facilitate regimental homes where families could base themselves and put down roots. But I am saying that, generally speaking, the current order of battle should be maintained. If there are any areas where force levels can come down—most of those are still problematical—they should provide an opportunity, not to disband units and thus prolong overstretch, but to use the manpower saved to improve the situation. The proven size of the British Army—if it goes much lower it could well lose its critical mass—should not, in these dangerous times, be sacrificed on the wings of still-to-be-proven emerging technology, important adjunct as that may prove to be one day, or the invariably parsimonious attitude of the Treasury.
This Government have tried to do their best for the Armed Forces, but they unnecessarily mucked about with the Territorial Army, our best and most important reserve, which is essential both for the strengthening of the regulars and for dealing with any terrorist threat to the country. It is still too small and being too restricted on training, as the noble Lord said. There are also still gaps in the equipment programme, particularly in communications, especially ground-to-air equipment. In Iraq, our land forces were able to operate effectively with vital air power only by being able to use the ground-air communications of the United States Marine Corps.
The accommodation of our men and women leaves much to be desired. It must be put right if people, to which the White Paper continually refers, are to be properly motivated, retained and receptive to the flesh-and-blood leadership. That leadership now comes more from leaders in the field—commanding officers and the high morale that they can induce—than from vague policies and theories hatched in what the White Paper pleases to call, rather incongruously, the head office.
In a world in which might still manifestly appears to be right, there must be no falling down on defence funding, which now represents such a marginal part of a growing gross national product—hardly 2 per cent. It is so necessary for the Armed Forces of this country—one of its most priceless assets and the most cost-effective means of punching our weight and exercising influence in this dangerous world.
Perhaps it would not be a bad idea—to use a historical analogy from 1900, when what seemed a comprehensive victory then developed into an ongoing struggle—if the next election were a khaki election and perhaps won by those seen to be supporting the Armed Forces, as they deserve, and keeping them in proper working order, at home and abroad, for the very dangerous years that lie ahead.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, which I have had the chance to do once or twice previously. I thank the Minister, and his colleagues, for presenting us with this White Paper. I add my tributes to my former chairman Lord Hardy of Wath, as I am the secretary of the House of Lords Defence Study Group, to whose activities I may refer later. I hope that the Minister will pass on the defence group's thanks to the officer—previously Dr Moonie but now Mr Caplin—who organised and gave enormous assistance to us. I also thank my colleagues who take part in the group's visits, notably, the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Luke and Lord Brougham and Vaux, who cannot be with us today, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Strange, to whom I may refer later.
The most notable speech among the glittering array today was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who made most of my speech for me. I commented earlier this week, not so much about the hardware, which we could discuss all night, but about the people. To somebody with a young and enquiring mind, as I have been described, despite being well into my seventh decade, I could go on about joint-strike fighters, carriers, missiles, weapons and every kind of equipment. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, we are all concerned about the people.
It is at this stage that I always ask whether the Minister and others will play bingo and open up the happy essays, on which I have commented. Will the Minister glance through paragraph 2 of supporting essay five, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred—he need not reply to me today—which refers to the age and demographic pattern of the United Kingdom and the necessity of trying to recruit 26,000 people each year from a shrinking age group of recruitable people? I hope that that can be done. Paragraph 5.5 deals in depth with recruiting, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Vivian, and refers to the shrinking pool of the population.
Paragraph 5.6 refers to retention. The first sentence states that the skills acquired in the Armed Forces are very marketable and that our personnel represent an attractive recruitment target to other employers. Will the Minister and the Government read that paragraph, which sums up the feelings of many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall?
Paragraph 5.20 refers to accommodation, to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred. I hope that it is improving—there is certainly a large amount of investment in it. However, when the noble Lords, Lord Luke and Lord Rogan, accompanied me to Colchester to visit the 16 Air Assault Brigade and the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment, some of the accommodation could only be described tactfully as lamentable. Other accommodation could do with improvement, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others might carry on with that.
498
During the past year the Defence Study Group made a number of visits—we do not just study and remain in your Lordships' House to look at glossy brochures. Noble Lords may be amazed that my noble friend Lord Murton of Linisfarne, on his 89th birthday, and 14 other noble Lords accompanied me on a visit to the 1st Battalion Scots Guards, my regiment and that of my noble friend Lord Burnham. It is fairly easily accessible. The commanding officer there accepted the message repeated today by my noble friend Lord Vivian, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and that will no doubt be repeated by many others: it is essential that we recruit and retain as many servicemen as possible, and that we make them happy and content. That is a continual battle that we hope the Minister and the Government will he able to continue to fight and to win.
During that visit we learned some very interesting facts in a briefing about pay. I shall not go into that today. However, there was one example of the overstretch. There was growing concern in that battalion—they are used to it; indeed these Guardsmen and these soldiers are flexible—but they had to carry out continual public duties, they were also having to watch as reserves for fire problems, and they were living in London when they had been told that in March 2003 they were to go to Munster, be retrained and take their place in the Army group. Certainly, they were to go to Munster. It had been delayed. The commanding officer advised me that they had not been able to train as a battalion for three whole years. Training is fine, you can train right up to battle group level, but to train as a regiment with all the accompanying equipment that we shall hear about is pretty necessary. Just for one battalion or one regiment not to have that for three years is a bit difficult.
We found that morale was enormously high, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has time, she might let your Lordships know exactly what we saw in the barrack room at left flank, 1st Battalion Scots Guards. She pointed it out to me, and it was an example of superb morale. During the year we also visited young recruits at the Royal Marines Training Centre at Lympstone, where we found everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, had said. We found young men of 18, 19 and 20 extremely well motivated, well trained and keen to move on, but above all superbly supported by every one of their trainers.
We went on to RAF Benson, where we saw helicopters. My noble friend Lord Luke and the noble Lord, Lord Brett, came to Cyprus, where the morale of everyone was enormous. I hope the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, will appreciate that the words of praise spoken by everyone about RAF Akrotiri were still ringing in our ears when we got back and throughout the months afterwards. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
One of the final visits was to Colchester, where there has been an enormously successful transition. I hope that I have it right that 16th (Air Assault) Brigade or

499
air mobile brigade are there. We also visited the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. It seems that this has been enormously successful.
I conclude by coming back to the people: the men and women of our defence forces and the Armed Forces. I also remember that of the reserves we met in Cyprus, between 10 and 15 per cent of one of the regiments consisted of reservists. Of the first four to whom I spoke after they had received their Cyprus medals, three of them were reservists.
We look at these lovely, glossy brochures, the essays, the Defence Estimates, all these lovely things that are well produced, and are much appreciated from the Minister. As far as I am concerned, and I hope that your Lordships who float and those who fly will forgive me, but soldiering, and indeed all service life, is not always pretty. It can be harsh, it can be messy. My noble friend Lord Burnham referred to one or two notable people who had formed his career, such as Sergeant Major Lynch, who probably served with my father some 61 years ago. For me it was Drill Sergeant Clements of the Coldstream Guards, who we called Kiwi—a boot polish. He polished his boots, I do not know what else he did, but he certainly formed me and 16 other young men aged 18 into soldiers. Everything that I have seen this year, and other Members of your Lordships' group who have been around will confirm this, shows that the spirit of Drill Sergeant Clements and what he did for me is alive today. It is growing. It is because of people like him that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, saw those 18 year-olds in Afghanistan who knew what to do in an emergency—they knew what Sergeant Clements told us was the "set drill". Their spirit is also alive today.
There are three, if not four, noble and gallant Lords to follow me, which is why I must sit down. I thank every one of those soldiers, servicemen and women all round the world who serve us: serving yesterday, serving today and serving tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm for us tonight with this White Paper that the Government will make sure that they are able to do their job not just now, but in 20 or 30 years' time, when we are no longer here.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for initiating this debate on the White Paper and welcome with him the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Prince of Wales". I add, with all noble Lords who have already spoken, my regrets for the loss of Lord Hardy of Wath, who not only headed the defence study group, but was a jolly member on so many visits and is so much missed by all of us, and by all the dogs, which he loved.
Like all those who have already spoken, I am enormously grateful to the gallant men and women of our services who defend us against assaults, who defy terrorism, and who work long, hard and unstintingly on behalf of others at Christmas and on all other holidays too. We are all proud of them, of their courage, professionalism, and all that they do to make
500
the world a better place for us all. As my noble friend Lord Lyell said, I was much impressed by our visit to the Scots Guards. There are forces deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland and other places. They are all suffering severely from overstretch, as so many noble Lords, particularly my noble and gallant friends Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have already said.
We all know that 24 months between front line unaccompanied tours is the absolute minimum. Now the average is between nine and 10 months, and with some specialised forces, such as the Royal Engineers or Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, it is sometimes as little as two months.
One must ask why there is so much overstretch. The answer is simple: there are too many holes to fill, and too few people to plug them. We must either cut down on our commitments, which would be unfair to many people around the world who have come to rely on us, or we must employ more people.
I will speak about the Army, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley has already spoken so persuasively on the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. In 1992 we had far fewer commitments than we have now, yet we had 145,000 men in the Army. Today, we are precisely contained with 102,500 men. Why do we not have more men? Is it recruitment? This has been bad, certainly in Scotland with the disastrous attempt to employ a civilian agency for the job, when the numbers fell dramatically. This mismanaged attempt has fortunately now come to an end, and we are back to using the services as recruiters, with much more satisfactory results. Is it retention? Again, though not entirely, that seems to be flattening out.
It must simply be lack of cash. Why? One can only think that there must be some spider sitting in the centre of its web eating up all resources that come its way. Could this by any chance be the Treasury? Surely it would be more productive if people could be recruited from the dole to the armed services, so that they could lean a skill that would stand them in good stead in the future. I only know that as a taxpayer I would rather see my money spent on the services than on illegal immigrants, layabouts and bureaucracy.
There have recently been ill-founded rumours about the Scottish regiments. There are now only six Scottish infantry regiments: the Lowland regiments—the Royal Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the KOSBs—and the Highland regiments—the Highlanders, who are already an amalgamation of the Queen's Own and the Gordon Highlanders, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Black Watch. I checked and counter-checked and asked everyone I could think of, and I was happy to hear that the rumours were ill founded. We need every Scottish soldier and every Scottish regiment, including the cavalry and the Scots Guards.
I shall add a tiny, slightly self-indulgent footnote about my family connections with the Black Watch. A great-great-uncle served in it—or in the 42nd Highlanders, as

501
it then was—in the 19th century. As he was a keen ornithologist and had made a complete stuffed collection of all European birds, being himself a taxidermist, he hoped that his postings would send him on a migratory route—and they did.
My husband's uncle, General Evans, won the VC while in the Black Watch, during the First World War. My father had a varied military career; he was also in the Black Watch. He began by driving an ambulance in France in 1917. In 1918, he was a cadet in the Grenadier Guards. He joined the Black Watch as a captain, in 1939, when he was put to guard the Forth and Clyde canal at Grangemouth. Feeling that the Germans were unlikely to mount an attack there, he returned home to farm and started the Megginch platoon of the Home Guard, in which he ended the war as sergeant major.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am again grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute in the House to the professionalism and dexterity of our Armed Forces, in Iraq and in the other theatres of conflict in which we are engaged. I welcome the Government's defence White Paper, but I will draw the House's attention to a number of issues that must be addressed if its implementation is to equip our forces to engage successfully in combat and peacekeeping missions in the post-Cold War world.
My main concern about the Government's proposals is that they may leave our forces understaffed, undertrained and overstretched. We are all aware of the changing nature of conflict operations. Future military engagements are increasingly likely to be largely conducted from operational headquarters, at the expense of the front line. However, we must not let modern technology make us complacent. We must heed the lessons of our colonial past, in order to fulfil our foreign policy commitments, without repeating the errors of previous engagements. I refer, of course, to Iraq.
In 1920, a revolt in Iraq forced our government to install an administration that we had to support with force for 35 years. In the words of our commissioner in Iraq at the time:
"The main problem facing the occupation authorities was lack of trained officials. Consequently, damaging mistakes were made and uprisings were common, especially in rural areas as the local population chafed under direct rule by European military administrators'".
I am not suggesting that our forces should be officers or administrators in areas of conflict or even in peacekeeping engagements. However, the role of our soldier abroad has radically changed in the 21st century, yet we constantly hear of soldiers reminding us that they are not policemen. It seems to me that there is some contradiction between what our soldiers are trained and tasked to do and what their eventual operational duties entail. Our soldiers are no longer simply soldiers. Their modern role requires them to be ambassadors for the British state in its occupying role, peacekeepers in conflict regulation situations and promoters of the democratic ideal that we have taken it upon ourselves to impose.
502
The warning signs are already there in Iraq. We must act to redress the situation and ensure that our forces are operationally equipped and supported to carry out their task to the best of their ability. By that I mean that our operational planning in such conflict areas must strike a balance between what I call the "micro"—the troops on the ground and their equipment—and the "macro"—the smart bombs and high-tech, sophisticated weaponry of modern war. We must ask ourselves whether we have enough manpower to remain in Iraq until 2006, while successfully fulfilling our other commitments around the world and the increasing demands on our Armed Forces for homeland security. We have been there before, and this time we must get it right. I fear that we will shortly have to face that problem.
On the issue of maintaining the competency required to succeed in our foreign policy goals, I draw the House's attention to the question of the aspirational six-month operational tour with a two-year gap in the force readiness cycle. With approximately 30 per cent of our land forces committed to operations, it is logistically impossible to maintain the cycle of training, operations, rest and recreation and then training. The pressure of that constant rotation has a detrimental effect on service family life.
On the other side of the picture, is it desirable to rotate soldiers on a six-month basis? In Iraq, our soldiers go to considerable lengths to familiarise themselves with the sensitivities of the locals and to promote our message in the post-Saddam era. They are moved on when they could be at their most effective. Iraq, like many other states where we have foreign policy commitments, is a diverse and heterogeneous society. Our troops need the correct training and length of service to fulfil our objectives.
I have considered the role of our men and women as soldiers, sailors and air force personnel. We must also think of them as husbands, fathers or wives. For them to perform at their best, we must ensure that we have the resources to enable them to have sufficient leave, while improving their families' living conditions at home. There is a lack of opportunities for R and R during the operational readiness cycle that must be redressed. As with many things in life, the solution is simple. Happy soldiers make more efficient soldiers, and we will achieve that by having more, not fewer, personnel.
Why do we have a manpower shortage? That question has been asked before in the House. With infantry battalions suffering from under-recruitment and those with new recruits having insufficient time to train them, why cannot the services fill those vacancies? More must be done to promote the military career in schools and universities, so that, once again, our young people find it an attractive option. Young people must be made aware that apprenticeships are available through the Armed Forces. For many., it is a platform on which to build a variety of future careers. Moreover, the problem of increasing numbers leaving the services after nine or 10 years must also be

503
addressed if we are to retain the experience and expertise on which modern armed forces thrive. Operation TELIC highlights some of the problems.
This is the first time in 60 years that we have seen the compulsory mobilisation of our reserve forces. At the same time, we are reducing the Territorial Army. Such contradictory and short-sighted thinking will leave us without the resources to cope with the increasing security demands outlined in the defence White Paper.
The White Paper highlights the fundamental nature of our transatlantic alliance and the global threat presented by international terrorism and failing states. With such a policy, we will be in the front line of future conflicts and at the heart of the peacekeeping and stabilising operations that will follow. As such, it is equally fundamental that we are equipped for the tasks that we will face in this military sphere.
Finally, to meet our foreign policy commitments over the coming years we must harness new technologies, exploit our excellence in operational and logistical expertise, and modernise and develop our military forces in a fashion that matches the security threats facing us. To do that, we must remember that the end product of our foreign policy can match its aims only if we retain sufficient personnel to deliver our goals and ensure that our forces are fully trained and equipped to succeed in the field.
We have military experience gained from our previous operational successes in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We must preserve and build on that in order to play a leading role in our conflict regulation commitments and the future foreign policy ventures that the Government White Paper outlines.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as a civilian I speak with temerity. However, I spend much of my time in conflict zones that are relevant to aspects of the White Paper, including security environment, international terrorism and failing states. I shall refer to Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria and North Korea, as well as touch on threats at home. The first three countries share a common theme; namely, bitter religious conflicts associated with the disturbing spread of militant Islamism in wars in which many moderate Muslims suffer alongside those of other faiths. I include North Korea as I was there recently with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Britain's contribution to addressing that critical situation is greatly appreciated.
In Indonesia, Sudan and Nigeria, in total, millions have died in recent years and many more millions have been displaced by religious conflicts associated with militant Islamism, often funded internationally and supported by international jihad warriors. I emphasise that I do not wish to promote Islamophobia. In all those countries, the majority of Muslims live peaceably with their compatriots of other faiths. Many courageously oppose their militant Islamist co-religionists, such as those Muslims in Sudan fighting alongside Christians and traditional believers against the Islamist National Islamic Front regime or those in Indonesia who have
504
been attacked by Lasker jihad warriors for reconciliation initiatives with Christians. They share our concern about the spread of militant Islamism, which underlies many of the conflicts abroad and threats of terrorism here at home.
Indonesia, Nigeria and Sudan have great strategic significance for the United Kingdom. All three are major exporters of oil with huge still untapped reserves. All control major sea lanes of communications—Indonesia controls the Strait of Maluku; Nigeria controls the West Africa corridor; and Sudan controls the Red Sea—which are of great importance to British and allied commerce. Although there are some hopeful developments in Sudan's peace process, there are still major unresolved problems, such as the continuing fighting in Darfur, the NIF's insistence on Sharia law, and the unresolved status of the marginalised regions, which may trigger further conflict and destabilisation.
Both Nigeria and Indonesia are currently containing conflicts associated with militant Islamism, but the situations are very precarious. In Nigeria, we were told by Muslim leaders in the north that they intend to expand the number of states subject to Sharia and, ultimately, to change the Nigerian constitution into an Islamic constitution, with very serious repercussions. In Indonesia, President Megawati is upholding a constitution which enshrines religious tolerance, but she faces challenges from militant leaders who wish to change that constitution to one more conducive to militant Islam.
The slide of those countries, potentially, into instability, further civil war and anarchy, and the spectre of take-over by terrorism-supporting jihadist regimes, threatens the stability of three regions of crucial significance for the UK. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government must take very seriously any signs of impending collapse caused by the rise of militant movements. The global situation indicates that the stability and the viability of a growing number of countries are threatened by militancy, radicalism and terrorism.
Britain, as a country with global strategic, political and economic interests, will be adversely affected because many British forces may find themselves involved in an increasing number of conflicts and crises, such as fighting terrorism and trying to prevent the collapse of states. Thus, it is imperative for Her Majesty's Government to ensure that our Armed Forces are adequately prepared for such intervention operations: that is, expanding and properly equipping the myriad of excellent special forces; increasing the military and intelligence communities' expertise on the special features of crises in developing countries; and preparing dedicated special forces teams for crisis management and interaction with local and indigenous forces.
The UK must also vastly expand its strategic mobility capabilities—both in the air and on the sea—to move forces and to sustain them in many distant corners of the world. The United Kingdom has traditionally had an excellent reputation in those fields among allies and foes alike. The current situation in

505
Iraq and Afghanistan proves that the participation of British forces is sought after because of their excellence, but there are not enough of them and their equipment is lacking. To meet the emerging challenges, it is imperative to increase these forces and to update their equipment.
I turn briefly to some signs of hope in different parts of the world, with developments to be welcomed and encouraged. In Indonesia, reconciliation initiatives have brought sonic respite in Maluku, although Sulawesi is still troubled by conflict. Therefore, there is a need for efforts to promote further reconciliation. Last February, in Jakarta, I was pleased to help to establish the International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction—with the much needed and more felicitous acronym of IICORR—with the former President Wahid as its honorary president. Perhaps I may express my gratitude, through the Minister, to the Foreign Office for supporting an IICORR conference to be held in London later this month.
North Korea is another area where there is a possible ray of hope. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I, having been robust critics of the widely reported violations of human rights there, returned from our visit with cautious optimism, believing that the time may have come to offer a helping hand if North Korea is beginning to try to embark on a process of glasnost. We therefore established the North Korea/United Kingdom parliamentary group as an arena for continuing dialogue and for raising continuing concerns.
We cannot ignore the situation on the Korean peninsula, if only because the UK has been a member of the UN command in Korea since the Korean War of the early 1950s. While Britain does not have significant forces in north Asia, the UK can still play a significant role in the current crisis, which could escalate into a regional and a nuclear war. Experts have identified that one of the key factors in the heightening of tension in this crisis is North Korea's lack of understanding of the West, particularly the United States.
Many agree that the only viable way out of the current crisis is through meaningful negotiations. But there can be no realistic negotiations when one side—North Korea—has difficulties grasping the overall strategic position because of its prolonged isolation. While the United States has virtually no contacts and communications with North Korea, the United Kingdom has full diplomatic relations. Therefore, one of the key contributions that Britain can make to defusing the crisis on the Korean peninsula is to help the leaders in Pyongyang to adopt pragmatic negotiation positions. Although that point might seem unrelated to the defence White Paper, it is relevant because failure of the current negotiations involving the United States and North Korea could cause the eruption of a regional war likely to include the use of weapons of mass destruction, and Britain has treaty obligations to participate in such a war.
The overarching issue is the threat posed by North Korea's escalation of its nuclear programme. All the government representatives that we met in Pyongyang,
506
including the President of the Praesidium, emphasised a willingness to begin a process of denuclearisation if they could receive two assurances; that is, first, a promise of no pre-emptive first strike by the United States; and, secondly, respect by the international community for peaceful coexistence of two systems within one country. I therefore ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government might be able to provide some such reassurances, as appropriate.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may raise one final concern that I have identified on many previous occasions, but to which, as yet, I have received no reply. I refer to the danger of Islamist penetration of key military and strategic institutions in the United Kingdom. One instance involves the employment of firms with responsibility for the installation of security surveillance systems in sensitive establishments. For example, I referred previously to a man who has been a significant shareholder in the firms IEDS and Protech; he is the owner of the Al Shifa plant in Khartoum, and has presumably been closely associated with the National Islamic Front regime which has Al'Qaeda sympathisers among its top leadership. Those firms provided security surveillance to British Army and other Ministry of Defence establishments, as well as our nuclear installations at Dounreay and Sellafield, British Airways and the Houses of Parliament. Could the Minister reassure the House that there is no danger of financial penetration by Islamists in those and other institutions of key military and strategic significance?
In conclusion, I should like to add my tribute to all that has been said in the debate so far on all that has been achieved by our Armed Forces in recent years in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and, as the Prime Minister recently made clear, in Basra, Iraq. But success is not a recipe for retraction; rather it is an indication of the need for enhancement to fulfil the roles outlined in the White Paper—deterrence, prevention, containment and protection.
Much has been achieved with present capabilities, but there are concerns over many of the proposed reductions. I hope that the Minister will reassure your Lordships that our Armed Forces are and will be fully equipped in every aspect so that they can continue to serve our country, and many peoples around the world, with the professionalism and the commitment for which they are deservedly renowned.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, sometimes there is an understandable perception in defence debates that the same points are being made again and again by succeeding speakers. In one sense that can give the impression that there is not much else to say; but in another, it can indicate more widely held and growing concerns on the same important issues, which I believe is the case today.
I have little to say about the defence White Paper itself. It is a broad, high-level analysis of the changing strategic environment in which our Armed Forces are operating today and will have to operate in the future, inluding the lessons learnt from recent operations.

507
Given that many of the weapons systems and equipment still in service today are legacies of the Cold War, and that emerging science and technology have a significant influence on our future systems and the way in which they are employed in operations, it would be surprising if such a White Paper did not, at this time, point to the need for further changes. But the real challenge here is delivering those changes in an efficient and timely manner through a clear, well structured and adequately resourced implementation plan, of which there is little sign in this White Paper.
Changes on this scale can be extremely costly and disruptive at a time when members of our Armed Forces, as has been said repeatedly in this debate, relative to their numbers, have been more heavily committed to operations and to non-military duties such as lire fighting than they have for many years—a point made clearly and convincingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and many others. Nor, once the war fighting phase of an operation has been concluded satisfactorily, are new, so-called "network-enabling" capabilities any substitute for significant numbers of servicemen and women supporting the civil authorities in maintaining law and order and, where needed, dealing with much more violent and life-threatening incidents.
Our experiences in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Iraq show how long and demanding some of those post-operational commitments can be. As I said in one of our debates on Iraq before the operation itself started last year, it is all too easy to
"win the war and lose the peace",
unless adequate plans and preparations are made in good time and there is sufficient military manpower to do the job, often over much longer periods than is first assumed.
Nor should we underestimate the enormous challenges to be faced in re-aligning our future weapons and equipment programmes to meet the changing needs identified in this White Paper. For example, the operational capabilities of the Eurofighter, Typhoon, and the numbers required, were originally defined in the Cold War, when there was a significant air threat posed by the then Soviet Union both to this country and in the wider context of possible NATO operations. Today that threat has effectively gone.
Given that each Eurofighter is set to cost nearly £57 million and the overall programme some £20 billion, is that priority to be changed? If so, how is that to be agreed with the other nations concerned with the project, and then refunded realistically in our revised equipment programmes? I ask that not in any way to play down the significance of air power but as one example of the scale and complexity and the potential cost implications of the decisions that lie ahead in implementing the outcome of this White Paper efficiently.
But my greater concern is how the over-committed men and women in today's Armed Forces are going to come out of all this, given the widespread perception
508
that defence as a whole is under increasing financial pressure in real terms. That question was raised by my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie in the debate on the Queen's Speech and was never answered.
Unlike any other profession, members of the Armed Forces have no choice on where and when they will be committed to operations and to putting their lives at risk. Apart from the increasingly longer periods of separation from their families which are occurring today, in many cases they are unable to catch up on important training, some of which can bear upon their qualifications for further promotion as well as their readiness for future operations. My main question on the White Paper, therefore, is whether it has been measured against a realistic plan for its practical implementation and not least with adequate resources to fund it effectively.
Supporting Essay No. 6 to the White Paper refers to a series of,
"Departmental Objectives, supported by a number of targets, which are embedded in the Department's Public Service Agreement with the Treasury".
Does that so-called agreement include a clear definition of the changes now needed to implement the new strategic priorities broadly identified in the White Paper, together with the resources required to implement them effectively? If so, can the Minister tell us about that in more detail? Without that greater transparency there will be increasing and justifiable concern that, in the face of growing resource pressures, this broadly drafted White Paper will merely provide a basis for haphazard and ill considered cuts because there is no comprehensive and visible blueprint agreed with the Treasury against which those priorities for change and their affordability can be defined and measured more effectively.
6 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is always a privilege to listen to your Lordships in defence debates. Not only do you learn a little about military matters, you learn other things as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, reminded me of the great pleasure it was to listen to Lord Hardy talking about wildlife and birds. Had he been here today I would have wanted to ask him whether it is true that mobile telephones are having an adverse effect on racing pigeons—they lose their way—and on the migratory patterns of birds. However, in future I shall ask those questions of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
We have before us an essay—to employ the Freudian slip uttered by my noble friend Lord Lyell. It is quite good, although a few things are wrong. I thought for a moment that on page 19 the Union Jack had been photographed upside-down. I expected Mrs Thatcher's head to pop up behind the flag. Reference was made to "UK forces". I think that we should call them "British" forces because that word carries a good deal of weight around the world. Although it is a good essay, if I had written it for one of my tutors, he would have queried my objective in doing so. Violins play in it at certain moments, but the questions are: who are the enemies, where are they and what are we going to do about them?

509
Those questions are difficult. The paper contains 11 mentions of proliferation of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. I want to ask only one question, a point that I have raised in the past with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. I would much appreciate it if someone in the ministry could write me an essay which stated what are considered, these days, to be weapons of mass destruction and what are the antidotes to them?
During the First World War my grandfather was director of the restriction of enemy supply. When we introduce "fear words"—I have said before that terrorism is government by fear—we create fear which may not be necessary. I assume that, these days, our enemies are politicians, and that is because usually it is a political decision that leads to a conflict or troubles between tribes. Often I have to see us as others do because in my life I have unfortunately been condemned to travel among the more difficult and rogue states of the world. When talking recently with some Cuban friends, I asked, "Do you realise that you would not have gone to war with Iraq if Clinton had not sent that boy back to Cuba?". The Cuban vote would have gone the other way and we would have had a different form of government in the United States.
Looking at our relationships with different people today, more often than not we realise that we have to anticipate what kind of political decisions will be made by whom, where and when, which can lead to conflict. To state that our Armed Forces are a force for good is to go one better than to have an "ethical foreign policy", but having read this paper, this essay, I am not quite sure where we are going. There seems to be an element of camouflage within it. Usually in this kind of debate we have a Minister sitting alone, nodding as he realises that every noble Lord is asking for more expenditure while the Treasury is seeking less.
However, in this case, we do not necessarily need more expenditure. If we analyse what our Armed Forces are required to do, it boils down to certain individual requirements: they have to be everything from undertakers to firemen to preachers. It does not matter; they are there.
I was brought up to understand that we are three to one. Thus, although the United States has six times as many armed regular soldiers, sailors and airmen as us, if we are three to one, it is not quite such a big gap. If the rest of NATO has 12 times as many as us, those forces are not even as good as those of the United States, so it is not such a big gap. And if the rest of the Commonwealth has 12 times as many, that is our alliance.
Let us look at where our alliances lie these days. Of course one is with the United States, although occasionally it goes off and invades places like Grenada without actually asking us, even though the ODA was on the ground. Just after I joined the navy, the US objected to the French and British co-operating in Suez. However, it also goes off to do certain things on its own, such as with the Contras or in Iran. We then have to sort things out and wash the dirty linen.
510
I have friends in those rogue states. I do not want the House to think that I am a rogue Peer; it just so happens that I have spent much of my time in the Middle East and eastern Europe. The break-up of the Soviet Union led to problems in other countries in which the Soviet Union had had influence. As that influence waned, chaos ensued. Let us look even at India and Pakistan. The Soviets provided India with tanks while the West provided them to Pakistan. Yet the armies of those two countries are among the greatest in the world—and many of their soldiers were trained by the British.
I would suggest that our problems lie not with the equipment, but with our people. Perhaps we should look at those forces which are made up of people who are our allies: NATO, the EU and, above all, the Commonwealth. If we are looking for excuses to attack under the heading, "Defend", then that is a dangerous move.
I want to draw an analogy between Iraq and Zimbabwe. I regard the efforts made by the Nigerians at the last Commonwealth conference as quite outstanding as they sought to bring together the Commonwealth to deal with Zimbabwe. However, from the point of view of some of my friends in those states, they ask why we bothered to go down this route; why not just take him out as we did Saddam Hussein. Why did we go through the charade of the weapons of mass destruction that were probably never there when, considering the behaviour in that country, it was perfectly justifiable for someone to interfere? However, the more one interferes, the more enemies or problems are created unless somehow one has captured the high moral ground.
I do not doubt that the individuals who make up our Armed Forces are streets ahead of everyone else in the world. They are not necessarily well remunerated and they are overstretched, but a 20 year-old who has been abroad other than in Northern Ireland for the first time comes back a wiser, braver, more interesting and more reliable man. During my time in the City we used to take whole-page advertisements in the Times and the Financial Times stating that we would welcome the opportunity to recruit people who had served in the Armed Forces and give them a secondary career. In my own family, as I have mentioned before, I have two nephews who served in the American armed forces who almost kicked themselves that they did not see 9/11 coming, because they rather regretted having left. I have another nephew with children in the Blues and Royals who wishes that there were more personnel to relieve him so that he could spend more time with his family.
I turn to another point. Through the Commonwealth or the empire we would train people—in banking and so forth, and in the military. I was rather surprised, therefore, to see on a television report the other day that we are shortly to train the Libyan army. I regard that as a great triumph if that is where we have broken through. Perhaps, given our considerable training abilities, one of our added roles that could be included on page 19 or wherever would be the opportunity to train other forces to be a force for good as well as to be competent.

511
When I consider some of the people that I have met in odd places, it is clear that you do not need much more than good uniforms, equipment, boots and guns if they are to perform a policing role. It is possible to integrate quite quickly.
I end with a story that has always fascinated me: that of the British fire bucket. I refer to the red bucket filled with sand into which cigarette ends were put. Those buckets were in tremendous demand in Africa and the Middle East because a red British bucket marked with the word "fire" and filled with sand is everything you could want to live with. First you take from someone's truck some petrol, put it in the sand bucket, set light to it, and place your tin on the top to heat up your baked beans. Before that, if you want a cold drink, you turn around the fan belt on the truck—the radiator will have long gone and put the petrol in the bucket. The can of beer is put on top and the fan turned. The evaporating petrol will cool the drink in around 10 minutes. That same story was told to me only the other day by a young soldier who had returned from the Middle East. It is the way to get around.
I have such respect for the military that, unless we bite the bullet and say that we must recruit to our cause more people not only from our own country, but also from other countries, we will suffer for years to come. We have the ability to do what we need to do for the world, and the world is waiting for us. Please can we get on with it?
6.8 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, the Minister may be surprised to learn that I should like to start by congratulating him. A number of noble Lords have given him a pretty hard time over the medical services for the Armed Forces. However, the latest information suggests that there has been a vast improvement in the position, particularly within the Army medical services. I am told that recruitment is buoyant and that the work being done in operations overseas is excellent: good arrangements, good management, good consultants and good nursing. That is a hopeful sign because noble Lords were very worried about the state of the medical services.
It is not so pleasing that the bedding-in of the Army medical service with the National Health Service has not been a great success. It has not gone with a good swing. This is understandable. The Army medical service had its own esprit de corps and its own proud and well trained people. It must be very difficult to bring the two systems together. The differences are quite marked and consultants are leaving, which is sad.
Germany seems to be the most successful area, where primary, community and secondary care is quite excellent. I have a feeling—the Minister may care to expound on this—that it might be more convenient, and you might get better treatment, if you are wounded, injured or sick in the former Yugoslavia than if it happens to you in Iraq.
Are you, as a casualty in an NHS hospital, on a trolley for too long? Are there special ways of treating a wounded soldier? I have received no complaints from
512
the wounded soldiers I have spoken to but I wonder why we cannot give a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces outstanding, immediate and proper care in an NHS hospital and ensure that he does not become merely another administrative number.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thorton-le-Fylde, I, too, have had the privilege of visiting the junior soldiers in Yorkshire, both at Catterick and Harrogate. I had a full day at each location and I was most impressed. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, need not be too worried. The standard of turn-out of all the British Army regiments in both places was quite outstanding.
Harrogate is a beautiful city and a tremendous example. If I were the Minister of Education I would invite my teachers to go there. The education there is quite superb. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, takes a team up there as soon as possible.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, said, the White Paper represents a look into the future. A number of issues worry us all, but what worries me mostly is that you have almost admitted that you cannot and will not work alone; that you have to work with others. This always presents a problem. We have all had allies and coalition partners. If one looks at the 25 nations of Europe, one sees that some fairly funny coalitions could come about in a military sense. Certainly, good and tough as they may be individually, the armed forces of one or two of those places are a pretty ragamuffin bunch. If certain of them were beside me then, never mind the enemy, I would double my sentries at night.
I do not believe that enough attention has been given to the issue of allies. Many of us have experienced that they are there with you by day, disappear at night, are not there in the morning and you are left in a rather lonely situation. This is what worries me about the possible organisation that you want with light scale, medium and large scale formations. If a formation has to take the brunt of an attack, or whatever may be the problem, I should like to know a little more about how it will be dealt with if we are lightly scaled.
We have perhaps forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. It is not easy, but it is quite possible, to turn a guerrilla-type army into a conventional army. That is what defeated the Americans in the end in Vietnam. You can change armies. We have changed our own armies. In the war in the Far East, people who had only walked for miles and miles in jungles were suddenly able to convert very quickly to mechanised armoured formations.
This was only possible because there was plenty of manpower. The whole weakness of the White Paper is that the Ministry of Defence is relying on new technology. In my experience, whatever the technology, it cannot supplant manpower, the use of the man on the ground. It is a poor excuse to say that you can cut because you have new technology.
Some of this technology is way off in the distance—it is not here. I was interested in the paragraph on the Apache helicopter. Where is it? The last time I asked

513
the Minister, I heard that some were being mothballed; that there were no pilots for them because there was no money to pay for the training. Whatever the situation, there obviously will not be enough of these helicopters, either now or in the future.
Perhaps the Minister can help me. There is a very unconvincing sentence in that paragraph about the fact that we are now reviewing and considering how best to use them. How many? I would have thought that the best way to regard an Apache helicopter—it should not need much consideration—is that it is there to kill and destroy the enemy and to support our forces on the ground. Any colonel of infantry, cavalry or artillery, or a good wing commander in the Royal Air Force, will help you sort that problem out rather quickly.
I know the Minister will not like me for saying it, but the mythical A400 is almost a joke. You say it is due to arrive in 2011. At my age, I cannot promise that I will be here to see it, but I shall do my best. It is bound to be delayed. As I have said to the Minister before, on paper it is a very average aircraft. You have the perfectly marvellous C17s; you have good and improved C130s; you are only keeping the A400 contract to be seen to be active in Europe. That is the reason. Putting it bluntly, it is sucking up to the French and the Germans to say that you are participating in this great project. You would have been far better, as you suggest—I hope that you will—to think again and reconsider the position. There are not many decisions in the White Paper; it is more "considering" and "looking at". Why not go for the C17? Why not improve the situation you have already?
Finally, I am very worried about the sentence that we will carry out large-scale operations if we have time to prepare. There is not often time to prepare. As you quite rightly write, our troops have to be taught about the effects of the defeat and the destruction of an enemy. That is needed—but that is what the troops today are not being taught.
6.20 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the debate. I remind the House that I have a peripheral interest.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred to the A400M aircraft. I agree with his comments, but it would be a little more effective if he were to address the House rather than the Minister.
Ministers trumpet the increase in defence expenditure in absolute terms, but surely the true measure is the percentage of GDP spent on defence. How do we draw the guns and butter curve? We may be in danger of following our continental partners in their defence effort, or lack of it.
Feedback from the defence industry is depressing. Concerns centre on delaying the implementation of programmes—in particular, the cost of maintaining bid teams. Defence contractors are becoming increasingly concerned that, in the end, no contract may be issued, despite the considerable expense of bidding for it.
514
Many noble Lords have referred to Op TELIC. Op TELIC 1 was undoubtedly an extremely successful operation. On the logistics side, in comparison to Op GRANBY—Gulf War one—we moved twice as much materiel in half the time. I see that the Minister is nodding.
Of course, there were disappointments, which are well known, and which noble Lords have covered. There were problems with stocks of materiel. For operations of a large scale or effort, it is clearly unwise to hold large stocks of materiel that may never be used. But, in transition to war, certain precursor materials may suddenly be in very short supply. An obvious example is activated charcoal. There are others that we need not know about. Perhaps we need to let some contracts to secure the precursor materials and facilities in advance.
Noble Lords have referred to the NAO report, which suggested that intra-theatre communications systems were satisfactory. Whoever wrote that has obviously not tried to use the Ptarmigan secure radio system or to have a conference call.
I believe that many members of the Armed Forces will be extremely grateful for the very thoughtful and informed contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who remarked on the wide range of skills of very junior soldiers, especially in the aftermath of conflict. She may be interested to know that at one point in operation TELIC, soldiers undertook "helmets off" policing and social duties, while in another part of the division, heavy armour was still being used aggressively, although not necessarily in anger. We were in two very different phases at the same time. I am pleased that that does not present a problem for our soldiers for the reasons described by the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness also referred to the operational welfare package. She was quite right. The only difficulty that I had was with the absolute drivel coming from the satellite TV set. At one point we were being told that the operation was facing logistical meltdown—something that we in the logistic headquarters of 1(UK) Armoured Division were totally unaware of.
My final point on Op TELIC is that in the run-up we kept hearing that war was neither imminent nor inevitable. That was not my understanding even at the time. However, I was a little surprised when I got out into theatre to find out how far matters were advanced. It was a mystery to me why there was no overt activity regarding Op TELIC in the defence community, particularly in December. I do not understand Ministers' strategy. Why were they saying up until the last moment that war was neither imminent nor inevitable? Why did they not press the buttons in the defence community to ensure that the right kit was in place?
The 3(UK) Division will have a mechanised brigade replaced by a light brigade, and 1 (UK) Armoured Division is to have an armoured brigade replaced by a mechanised brigade. The formation readiness cycle—FRC—is already a bit ragged, due to the operational tempo. Do the changes make the FRC dead or unworkable? If not, what will happen if it is desired to

515
undertake an operation at a high intensity but a medium scale of effort, but there is no armoured brigade on high readiness year?
The White Paper proposes lighter, more rapidly deployable forces. I think that the deployability of armoured vehicles by air is an overstated requirement, although some air-portability is obviously essential. As a result of the SDR, we now have rapid and effective sea lift.
My noble friend Lord Vivian referred to FRES—future rapid effect system. Our AFV programme seems to be subject to constant revision. Is FRES a platform or a concept? If it is a platform—a vehicle on the drawing board—is it tracked or wheeled? Is it conventionally driven or electrically driven?
On the subject of carriers, I reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Luke. Making carriers a little smaller will save minimal capital because the steelwork in a carrier is a relatively small proportion of the actual cost of building it, and an even smaller part of the whole life cost of the carrier. But it will significantly reduce the flexibility of the carriers in future years.
My final points concern manning. During Op TELIC we were desperately short of simple lorry-mounted infantry— just like the TA battalions that were cut in the strategic defence review. On Op TELIC we were unable properly to secure our rear areas. Numerous weapons and ammunition dumps operated by the Iraqi army had to be left completely insecure. The 1 UK armoured divisional support group had 1,000 personnel in theatre, but there was no dedicated guard force available. Even busy staff officers below the rank of major had to go on guard. Fortunately, I was a major.
Cuts in infantry are the last thing we need. I cannot help thinking that the cuts are in response to the feeling that it is impossible to man the Army to the current authorised limit, so the solution is to reduce the establishment. I suggest that such a policy is madness. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, was a little more diplomatic. It is madness because to reduce the numbers in the Armed Forces will exacerbate overstretch and retention problems. If the Government cannot resist engaging in yet one more operation, we need a much larger Army, not a smaller one.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, when extolling the virtues of the TA, post-SDR, told us that Ministers had provided for far more TA than was required to sustain the scale of operations envisaged in the SDR. What he forgot, and what I overlooked at the time, was the need for a follow-on force—what we now know as Op TELIC 2, 3, 4, 5 and beyond.
The TA cupboard of willing volunteers is practically empty. There are virtually no TA soldiers who could be of use on Op TELIC who have not already been compulsorily mobilised. Putting aside any legal limits, how frequently does the Minister think that TA soldiers can be compulsorily mobilised? I think that he has unrealistic expectations. I would suggest no more than every five years. To do so more often would be contrary to the ethos of the TA and would drastically change it.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, there is much to welcome in the White Paper. The services need to change, and there are many examples in history of navies, armies and air forces failing when they did not adapt, restructure, equip and train themselves for new challenges. It must be sensible to take work forward on the Strategic Defence Review.
Defence planners historically have found it difficult to arrive at priorities when new threats appear in addition to those which already exist and have not gone away, and which the services must still be prepared to face. We have to plan for the unexpected. The Falklands War, the first Gulf War, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan were not expected, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that we are now entering a more stable decade and that we will not have to react quickly to the unexpected again. The only certainty is that there will be uncertainty, and the British must be prepared.
The White Paper sensibly judges that more emphasis should be placed on light forces as opposed to our heavy armoured forces. It rightly reminds us of the key role the reserves can play and have played recently. Their contribution in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been immense.
The Civil Contingency Reaction Forces are important and desperately needed. The White Paper gives them the priority they deserve.
The White Paper also rightly seeks to reorganise and improve the logistic system and support services. One wonders, if the Iraq war had gone on for much longer, how we would have managed logistically.
Although I approve the thrust of the White Paper, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, I have serious concerns. It does not attempt to go into detail—that is promised at a later time. Will the aspirations in the White Paper be properly funded? As has already been said, it is, as it stands, a bland document and lacks detail. It is full of buzz words and platitudes—flexibility, force multipliers, network-enabled capability. What does it actually mean? Everybody gives me a different answer.
It is difficult to judge whether the White Paper will eventually be good for defence and the country. Does the defence budget have the wherewithal to deliver the necessary coherent programme? Many in the services believe that it will lead to painful cuts; the White Paper is positioning defence in such a way as to make it vulnerable to Treasury assault.
Will there be less money for defence? In the debate on the Queen's Speech, I asked whether the defence budget was under extreme pressure, and whether it was true that around £1 billion savings per year for four years was planned. Nothing I have heard since has reassured me. I asked if this was correct and, if so, was it because of miscalculations or increased and unexpected commitments because of the new resource

517
budgeting system. Are the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury at loggerheads about the interpretation of accounting rules and procedures, as many say, or is it simply straightforward cuts? I would be very interested to hear the true position from the Minister.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, did not clearly answer my full question about whether there were plans to cut the budget, as was rumoured, and what the size and the reasons for the problem were. She pointed out that a promised £3 billion increase, announced in the spending review of 2002, was still happening. This is welcome, but, quite honestly, it is wearing a bit thin. Much of the £3 billion was ring-fenced and it has made no difference to the lives of the sailors, soldiers, airmen and women in the front line. Many still live in slum-like conditions; they are denied resources and are overstretched. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, explained this so well.
Around 50 per cent of combat arms training has been cut this year, due to lack of funds. At a time when the services could recruit, they are not allowed to recruit as many men and women as they wish, through lack of money. As a result, establishments remain unfilled, and overstretch is compounded.
We also hear that the Government are poised to cut the size of the Army the moment the situation in Northern Ireland appears normalised. This seems extraordinary, considering the overstretch problems we have. Training and families are suffering, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, described so well.
The men and women of our services are what make the British services what they are. The Government are, one hopes, aware of this, and are trying to alleviate their problems rather than compound them.
I also find it surprising that we are contributing to a European planning cell. Although it is envisaged as small, it is bound to grow in size at a time when financial and human resources are in such short supply in our services. Noble Lords should be under no illusions that the cell will have little or no military value. Its work could perfectly well be done by staff officers already in Belgium at NATO. The cell, some may think, gives political value, but even though it has no military value, defence will have to pay for it when it is faced with far, far more urgent demands. I strongly support the Europeans increasing their military capability, but the cell will do nothing towards this.
I hope I am wrong, but I and many still in the services believe that defence, despite the words of Ministers, is at a crossroads, vulnerable to serious cuts. If this does happen, the Government will be damaging what is probably the most respected institution in the world the British have. To put it crudely—I am emboldened to do so by what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has already said—I hope that when the Government announce what the promised detail is, they will reveal they have put their money where their mouth is.
6.38 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it is a great privilege, but rather daunting, to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. I welcome the White Paper, although I wonder whether, in 10 years' time, we will be able to say that the Government got it right.
First, I must declare a couple of interests. I am Honorary Colonel of the Royal Irish Rangers, the TA infantry battalion for Northern Ireland. I am also a member of the National Employer Advisory Board, which is part of the SaBRE campaign. My chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is sitting opposite, so I will be careful about what I say. In addition, I have done 22 years in the armed services, of which 17 were in Northern Ireland. That had a connection with a part-time element, which will have some relevance when I talk about reserves.
What we have in the White Paper is a commonsense reaction to the current threats of today's security environment, but that is all. The people of this nation have a right to expect our Government to plan for the present threat and the type of operation likely during the next few years, but we also expect to see some joined-up thinking with the Foreign Office to take us into the medium and longer term. I am disappointed that there is no reference to foreign policy as such, except strategic planning.
I find the White Paper and the supporting essays good light reading. There is nothing in them dramatically new to anyone who keeps themselves up to date with current affairs, particularly military affairs. Essay 2 contains terms such as "military tasks", "strategic tasks" and "strategic effects". Paragraph 2.5 refers to eight strategic effects that the Armed Forces should be able to bring to bear against our opponents. Please note, it says the Armed Forces. They all seem relevant, except for the first, under (a) "prevent"—I think it should really say prevention.
With my military experience in Northern Ireland in supporting the civil power, I cannot agree with all these tasks. Only one out of five tasks under this heading could be considered wholly military. It is the fourth task, which could be achieved with military training to build local capacity to counter an emerging crisis. The third task of reforming the security sector is predominantly political. The other three tasks—I shall save time by not referring to them all—are, in my view, not only entirely beyond military capability but are also entirely political. For example, under the heading "Prevent", the first task is:
"Address the underlying causes of instability, such as poor governance, political repression, social inequality and economic hardship".
In the present campaign in Iraq, that took place in the 20 years before we got there and yet these are military tasks. As an Army officer, I would be extremely reluctant to think that I could do anything about that at all. Does the Minister agree with me that to involve the Armed Forces in these tasks would compromise their neutral stance and even-handedness, even if they were available to do them?

519
To emphasise the quality of our forces in Op TELIC one only has to look at the three phases of that operation. They excelled in every single one of them: first, the invasion and the battle; secondly, the immediate aftermath of guerrilla warfare, where the remaining enemy concentrated on coalition forces; and, lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the current phase of counter-terrorism and keeping the peace while some of the enemy target, intimidate and kill their own nationals. That is the dividing line between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and that is where we are now.
The key to achieving such successful results is good preparation, planning and command. However, we must remind ourselves that the critical phase of counter-terrorism and keeping the peace is largely a section task with corporals and privates. We need the hearts and minds programme and campaign and we need soldiers on the ground who have the ability to achieve results. They are vital and irreplaceable.
That brings me to manpower and the reserves. We are all aware of the shortfalls in manpower and skills in the Regular Army. It is evident at all levels from intelligent private soldiers to plastic surgeons. I want to give the Government a serious warning about future manpower levels, especially of the reserves. As I said earlier, the Government are thinking short-term, about our current operations. I am not ignoring the supply of ever more sophisticated equipment, but in this type of operation nothing will ever entirely replace intelligent, well-trained soldiers on the ground who can speak and negotiate with locals. Everyone from commanders on the ground to the Government has emphasised that the support of the reserves was vital to Op TELIC and that continued support is required in the foreseeable future.
The results of compulsory mobilisation of the reserves have been nothing short of remarkable and continue to be a success. We must realise that this has been done by intelligent mobilisation; that is, the mobilising of the people with the right skills and those who were most likely to be available in the first tranches. We have to ask whether this is sustainable in the short term and in the medium term. Several issues have a bearing on this. The first is the Reserve Forces Act that limits compulsory mobilisation for an individual to once in three years. The second is the trained strength of the Territorial Army. The third is employers and the fourth is the families. I believe it may be just sustainable in the short term, if you take the short term to be the three years—one cycle of compulsory mobilisation under the Reserve Forces Act.
The issues here are, first, intelligent mobilisation. Secondly, there is no doubt that the people who have not yet been mobilised do feel a little left out and therefore there is a groundswell of enthusiasm to be included. Thirdly, there is considerable turnover in the TA, which affects it, and strength on paper does not reflect trained strength. Therefore the pool available for operations is not as large as it might at first seem.
520
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that it was almost completely exhausted; it is definitely some way towards it.
We are also talking about the medium term, further ahead than three years from February/March last year when the operation started. The Government seem to agree that we shall still have soldiers in Iraq in 2005 and probably in 2006 and 2007. Also, we cannot forget that we still have reservists forming a large part of our forces in other parts of the world. This medium term is where I have my doubts. I have already mentioned the trained strength of the TA rather than the strength on paper.
I shall mention employers briefly. They have been very supportive, but we have to understand that we are in the first three year period, the first round if you like, and we shall move into uncharted waters at the end of that period. The development of SaBRE and the National Employer Advisory Board are crucial to the future relationship of, and co-operation between, employers and the Ministry of Defence. I shall not go into details in recent SaBRE reports but they should be read carefully. There are issues of concern and warning signs in responses from employers. They will become more relevant as we rely ever more on our reserves.
The families have been nothing less than brilliant but again, as with employers, this is largely first time round. They could hardly be more supportive at present but therefore the trend can only go the other way, gradually perhaps. We must be aware of that.
There are issues that can be addressed. The first is the shortfall in the Regular Army. The Government and senior command seem to shy away from accepting that there are gaps in Army manning and recruiting. From what I have heard, they simply do not refer to them as being gaps and shortfalls; they say that it is all managed, that there is no need to worry; and that it will be all right on the day. It was all right on this day, but wait for the next. However, if the Regular Army were up to establishment then only certain skills and professions required in the short-term would have been mobilised: QED. I do not deny that the reserves should provide for a shortfall, which is why we have them. However, I believe that the present shortfall may be too large to replace with reserves in the period after the first three years. We did have voluntary mobilisation for some time prior to the beginning of last year and that still has some effect on those who might be called up in the near future.
The answer is staring the Government in the face. They should increase the strength of the Regular Army before the over-stretched rubber band snaps and they should provide more funds for more training for the reserve soldiers, thereby increasing the fully trained strength of the reserve.
We cannot be certain of the reaction of employers to repeated mobilisation within the terms of the Reserve Forces Act. They are giving tremendous backing and I am not knocking them at all. They have been brilliant. My experience with part-time forces at home in Northern Ireland was that, about half way through our 30 years of trouble, some employers, including

521
government departments such as the education authority and the housing executive, of which I have personal experience, became reluctant to continue to let people off. That is a fact—it is not fiction—and it will creep in to some extent; not very greatly, I hope. We must be aware of it.
The families are especially crucial. I cannot see any direct reference to them in the reserve forces part of the essays or the White Paper. I think that it is unforgivable. Beware the second time around if we do not look after them properly. It may not be the same.
I have another point on the employers and families. Much could be done, and I shall make one suggestion. Employers already see the value of Territorial Army soldiering to themselves at the present level, but we should not get carried away by trying to tell them that it will benefit a skilled worker and his business to send him into an area of conflict up to once every three years. It will benefit neither the employee nor the employer in business terms if we demand too much too frequently. We will lose their backing.
The Government and MoD should be down on bended knee to the employers and families, recognising that there is little or no added value to them in future in a greatly increased commitment. Employers and families of mobilised personnel should be treated in a privileged manner. For instance, they should be provided with more privileged information about an operation than appears in the Evening Standard or other newspapers or on the airwaves. It is very simple; we are not talking about secrets. Someone cannot be proud of his links with those on operations if those with no connection whatever know more than he does, by virtue of reading a later edition of a newspaper or listening to the latest news broadcast. With modern technology, I am sure that we can do better.
I hope that the Government take notice of this debate, not merely in replying, but in the months to come.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, there seems to be a misunderstanding among noble Lords, and perhaps among Members of another place. It was always intended to use the TA extensively on operations at the large scale of effort.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I entirely accept that and support it. My remarks were really about going into overstretch. I deleted certain parts of my speech as a result of other excellent speeches, and it would have been inappropriate for me to go through the whole story.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to hear how many noble Lords have sought to take note of the passing of Peter Hardy. Like my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, I arrived in the other place on the same day as Peter Hardy and in this place on almost the same day as he did. I like to think of him as a very great friend. I shall always remember him as a man of courage, courtesy and humour who was always very loyal to his friends. I shall miss him very much indeed.
522
On another personal note, I must say how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, back with us today. He tried very hard to give me a hard time for the first couple of years that I was in this House, but I always enjoyed our exchanges, which were conducted with great good will on both sides.
I was a little startled to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, thinks that looks of mine could have any effect on his happy temperament. However, as he referred to me in the context of American policies, perhaps I ought in self-defence to assure him that, while I am a self-confessed Americanophile, I do not slavishly follow all American defence policies. I think that the Americans are quite capable of making huge miscalculations and allocating ridiculous amounts of their obviously huge resources to quite wild projects. I may not carry many noble Lords with me, but I cite in that respect the F22 programme, which is a complete and absolute waste of money, so far as the Americans are concerned.
I would also cite the American expenditure on ballistic missile defence. It may surprise the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I agree again with his words on the implications for this country of our following America down that path very far. The threat is not coming from ballistic missiles, but in the area of home defence. The amount of resources that the Americans are putting into ballistic missile defence compared with homeland defence is quite ridiculous. We are in danger of making much the same sort of mistake in this country, and I would like us to spend far more on intelligence. That is not an area where huge resources can be put in in 12 or 24 months; it takes a long time. One has to train people, get the language skills and so forth, but we are all deeply conscious of the difficulties that we have had in intelligence in the past few years.
There are projects on which we are spending money that we might not be. I assure my noble friend that he will receive no criticism from me if he finds it necessary to cut back on the Eurofighter programme. I was horrified to be reminded by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, that it will cost £50 million a copy. We would get far more value from it if we took the pilot out and made it into an unmanned aerial vehicle. That is not a flippant suggestion, and I commend it to my noble friend.
Then there is our old friend the A400M. I shall not say much about that today, but I shall say a little. I agreed with every syllable uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, on that subject, and I was delighted to hear him express himself so vigorously. So far as I am concerned, he was addressing not only the Minister, but the whole House, and I listened to him with great care and enthusiasm. I shall come back to the subject in a moment.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, rightly said that the Eurofighter was a Cold War project. I remember vividly, when I first arrived in the Ministry of Defence in 1976, that the then Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Beecham, came to see me. He said that AST 403 was the most pressing need

523
of the Royal Air Force at that time. AST 403 is now Eurofighter. It was going to be built with the French and optimised in the ground attack role, and would have been the Harrier/Jaguar replacement. I shall not dwell on what actually happened, as all noble Lords will know that we did not get any of that. The first tranche—it will not be cut back, so we shall be stuck with it—is unfortunately the air defence variant, which of course we need least. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if need be.
I would like the Minister's full attention to what I am about to say, as there is some conflicting evidence on the future of the C17. He has an uncorrected answer in Hansard that says that when the A400Ms arrive, they will replace the C17. I have discussed that with some of his colleagues, and there is a certain ambiguity about that. Paragraph 4.18 of the White Paper talks about our transport capability, stating:
"The core of this capability will continue to centre on the C-130 fleet, and the A400M when the latter replaces older C-130s from 2011";
we will be lucky if that happens. It goes on:
"We have already announced that we are considering the options for retaining a small force of C-17s after the A400M enters service".
About a year ago, very heavy hints were dropped that we would move from what we then had—four leased C17s—to a total force of six C17s, if we were lucky, the last two of which would probably be purchased. All we have at the moment, a year later, is a certain ambiguity. I realise that we shall move to lighter forces and I applaud that, but we will always need heavy forces. We read in the lessons from Iraq that the Challenger 2 and AS90 proved to be "battle-winning equipment". Of course, the only problem with the A400M is that, even if it arrives in 2011, it will not be able to lift either Challenger 2 or the AS90. That is why, as I am sure my noble friend realises, it is absolutely essential that we maintain the C17 capability.
Perhaps I may add to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. One of the political reasons that we are stuck at present with the A400M programme is that we cancelled the MRAV; we cancelled the "Horizon" frigate. We decided that we have been bad boys enough and that we should be spanked by the French and the Germans if we were to pull out of the A400M programme. That is based on political rather than military reasons.
On UAVs, our contribution in Iraq was extremely effective. But we had an appalling attrition rate. We lost about 25 per cent of UAVs in a campaign which lasted only about three weeks. Obviously one cannot sustain that attrition rate. We have far too small an inventory of UAVs and far too few capabilities. In that field we have been left behind by many other countries. I hope to have a briefing on the subject. I feel strongly about it. When I first went to the MoD in 1976 I asked about UAVs. They patted me on the head and said that a chap called Duncan Sandys was asking about them. Nothing has ever happened. I went back in 1997 and again it was said that a chap called Duncan Sandys was asking about them. Eventually they have been
524
taken seriously. They are no longer treated as a joke but I do not think that they have any serious thrust behind them as a ministry-wide programme.
I used one other set of initials the second time I arrived at the MoD. I referred to NLWs. To this day those initials are guaranteed to produce a blank look on the faces of most MoD officials. I am sure your Lordships are all aware that NLWs are non-lethal weapons. We shall find ourselves needing more non-lethal weapons of the kind we have had for some time in Northern Ireland—rubber bullets. There are no serious signs that the MoD has a dedicated corps of people looking at NLWs. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. There is a tendency to regard them as rather foppish and effeminate things. In the United States they are the property of the United States Marine Corps, which is hardly a collection of wimps.
I fully realise my own limitations in talking about personnel matters because when I was in the MoD I dealt with equipment. I am much impressed by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean. We are delighted that she is off the leash at last. I hope that we shall hear from her in totally uninhibited form in future debates. There is nothing in the Defence White Paper on the long-term demographic problems facing the Ministry of Defence, which will have to appeal for new recruits for an ever-shrinking workforce, although as the noble Baroness said rightly and fairly it has had some success with recruitment. That is an issue that the MoD will have to face up to. I hope that the Minister can tell us that the MoD is looking at least 20 years ahead and has people with some ideas on what they will do about it. There is not a word about the issue in the Defence White Paper. In the long run that is the most serious problem that the MoD faces.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, as with any debate on defence in this House, it has been not only well informed but extremely useful. As many noble Lords have said, we are grateful to the Government for providing time so early. We hope that this is not just a debate and that the Minister will learn from the remarks made today.
I join with noble Lords who have paid tribute to Peter, Lord Hardy of Wath. Like the noble Lords, Lord Gilbert and Lord Clark of Windermere, I entered the House of Commons on the same day in 1970. In the 1970s, I shared an office with Peter Hardy and got to know him extremely well. I also served with him on the Defence Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union, one of the places where he developed a knowledge of and interest in a number of defence issues. He was a considerable parliamentarian and a considerable friend of the Armed Forces of this country. We shall all miss him.
In many ways, this is a new concept for a White Paper. It does not spell out policy. That is what we expected White Papers to do; and they did so in the past. Instead it gives a broad and often over-detailed analysis of current thinking among military analysts.

525
It has been described by some today as more of an essay than a White Paper in the traditional form. Nevertheless, it is welcome as a point of reference from which to start the important discussion of the country's needs for defence in the years ahead. We have started that debate effectively today in this House.
My second major concern with the White Paper is that it lacks any satisfactory appreciation of costs. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, when opening from the Opposition Front Bench. When I saw the White Paper I was reminded of that brilliant remark of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he worked for Sir Alec Douglas-Home in preparation for the 1964 general election. He unkindly—I say that with apologies to the Benches opposite—described the Labour Party's manifesto as the menu without the prices. The phrase could well describe the White Paper we are considering today.
It is clear that the wish list which exists in the White Paper is unaffordable without a considerable rise in budgetary allocations which shows no sign of coming from the Treasury. As the Chief of Defence Staff said in his lecture at the RUSI just before Christmas, this means that there are tough choices to be made. if the Government have not yet made those choices, Parliament needs to take the opportunity, and subsequent opportunities in another place, to make its views known.
Clearly. the issue much in discussion today—the balance of commitments, capabilities and costs for our Armed Forces—has taxed successive governments since the mid-1980s. In the early 1990s, at the end of the Cold War, the noble Lord, Lord King, when Secretary of State—he much regrets that owing to a previous engagement he cannot be with us today—made a bold effort in the light of the newly reduced security commitments to cut unnecessary capabilities and thus try to bring costs into balance. However, as it became clear that first the Balkans and now Iraq were to become longterm commitments in addition to Northern Ireland, his successors have carried out less successful attempts to juggle new commitments while reducing costs. A number of the problems which have dogged our military for a long period stem from measures taken in the mid–1990s. The Defence Medical Services problem, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred, is perhaps best known. It fell because of mistakes which were made at that time. I was encouraged to hear that some of the problems are now coming out. It has taken a long time.
Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, conducted a well received review when the present Government came into office. Yet it should not be forgotten that capabilities were cut even in that Strategic Defence Review and there was no more money for defence even at the time of the SDR. Since then we have seen the commitments for our forces continue to rise—Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and still Northern Ireland and the Falklands. But we have also seen the threat to our territory increase radically. The terrible attacks on Washington and New York in 2001 have given us a new and urgent security problem to add to the growing
526
security problems from proliferation, international crime and regional instabilities. On any logic, these increased commitments—some of them volunteered by the Government—coupled with the increase in threat, would require increased resources. Since 1997 the Government have maintained defence spending almost level in real terms if one includes the promised increases. This may be better than their predecessors, but it is the cause of the current difficulties. Either commitments need to be reduced or budgets need to rise significantly across the range of security activities. If neither happens, as is almost certain, choices will be made about which capabilities to sacrifice in order to balance the books. These tough choices had better be well thought out and they had better be well thought through as the possible consequences of thinking badly could be serious.
The first responsibility of any government is the security of their own people. The White Paper makes that clear. In bold letters on page 4, it states:
"To deliver security for the people of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories by defending them, including against terrorism".
But what does the White Paper go on to say about this defending role? On page 8, paragraph 3.8, it states:
"The safety and security of the population of the UK is the responsibility of the Home Office and similar bodies in the devolved Administrations".
Really? Are we to understand that the £25 billion cash, or the £32 billion new resource budgeting money, spent on defence each year is to be almost exclusively focused on activities outside these islands? Is that one of the tough choices that has already been made? It is not a semantic point. If the Ministry of Defence sees the defence of the UK territory as primarily a Home Office function, it is scarcely surprising that it makes expeditionary warfare its priority. We need to look at that in a more considered way, including the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, about resources devoted to intelligence.
I wonder now how we should proceed. We need a second White Paper and we need it soon. It will need to do what successive White Papers have alluded to but never totally achieved: to consider security in the wider sense. We all know—and it has been referred to many times today—that vital and excellent as our Armed Forces are, they are only one component of an increasingly complex security picture. We need, first and foremost, to consider again the immediate threats facing the United Kingdom. They do not come from missiles, imaginary or otherwise, at 45-minute notice from Iraq, but from suicidal extremists who could act in our own country. We need to address the longer-term threats from proliferation, instability, crime, terrorism, refugees, corruption, disease and the many vulnerabilities of our technological societies. It may be that the United Kingdom has a greater contribution to make in the use of its Armed Forces in conflict prevention, nation-building and counter-insurgency. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred to our effectiveness in some of those areas.
The United States clearly has the resources and includes research and development money in order to equip itself for high-tech offensive operations. The

527
question which we must begin to ask is whether we should always try to emulate the US in miniature. We could always buy equipment off the shelf if the need arises. What we cannot buy is experienced, trained troops. We must not repeat the mistakes of the Defence Medical Services. Each specialisation has a critical size. Err on the side of caution lest you destroy our very special people capabilities in a number of these specialisms. If we are not prepared to spend more money now, let us spend money on the long-lead items; well trained people in the military. On the other hand, when it comes to procurement issues, let us be careful that there are no sacred industrial cows, whether they are national, European or any other variety.
If the Minister takes only one message from this debate, it should be the respect which exists throughout the House for the people of our Armed Forces and the feeling that has been expressed on all sides today for the need for proper financial provision to be made for them. That is the most important investment we can make in the future of the defence of these islands.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, which was to be expected given the distinguished and informed list of speakers. I join the Minister and other noble Lords in paying tribute to the late Lord Hardy of Wath. As my noble friend Lord Luke said, he was an excellent chairman of our defence group. I was privileged to share his company on a number of group visits. His wise counsel will be sorely missed in defence debates.
I am also sorry that my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth had to withdraw from the debate as her contribution would have been outstanding. We wish her a speedy recovery. But it is a great pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Burnham back in his place. His speech brought back happy memories—and some less happy—of my time at the Guards' depot.
We are debating the White Paper against the backdrop of a significant military success in Iraq and I pay tribute to all those who have contributed, and continue to contribute, to our military operations. Our thoughts are with those families suffering the pain of bereavement.
Many noble Lords have made the point that the White Paper is short on detail. It will do nothing to remove the sense of apprehension that hangs over Britain's servicemen and women. They worry that the Chancellor is preparing to take an axe to defence spending—shrinking fleets and culling ancient regiments—at a time when threats are greater than ever.
There is a real danger that the capability of the Armed Forces may be reduced rather than enhanced in the short and medium term by the Government's implementation of network-enabled capability and effects-based operations. They are designed to allow our Armed Forces to do more with less, not less with less. The drive for cost savings must not come at the expense of capability.
528
The air defence capability of the Royal Navy will be significantly diminished by the combination of the phasing out of the Sea Harrier and the service lives of six Type 42 destroyers being reduced by one year. Will the Minister confirm the mothballing of four additional Type 42 destroyers, as reported last week in the Daily Telegraph?This seems odd. Around £26 million was spent on getting HMS "Nottingham", an older Type 42, back from the rocks of Australia and repaired. Yet the first of their replacements, the Type 45—HMS "Daring"—is not expected in service until later 2007, a date the MoD has itself said is challenging. The next ship of the class will not be in service until 2009. So the Navy will again shrink in size in the next five years.
The White Paper's enthusiasm for lighter, more flexible forces is sensible, but, as my noble kinsman Lord Vivian said, it would be dangerous to reduce too much of the Army's heavy weaponry. Yet cuts seem likely to be made many years before the new generation of equipment can be put in place. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, said during the White Paper Statement, we need reassurance that reductions in our front line will not happen until the new generation of equipment can be put in place.
We will have to get used to a new terminology for military operations and a new way of thinking about combat. Bandwidth of communications will be at least as important as bullets. Combatants will need rapid and reliable access to megabytes of data, as well as the normal offerings of the logistics supply chain.
I hope that the Minister has allowed for generous bandwidth on Skynet 5. Between the first and second Gulf Wars, the US military found that its bandwidth requirements—that is, the rate of demand for digital data—had increased sevenfold. That trend is certain to continue. Yet, according to an article published this month in Jane's Defence Weekly, UK high-level strategic communications collapsed at key points during the Iraq war last March and April because of equipment failures and inherent structural weaknesses in the UK's military networks.
The successful and timely implementation of network-enabled capability will depend on the efficiency of the defence procurement process. Here there is growing reason for pessimism about the ability of the Defence Procurement Agency to deliver major equipment programmes to budget and within a reasonable timescale.
Let us take the future integrated soldier technology (FIST). From initial gate to full operating capability in 2014 is an astonishing 14 years—faster than Bowman or Eurofighter, it is true, but still lamentably slow. Or let us take the future rapid effect system (FRES), mentioned by my noble friend Lord Attlee. The Defence Procurement Agency's website for FRES, under "latest news", states simply:
"There is currently no available news".
That is a worrying indicator of the Government's commitment to that important armoured vehicle platform.

529
The Apache is late, over budget and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, some are already mothballed. We on these Benches strongly agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, about C17s and the A400M.
I wish my noble friend Lord Luke a very happy birthday. He addressed the important issue of the two projected carriers. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned UAVs. What plans are there for the urgent operational requirement for a UAV to replace Phoenix, whose stocks are fast depleting and will not be replaced?
There is also growing pessimism about reductions in defence research expenditure. In 1990, the Conservative government were spending about £1 billion on defence research; last year, the Government spent only about £450 million. The White Paper places enormous emphasis on the need to develop technology to promote network-enabled capability. As it is universally accepted that today's technology is a product of yesterday's research investment, I hope that the Minister will tell the House what resources the Government will be ploughing into research to produce that all-important technology.
Why is there reluctance to commit to capital expenditure on the Armed Forces? The answer lies in the Treasury's own spending figures. Comparing two periods of three years each, 1997–2000 and 2003–06, is revealing. Over those two periods, capital expenditure on central government administration is set to rise by 560 per cent to almost £6 billion. Defence capital expenditure, on the other hand, will fall by 14 per cent to £3.25 billion. I hope that the Minister will address the question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, in the debate on the gracious Speech, and asked again today by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent: whether the Treasury want £1 billion of defence savings each year for the next four years.
There is also the important issue of resources, especially intelligence, and of homeland defence, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. The Ministry of Defence is failing to look after its most precious commodity—its people. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, touched on the problem that servicemen are experiencing with the NHS. Barracks at home and abroad for all three services are a disgrace. When the Army recently surrendered some barracks for conversion for asylum seekers, they were deemed to need an expensive upgrade before being acceptable to Kosovans or Afghans. Why should our soldiers be expected to inhabit quarters such as those?
Although the improvement programme for single living accommodation—project SLAM—will alleviate that, it is regrettable that it is spread over 10 years and will annually deliver only an average of 1,100 single rooms for junior ranks. What plans are in place for improvements to married quarters for all ranks?
The White Paper mentions the new pension and compensation arrangements. I look forward to scrutinising constructively the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill with my noble kinsman when it reaches this House.
530
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and my noble friend Lord Lyell mentioned recruitment. As a result of the violent assault by the Treasury, the Army appears to have frozen some recruitment. Can the Minister confirm that? In the United States, members of Congress from both parties are pushing for the first significant increase in size of the active duty military for 16 years. The bipartisan sentiment is that the Pentagon does not have sufficient well rested, well trained troops for an emergency.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who is certainly not a "has been". touched on overstretch. Overstretch is leading the British Army to face a steady loss of the crucial battle-winning skills that it needs. It is hardly surprising that Colonel Tim Collins, the former commander of the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, is resigning.
My noble kinsman pointed out that 94 per cent of exercises were lost last year, and my noble friend Lord Lyell spoke of the training problems of the 1st Batallion, Scots Guards. Constant interruption of training will inevitably lead to a gradual decline in professional standards that could lead to a catastrophic failure in operations and high casualty levels.
Several noble Lords mentioned the NAO report. We must not lose sight of the report's statement that overall, Operation TELIC was successful, especially in its deployment. Overall, performance of equipment was good. But it is scandalous that insufficient sets of body armour and other vital life-saving equipment were distributed in theatre, greatly endangering our soldiers and, in the case of Sergeant Roberts of the Royal Tank Regiment, costing his life.
The report criticises the lack of post-war planning and reconstruction. We have pressed the Government on that issue several times. Can the Minister confirm that greater co-ordination in planning is taking place between the department, the FCO and DfID?
Many noble Lords mentioned the valuable role played by the reserve forces, but I noticed that the Minister did not. We welcome attempts to send out full units of TA, albeit small ones. If they train together, they argue, they should fight together. In total, 8,000 reservists of all types were mobilised for Operation TELIC and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, were vital to its success. A quarter of forces currently in Iraq are territorials. Why, then, are our reservists not getting a fair deal?
TA officers have been warned of significant cutbacks due to the change in MoD accounting policies mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Many officers and soldiers in theatre say that they will leave the TA when they return because the MoD is not matching their civilian pay when mobilised. Pay is topped up to meet his or her civilian salary, but that is subject to a cap. The cap was modest when set and has not been increased since 1996. British reservists in Iraq are discovering that their pay and conditions are significantly worse than those of their American counterparts. An American

531
reservist does not pay income tax when serving overseas and can earn pension entitlements and contributions towards college fees or receive up to 20 thousand dollars to pay off a student loan. A British reservist receives none of those benefits.
As my noble friend Lady Cox said, our Armed Forces represent the very best of our men and women, and continue to bring credit to us, at home and abroad. But if they are to continue to attract and retain, not just the numbers required, but also the quality, we must ensure that they are trained and equipped to the highest standards and treated fairly. We must not take our Armed Forces for granted.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it has indeed been an excellent debate; I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that he hoped that the Government would take note of the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, suggested that they could learn from it. I agree with both those sentiments; the debate has been so good that I think the Hansard that is produced after it will be looked at and read in the Ministry of Defence in the coming months and years.
I will be generous to the two opposition parties, as it is still too early in this Parliament to put them on the spot by asking them what are their defence policies and how they differ from those of Her Majesty's Government. It would not be fair of me to ask them today, but I would have liked to have heard a whisper about what the opposition parties stood for and what they propose to do when they win the next general election, as they no doubt believe they will—whether it will be a khaki election, I do not know. I put the opposition parties on warning, even in this House, that we on this side, having quite rightly taken a lot of criticism with a little praise, will wish to know what they will do when or if they get into government—that includes how much money they will spend on defence. Not only do I ask that question; many noble Lords who spoke from the Cross Benches and the Back Benches on either side will want to know the answer, as will the Armed Forces and the public.
The past five years have heralded this almost unprecedented era of change in our security environment. The shadow of the Cold War, which for the best part of the lifetime of most noble Lords determined the shape of our Armed Forces, has thankfully drawn back from Europe. But, far from it being the end of history, as we were promised and as too many believed, new and very dangerous challenges emerged to take the Cold War's place. We have had to deploy further afield and more frequently to conduct a more varied range of tasks than previously envisaged. The threat that we face is more uncertain, and that trend is set to continue. We need a defence policy that enables us to rise to those challenges as we have in the past.
The White Paper is a government document. Those who try to draw divisions between various departments of state in the Government will not
532
succeed—this is a government-agreed White Paper. It sets out the case for Armed Forces that are flexible, agile, rapidly deployable and capable of delivering even more precise military effect. My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere was right in mentioning the word "flexibility"; it is the critical word, if there is one, in the White Paper. But, whatever our planning, ultimately it is the Armed Forces—our people—who deliver military success. As has been said throughout the debate, they deliver it magnificently time and again. We must therefore equip them as best we can and maximise the effects of what we already have. The corollary of that is that they need to dispense with systems and structures that are no longer as effective as they once were.
As the Government have made clear, work continues in the Ministry of Defence to translate the White Paper into an appropriate force structure and future investment programme. A series of work streams is studying different aspects of military capability and their associated overheads. We will make announcements, and the House will hear of the results of that work later this year.
Several noble Lords made the point—I shall not express it as strongly as "complained"—that the White Paper is long on policy aspiration and a bit short on the details of implementation—I look particularly at the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent. As I attempted to make clear earlier, we believe that the White Paper sets out the policy baseline against which decisions regarding the Armed Forces will be made in future. Much ongoing activity in the department is aimed at working out in its detailed form the force structure that we need. It would be inappropriate and wrong to go into detail before that work is completed. We aim to make further announcements later.
I wish to make one thing clear: the White Paper is not an exercise about cutting defence; rather, we see it as modernising our Armed Forces and their supporting infrastructure appropriately to meet the changed strategic environment outlined in it. The work must be seen in the context of the increased resources that were made available to the Ministry of Defence in the 2002 spending round.
I was asked about the Ministry of Defence's relations with the Treasury. It is a fair question that I suspect has been asked in this House and in another place for generations past, when some noble Lords who spoke today had great responsibility in running the Armed Forces. The answer today is the same as it was then: we work extremely closely and well with the Treasury, which has been a great supporter, particularly on Iraq. It made helpful and large payments of money so that we could do our duty in that country. We work closely with the Treasury, as is absolutely appropriate. There is no crisis. We must deal with fluctuating financial pressures and ensure that we can live within our budgets; it has been ever thus. There is no doubt that the resource accounting and budgeting approach has an impact. We have had to adjust to that during the first year, a consequence of which has been a higher cash spend than originally anticipated. It is therefore natural that the MoD

533
should carry out a significant examination of defence costs and capabilities. The aim of the exercise is to reduce costs, especially overheads, and, importantly, to allow us choice and flexibility in meeting the priorities of the White Paper.
Many issues have been raised during the debate. I shall try to answer as many as I can, limiting myself to 20 minutes, which may be too long for some. Where I cannot provide a full answer now, I will attempt to write to noble Lords with the answers.
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Astor, has not heard me praise the reserves previously; I think that I have done so on many occasions. If I have not, it is my fault, but I certainly do on this occasion. They are an integral part of the UK's military capability for operations at home and overseas. As TELIC showed, when mobilised, they face exactly the same risks as their regular counterparts and have more than met the challenge demanded of them. We now have to continue the process of development, which started with the SDR, to confirm the contribution of the reserves to all types of operation and to ensure that the correct measures are in place for their support. Achieving this will involve engaging with reservists. their employers and the wider community.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Luke—who I too congratulate on his birthday—and the noble Lord. Lord Astor of Hever, all mentioned decisions or otherwise that they believe have been taken about ships and the Royal Navy. One should not believe all that one reads in the newspapers, even in the Daily Telegraph. The newspaper reports are similar to ones that you and I may have seen in years past, during the annual planning round. Every time there is a spate of stories about possible changes to existing plans, it is pointless and meaningless to fuel that speculation by commenting in detail, and I certainly do riot plan to do so. We are focusing on modifying and adapting our Armed Forces, including the Royal Navy, to ensure that they are best placed to respond to a changing strategic environment.
There is an extremely exciting new naval programme on the books, which, if I may claim praise, originated with this Government. Two aircraft carriers—and I hope to come to them in a short while—Type 45s and other ships will be procured. That is an exciting programme, which has done something to restore the position—never of course to the grand position we were in before—of some of thiscountry's shipyards.
We remain committed to the Typhoon programme. We have a contractual commitment to purchasing 55 Typhoons in the first of three planned production tranches. A memorandum of understanding with our partner nations covers a further 89 in tranche 2 and 88 in tranche 3. Discussions with the four nation members and with industry regarding tranche 2 are taking place now. Given the obvious importance of the contract, our priority is to ensure that industry's proposals for the programme are soundly based and
534
are based on appropriate levels of design maturity. Any commitment to tranche 3 does not need to be expected until 2007.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made some helpful remarks. I am sorry that he does not like the word "jointery". I am tempted to ask him where he has been all these years. The word "jointery" has been used in defence parlance for a long time, but I will try to make sure that any second edition of the White Paper reduces it so that his sensitivities are not insulted. He described the missile defence part of chapter 3.12 as being full of equivocation. I was not sure whether that was meant to be a compliment or an insult.
Lord Redesdale: A compliment.
Lord Bach: He tells me that it was a compliment. More seriously, as far as he is concerned, is the issue of civil contingency reaction forces, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also referred. He is in his place. It is significant that that force achieved a full operating capability in accordance with the timetable set out in the new chapter. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, they have been designed to enhance our ability to support the civil police and other civil authorities. Some 14 of them will be available to deploy at short notice to support the civil authorities, if asked, at the scene of an incident, be it a terrorist attack, accident or natural disaster. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that that is good news.
My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere made a point about communications, as did other noble Lords, and that point is taken on board. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his place, as is the whole House. He will be asking me a Question about court martials next week, and I look forward to that. He also mentioned something that he has concentrated on for many years: a single tri-service Act to replace the separate systems of service law that better meets the services' needs in the modern world. The next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill is due in the 2005–06 Session. We hope that that can be the vehicle for the tri-service legislation, but obviously it will be subject to the availability of parliamentary time for what will be a large Bill.
My noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde made an outstanding contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said that she would be let loose by freedom, but I do not think that she has been constrained up to now. We are all grateful for the hard work that you—I am addressing the House, I must be careful not to incur the wrath of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—have put in as chairman and as a member of the Armed Services Pay Review Body. The delivery of recommendations that are fair to service personnel and acceptable to the Government is frankly no mean achievement—thank you. Thank you also for the 2004 report, which has just been submitted to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Defence. You will not be surprised that I am unable to comment at this stage, but careful consideration will be given to all the recommendations, and we will make the announcement as soon as we possibly can.

535
A number of noble Lords, along with my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, made comments about overstretch and about personnel matters. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, talked about theses matters too. Of course, our Armed Services have been asked to do a huge amount recently. In December 2003, around 32 per cent of the Army was committed to operations, of which 20 per cent was deployed on operations. That compares with 57 per cent committed and 54 per cent deployed in late April 2003. The figure of 10 months as an expression of tour averages for infantry battalions is right, and it relates to a period between August 2002 and July 2003, which of course represented a peak of activity including not only TELIC but Operation FRESCO, which has been referred to as well. A conscious decision was taken to shorten tour intervals to accommodate those operations. However, the average tour interval for the period from January to December 2002 was 22 months.
There are big issues as far as recruitment and retention are concerned. However, last year was an exceptionally good year for recruitment. It is ridiculous to be complacent, because there are many factors working against people coming into the Armed Forces, not least of which is full employment. We must work extremely hard to make sure that people come in for what can be and is a rewarding occupation. Retention too is difficult in this day and age, but I promise that the Government will continue to do everything that they can to increase the retention figures.
In addition on the topic of overstretch, it is worth pointing out that it is precisely because some of our personnel, particularly key enablers such as engineers, signallers and logisticians, are so busy that we need to rebalance our force structure to reflect the challenges of today and tomorrow rather than yesterday. That is what we mean by reprioritisation.
I do not have much longer, so I want to move forward. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked some excellent questions about the two aircraft carriers, none of which I intend to answer this evening. He, and all of us, must wait until decisions are taken. The two new aircraft carriers represent an extremely important and exciting development for this country's defences. It is right that questions should constantly be asked about it, but I can say that the three parties—the Ministry of Defence and the two companies that were referred to—work well and closely together to move the project forward. The noble Lord must excuse me if I say no more about that.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made a fiery speech, if I may say so, in his usual manner. I make two points in reply. It is essential to match resources and commitments. I understand the real concern felt by him and others about how they may fall out of kilter or may already be out of kilter. In the decisions on force structure that we must take, we must bear in mind the necessity to match resources and commitments. I say gently and with the greatest
536
respect that I am not convinced that the noble and gallant Lord has paid enough attention to network-enabled capabilities or to the technological revolution that is occurring in the way in which wars will be fought in the future. It is critical that we are not left behind in that technological revolution. If we are, it will be our Armed Forces and our country that suffer.
I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, with answers to her queries. She was good enough to let me know beforehand what she was going to say, and I thank her for that. Many other points were made. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, made a point about the unexpected. One of the reasons for the White Paper is that we realise that we must expect the unexpected. I know that he does not like the word "flexibility"—perhaps he thinks that it is over-used—but that is why it is used. We must meet the unexpected, which may confront us every day, and that is the reason for the policy proposals that we put in the White Paper.
If he will forgive me, I shall not engage with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on the A400M, save to say that we are convinced that it is the right solution. We believe that a combination of C17 and A400M should provide a more flexible overall capability than either aircraft option alone. The noble Lord will probably agree with that, although I concede that we have our disagreements.
I thank the House for its patience and finish by saying that we cannot predict precisely when or where we will next call on our Armed Forces to deploy. We must try to put in place the right policy to ensure that, when the time comes, our Armed Forces have the inherent flexibility to deploy quickly and to conduct operations successfully in a wide range of scenarios from peace support to war fighting. The White Paper provides the policy baseline that will enable us to do so. What has been said in the House today will help us to decide whether we are right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tidal Power
7.53 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explore the potential of harnessing tidal power to produce electricity; and in particular whether they will set up a full study of the feasibility and cost of harnessing the tides in the Severn estuary.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Unstarred Question affords an opportunity for a brief debate on a subject—two subjects—that will become very important in the coming months and years. My Question is divided into two parts. The first is the general question of exploring the potential of harnessing tidal power to produce electricity. The burden of what I have to say is virtually this: the Government should give greater priority to harnessing tidal power, rather than wind power. The second part of the Question refers to a full study of the feasibility and cost of harnessing the tides in the Severn estuary.

537
An enormous amount of work has already been done, and I am virtually suggesting that the time has come for us to consider the work that has been done and bring it up to date. There is enormous reason for doing that.
As I waited in the Library, kicking my heels, until the debate, I looked up a definition of the Severn Bore in the encyclopaedia. As I did so, an extremely helpful researcher came up to me and asked whether I would like her to find it on the Net. In no time at all, she produced this document, which I shall quote:
"The Severn bore is one of Britain's few truly spectacular natural phenomena. It is a large surge wave that can be seen in the estuary of the River Severn, where the tidal range is the 2nd highest in the world, being as much as 50 feet".
That is why, at the risk of being regarded as a Severn bore myself, I come to the second part of my Question. We must look anew at the potential of the Severn estuary.
I have no expertise in this sphere, nothing like the expertise that was shown in the debate that I listened to and read, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, last Wednesday—7 January. The House discussed the generation of electricity generally in this country and pointed to the vulnerability of the system. That is the background to this debate.
In the energy White Paper, published in 2003, the Government proclaimed that 10 per cent of the United Kingdom's fuel mix for electricity generation must come from renewable sources by 2010. Later, that target was extended to 15.4 per cent by 2015. That means that renewables must multiply their contribution by 500 per cent by that date. Has wind power any chance of achieving that? Judging by the contribution to date, I would say, "Not at all". Judging by the contributions in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, the reliability of wind power-generated electricity is in doubt.
The reason why we have tended to go in the direction of wind power is the subsidy. Can the Minister tell us the amount paid in subsidies for wind generation hitherto? Are the Government satisfied with the reliability, viability and cost of that being the prime renewable source? Where does the money come from? Is it all European Union money? If so, has any attempt been made to make sure that such subsidies would also be available for research into the development of tidal resources?
As your Lordships appreciate, a great deal of research has been done into the feasibility of utilising the great potential energy of the Severn tide to guarantee electricity. There was a general report on the project, and I have a copy here. It is Energy Paper Number 57, The Severn Barrage Project. Even more important—at least, I found it more interesting—was a document published by the Institution of Civil Engineers. It held a symposium of experts to consider all the evidence that had been put before the committee investigating the matter. I should like to quote one sentence from the contribution of an expert, who I do not know at all, which sums up my view. The expert's
538
name is Mr Rydz who, incidentally, also gave evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on the same subject in 1975. He said:
"The barrage remains the only convincing large scale source of renewable energy".
I think that that is still the situation today. He continued,
"and it would be prudent in present circumstances to get 5 years closer to its possible realisation at the present estimated cost".
That was 20 years ago. I am sure that those were very wise, sensible words.
It may be helpful if I pose a number of questions to the Minister, from which one can divine my view on the matter. First, do the Government accept that the tide is a much more predictable, powerful and secure potential source of electricity generating power than the wind? Secondly, do the Government accept that the Severn estuary, with one of the largest tidal ranges in the world, is an ideal site for harnessing the major renewable tidal power to produce electricity?
I think that I am right in saying that the Government have provided a fair number of subsidies in Wales, together with the Welsh Assembly, and in Scotland, to further research on utilising tidal resources. I am sure that there have been many others. Southampton University has produced a study recently, which I read with interest. Finally, do the Government accept that the development of turbine technology and heavy engineering methods has moved on enormously since the last conclusion on the Severn barrage project took place in 1989? There has never been an era in which there has been so much available detail and practical knowledge of the likely attendant problems of developing and utilising the Severn barrage than now.
Perhaps I may give a recollection from my own experience. I have no expertise in this matter, but I acquired a certain detailed knowledge of the Severn river estuary when I was chairman—invited from outside with no expertise as such—of the international consortium which became the Severn River Crossing PLC. I saw at first hand the power of the tide in that estuary. I received the comments of engineers and visiting experts from all over the world, who pointed out that it was a shame that this great resource could not be utilised. I reflected then that we were building a great bridge across the River Severn when, certainly, it would have been feasible for the project perhaps to have been a barrage with a road across it.
It is time therefore to look anew at the whole potential and to revise our previous views. Perhaps I may now turn to the issue that, in the past, was always raised with regard to the building of a barrage; that is, the initial cost would be very high. But the cost of running an electricity-generating facility there would be very much lower than the normal electricity generating facilities because the raw material—the tidal water—is free. Therefore, the initial cost is what matters.
With regard to that matter, I should like to point out that there is a successful barrage—as most of your Lordships' will know—at the mouth of the Rance river

539
estuary in France. I think that France and ourselves were level pegging on skills and knowledge of these matters then. But France, with a far less ideal river estuary, put plans into operation. It took the decision, and now has the only major tidal generating station in operation in the world. Many of your Lordships will be aware of experimental facilities at Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia and at a plant near Murmansk in Russia. I have seen various estimates, and the Severn river barrage often has been estimated to be capable of supplying 10 per cent of the country's electricity needs, given the latest developments in technology. There has been one estimate of 20 per cent and another estimate as low as 5.6 per cent. The main stumbling block is the potential capital cost of the project. I therefore turn in particular to the question of cost. Nobody these days would sensibly start to build such a barrage simply by means of a capital sum advanced by government. Private enterprise would have to be involved and financial expertise recruited at an early stage to consider the attractions of a scheme.
I suggest therefore that if the Government decide that this matter should be explored, they take financial advice at an early stage. I have already adverted to the fact that, had it been considered in time, the main road artery between England and Wales, now supplied by the second Severn crossing, could have been supplied by building such a road across the top of the barrage. But one thing I learnt from my experience at that time was the skill needed by the financial advisers—in that case the Bank of America and Barclays ZW from Europe—in putting such a scheme together. Competing tenders had to be submitted for the building of the second Severn crossing with all kinds of different organisations competing for the franchise. The banks also investigated all the possible uses to which the bridge could be put.
Nobody would sensibly look at the building of a barrage today without questioning to what uses it could be put other than for the generation of electricity. I referred to a possible road crossing. But, depending on the siting of the bridge, investigation has to be made as to whether there is scope for another toll bridge. There may not be.
It would be necessary also to consider with Railtrack the position of the Severn Tunnel which carries the railway between England and Wales. It is a masterpiece of Victorian engineering, as are most of our masterpieces, but it is in great need of restoration in places. We know of some of the difficulties it is experiencing and when looking into the feasibility of the barrage, an investigation should be conducted by the Government—for it is a major artery of communication in this country—as to whether or not the railway could go across and thus replace the present tunnel. Those matters cannot be considered in isolation but the tendency with schemes of this kind is to consider them in isolation. The whole potential of the barrage must be investigated.
I have utilised my time. I am grateful for the opportunity of opening this short debate. I am grateful to my colleagues, and am particularly grateful to the
540
noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has come with a great sense of duty from his recent work in the defence debate.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Hooson in making the case for increased use of tidal power, in particular the possibility of a Severn estuary project. I declare an interest in that I have a son who is an engineer. He is still young but might one day perhaps become involved in such a project.
The second Severn crossing, to which my noble friend referred, was an excellent project in which he was involved. He is rightly proud of the work that was done. It is particularly appropriate that my noble friend introduced this debate tonight. Not only was he involved in the second Severn crossing, but he actually lives within earshot of the infant Severn in mid-Wales; so he sees the start and the finish.
In my younger days I used a ferry crossing from Beachley to Aust on my way to my higher education course—I hesitate to say on my bicycle, but I put my bicycle on the ferry and crossed the river when there was no bridge. On the other side I got on my bike and rode to my higher education college. I found those trips particularly interesting with the surge of the Severn.
One must acknowledge that the Severn has the second highest tide in the world with a massive volume of water moving twice daily. Of course, we must ask whether we should concentrate on producing tidal power through electricity from the Severn, or cast the net wider into the general principle of using more sources of tidal power throughout the United Kingdom. I think that a case can be made for both. My noble friend Lady Miller, who will sum up the debate for these Benches, will mention many other sources of tidal power.
Speaking as someone who comes from Wales, I can attest to the great interest being expressed in the potential to produce electricity from the River Severn. Certainly it has been discussed for some 35 years in the political movement in which I am involved and a number of proposals have been made. As my noble friend Lord Hooson said, a number of assessments have been made over the years, and the case for a feasibility study is very strong.
Both sides of the Severn estuary are accessible to large populations. A barrage could combine a road and rail link or a rail link which could eventually be plugged into the European system. Both Wales and the West Country sorely need electrically powered trains. We are falling far behind both the West Coast and East Coast main lines in that respect. Not only could this source of tidal power improve transport links, but given the proximity of industry on either side of the Severn estuary, the production of cheap electricity could put it into a much more competitive position than is the case at present. I believe that the increased economic benefits would go far beyond those derived simply from producing the electricity itself.

541
It would also be possible to site an international airport in conjunction with the development, with consequent job creation on both sides of the estuary. That proposal should be looked at as well.
However, the downside of all this—and it is a big downside—is that such a development would have a serious effect on the aquatic ecology of the Severn estuary and surrounding environmentally sensitive areas. The problems should not be underestimated.
I turn to the detail of the economic impact of developing the Severn estuary. The steel industry in south Wales is still important, although we have seen a sharp decline with no sign of an upturn. Undoubtedly, cheaper electricity would make south Wales steel much more competitive internationally. Shipping, manufacturing and service industries could all benefit and the provision of these electricity resources would create greater economic growth. By how much, we do not know, but very proficient university departments are situated on both sides of the Severn in Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol. I am sure that they would become involved in assessing the economic impact.
When considering the creation of electricity from tidal power, we are of course referring to renewable energy. It has been calculated that energy from renewable sources could provide 30 per cent of the total electricity demand in Wales. Indeed, it is calculated that a minimum estimate of 5 per cent of that electricity demand could be met by hydro power. It is a clean, renewable, 24-hour energy resource as opposed to the intermittent and unreliable supply of wind power. It is also non-polluting in terms of electricity production, but the jury would be out on the impact a barrage over the Severn would have on water pollution levels.
The environmental impact could be catastrophic if the development is not managed properly. A huge volume of water comes down the River Severn during the floods. One need only visit Gloucester, for example, during the flood season between October to the end of February to witness the enormous problems that can be created by those floods. All that has to be measured.
Further, there would be a massive impact on the salmon fisheries, although in fact they have already been devastated at sea. The River Wye has hardly any salmon in it at present, but it is hoped that European projects aimed at re-sourcing the River Wye will bring it back to its former glory. However, much better provision has to be made for the passage of migratory fish if a barrage is to be put over the River Severn. Without exception, all the ones that I know of are totally inadequate for the passage of salmon, particularly for young fish going out to sea, which are massacred in many of the fish passes. That is a big problem because it has an economic benefit which spreads throughout the hinterland of the Severn, the Wye and the River Usk, for example, on the Welsh side of the Bristol Channel.
Obviously there is the downside of a possible great loss of wildfowl nesting sites. One has to know only of the work of Peter Scott at Slimbridge to realise the
542
importance of the wildfowl nesting birds and the dependence that they have on the Severn estuary. That is a very sensitive matter indeed.
There would also be a huge impact on SSSIs on both sides of the channel, particularly in regard to wild plant species. One has only to mention the Gwent levels in an international context to realise the importance and sensitivity of many of the sites surrounding the Severn estuary.
I have stood on the Rance tidal power station in Brittany and I have been impressed by its creation and the benefits it has brought to the French economy, particularly in a part of France that has not been best known for good economic development in the past. It was a very far-sighted development.
If the barrage is to come about, its exact siting in the Severn will be absolutely crucial. Will it be upstream or downstream of Cardiff, for example, and what effect will it have? Some people say that it should go from Sully outside Barry across to a point near Bristol. in my view, that would be too low down the Severn, but a feasibility study has already been carried out on that possibility.
I should like to praise the National Assembly Sustainable Energy Group, which has proved to be one of the most successful of the Assembly cross-party groups. Last year its members set up the innovative tidal power technium to look into how Welsh tidal power can be utilised. The systems used, as advocated by Tidal Electric Limited in Swansea Bay, are ecosystem-friendly and not based on damming or barraging.
This is a huge subject and a great deal of research and development must be carried out before any conclusions can be reached. An environmental impact assessment is essential to evaluate, for example, the impact on the water ecology and surrounding areas. A cost benefit analysis is also essential in order to line up capital investment versus output, to decide over what period of time the capital will be written off and what impact that would have on the benefits. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hooson that no scheme can be contemplated without a comprehensive feasibility study.
Given the UK's commitment to the reduction of global warming at the international conferences held in Rio and Doha, and, in particular, the Kyoto protocol, the feasibility study should indicate whether massive reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases in the UK could be sustained by such a development.
There are many unanswered questions about the feasibility of the Severn project going ahead. but we cannot come to a conclusion without some very objective analyses indeed.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hooson for introducing this very interesting debate this evening. I thoroughly agree with him that we should make much more innovative use of the rise and fall of the tide in the Severn estuary than the Government intend. I am not sure whether it is the second or fourth highest in the

543
world. I understood that it was the fourth highest tidal range in the world. Nevertheless, we can all agree that its tidal range is enormous.
I disagree with my noble friend that the Severn barrage is the answer. The barrage has some of the drawbacks that my noble friend Lord Livsey referred to. Perhaps the most exciting prospect would be to harness the power of the Severn without the drawbacks that a barrage can bring.
Is the Minister aware of two designs that are at an experimental stage at present? They both harness the power of the Severn, without having the drawbacks of the barrage. The first was referred to by my noble friend when he mentioned the scheme being developed by Tidal Electric Limited—the Environment Trust. It is based on tidal lagoons into and out of which the tide flows. Both the ingoing and outgoing tide drives turbines. Some costings have been done. The cost of power from tidal lagoons is put at 2p per kWh, which compares extremely well with nuclear power which is 4p plus capital grants, offshore wind which is 5p plus capital grants, tidal barrage which is 8p plus capital grants, and onshore wind which is 2.5p to 3.5p per kWh. It is an economic form of power.
Added to that, it has low visual impact because it is only a metre high visible at high tide. It is built of natural materials. It reduces dredging requirements. It creates wildlife habitats—a point that has been backed up by English Nature. I should be interested to hear from the Minister the advice, if any, that the Government received on its potential for habitat.
It does not block navigation, nor impede fish migration. It does not change the shoreline, or damage inter-tidal habitat, and it does not change salinity. It therefore seems to have a lot going for it. The equipment life is 50 to 100 years because it has low stress. It is not experimental technology. It has been proved to the point that the Government could choose to take it on as they have taken on offshore wind power. As my noble friend Lord Hooson said, given the enormous backing that offshore wind has received, I wonder why tidal lagoon technology has not received a little more financial support from the Government.
The second example is now taking place off the coast of Lynton and Lynmouth. It is almost like underwater wind turbines, but they are underwater tidal turbines. They use the tide to drive the turbines. The one currently being used is a single turbine mounted on a single pile. The person who has pioneered those, whom I have not had the privilege of meeting, is described in Marine Scientist as the current tidal—pioneer Peter Fraenkel. He envisages that in a short time we could have a tidal turbine farm, which would be a group of double rota machines linked to shore by a single marine power cable. The community of Lynton and Lynmouth is interested in that technology. When communities are interested in benefiting from and helping to develop such schemes, what potential is there for local authorities to get some form of capital funding or help from the Government by way of loans?
544
In that way, they could start developing their own energy from which they could benefit. That sort of help would be very welcome indeed.
One of the difficulties that tidal technology has laboured against is the perception that it is stuck in the 1980s. Nodding ducks, for example, were an exciting development at the time, but the then Government did not choose to build on that work and develop it, as it was felt not to have sufficient potential. However, times have moved on.
I have already referred to Marine Scientist magazine. I was very struck by its use of language in describing the different technologies available now. I should like to give a couple of examples. The Sea Clam, the technology of the 1970s and 1980s that utilised wave power,
"had giant compressible bags held against a floating cylinder, with the wave action squeezing air out of them to drive turbines".
That was not found to be particularly effective. Now, however, in 2004,
"the Pelamis is a series of articulated cylinders tethered at the nose, so that it meets the waves nose on and generates energy from the snaking motion caused as they run down its flanks".
Not only would that be interesting to see, it is a very good example of how a scientific magazine can use quite exciting language to get its point over.
I should like to sum up my small contribution by asking the Minister whether he believes that if electricity can be generated at a cost of between 2p and 3p a unit from a non-renewable source, that is worthy of far more government investment in supporting the research and development. Once it had moved beyond the experimental stage, the Government could support communities, whether at a regional, local or national level, to develop this very important form of energy, which could supply as much as 20 per cent of our needs by 2020. The Tidal Electric people believe that by 2010 it could be supplying 10 per cent of our needs, which is the Government's target.
8.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for introducing this short debate. I just hope that the Minister takes careful note and takes action in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
It is always delightful to engage in debate with the Minister, but why is Defra's Minister responsible for sustainable energy, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, not responding tonight? I find it quite confusing about which Minister will respond, although I accept entirely that the Minister answers for Her Majesty's Government.
I found the White Paper extremely disappointing because it contained no detailed discussion of tidal power. The White Paper said that the barrage would be very expensive but there is no comparison of costs with, for instance, new nuclear build or onshore or offshore wind power. However, no other technology appears to offer such high-energy density—6 per cent of the UK demand—from one project.

545
The While Paper rightly touches on the environmental impact. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said that it could be catastrophic, and it certainly could be. But it could be positive or it could be negative, and we need to find out. No doubt the project could change habitats. If so, we need to consider whether it is desirable.
It is obviously a very expensive project, about £10 billion has been suggested. Again, there is no discussion of the cost in the White Paper. The projected cost of electricity from the project would be heavily dependent upon the discount rate and the payback period of the project. In 1999, a Select Committee of your Lordship's House suggested 7p to 8.5p per kilowatt hour, depending upon the payback period. It might seem expensive now, but it might appear to be cheap in times of energy famine.
Many large infrastructure projects do not appear to be commercially viable at the outset, but end up being highly desirable. An obvious example is the Channel Tunnel. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made important suggestions about the financing of any project. I understand that the barrage would be about 16 kilometres long, but a major cost of offshore wind power is the piles to support the turbines and the masts. There are obvious offshore engineering challenges, and erecting wind turbines on the barrage might offer significant economies of construction of wind turbines and would produce a lot of useful extra power. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also made a suggestion about replacing the Severn railway tunnel, and I have some anxieties about the long-term integrity of the tunnel.
As many noble Lords have suggested, power supplies from the tidal barrage would be extremely predictable. The difficulty is the intermittency, the off-peak cycles and the requirement for transmission enhancement. However, those difficulties apply equally to wind and are surmountable.
In the long term we may move to a hydrogen economy, and that will require very large quantities of electricity to generate the hydrogen. This would he an ideal use of off-peak power production. Tidal power would be very useful for energy-intensive industries, which could be located near the barrage—the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, mentioned the steel industry in South Wales. He also asked if we could cast our net wider than just a tidal barrage. I, too, have been briefed on tidal lagoons, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It is an interesting technology, on a smaller scale than barrages and offers less environmental impact. As she mentioned, you can have three lagoons associated with one turbine set, which evens out, but does not eliminate, the peaks and troughs of power supply. Again, there was nothing of substance on this in the White Paper.
I recently tabled some Written Questions about tidal lagoons, and I have to say that the answers from the Minister appeared to be rather unenthusiastic. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, quoted costs. It would have been useful to see such data in the White Paper,
546
with the benefit of a sanity check from the DTI because sometimes proposals are a little bit optimistic, although I am certainly not disputing her figures.
The small schemes described can easily be trialled, but a barrage cannot be trialled. We cannot test the technology; it has to work first time or the project will fail. Any barrage project will require primary legislation, particularly if we know that the environment will be altered. It will certainly require alterations to the way that the electricity market operates, which is again a matter for government policy.
Industry cannot be expected to pursue this project without at least some hope that it might come to fruition. If the Government are so set against exercising the nuclear option, they must look at alternatives. Very little else offers the energy density or the reliability of the Severn barrage. Each option must be identified as a possibility or discarded as impractical and, even then, the feasibility needs to be reviewed every decade, because the factors may have changed. In reality, that is all that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is asking for, a detailed review of the previous government's report. The noble Lord suggested bringing it up to date.
It is not my duty to decide on the feasibility of tidal power and, in particular, of the Severn barrage. However, any proposed project that could provide 6 per cent of the UK's power requirements must be studied by the Government, and very carefully.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for securing this debate. The subject is very important, and we need to be clear about the issues involved. I also want to say to the noble Earl. Lord Attlee, that the DTI is clearly responsible for all energy policy, which is why I am responsible for answering the debate.
Renewable energy is now at the heart of the Government's energy policy. In the White Paper., Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy, the Government confirmed our target of 10 per cent of UK electricity being supplied from renewable sources by 2010, and set the aspiration to double that share to 20 per cent by 2020. The main vehicle for reaching that target is the renewables obligation, under which electricity suppliers are required to supply a specified and growing proportion of their sales from eligible renewable energy sources. In addition to the support provided through the obligation, the Government have committed nearly £350 million over the next four years in capital grants and R&D for emerging technologies, including wave and tidal-stream energy.
The 10 per cent target is ambitious as we are starting from a low base. In 2002, only 1.7 per cent of the UK's electricity was generated from renewable sources eligible for the renewables obligation. The noble Lord. Lord Hooson, asked whether we had any chance of reaching the 10 per cent target. In fact, we are making encouraging progress towards meeting it. A further 2 per cent should be supplied by the wind farms which have already obtained the necessary consents. More

547
are coming through the process. The new wind farms announced last month for the second offshore licensing round, if all built, will produce a further 5.4 to 7.2 gigawatts, which is about 5 per cent of the total electricity generated. That should put us firmly on the path to meet that challenging target.
In the short term, most of the expansion in renewables will be from new wind farms, both offshore and onshore. But wind energy is only one of the forms of renewables that the Government are supporting. We are also working hard to expand and bring forward wave and tidal-stream technologies. Although those technologies are prospects for the longer term, they have huge potential to supply a significant proportion of the country's future energy needs and in turn make a significant contribution to our emissions reduction targets. I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out that they can make a substantial contribution in future.
The UK is blessed with one of the best marine resources available anywhere in the world. Our immense wave-power resource is alone estimated to be at least 120 gigawatts, which is enough to meet peak electricity demand twice over. In recognition of that potential, the Government have put in place a framework of support to help industry to develop the technologies.
Since the Government introduced a wave-energy programme in 1999, great strides have been made in the development of marine systems. We have already seen the deployment of two full-scale tidal-stream prototypes at sites in Lynmouth, Devon and the Shetlands, and we expect in the near future to see the testing of a full-scale wave-energy device at the UK's marine energy test centre in Orkney. The centre is a further example of the support provided by the Government in the marine renewable area, and will be invaluable in the commercialisation of marine energy devices.
I should say that the DTI is already supporting the project at Lynmouth through our new and renewable energy programme. It is also funding the Pelamis wave device. A full-scale prototype device is to be tested at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney later this year. We already recognise the potential, and seek to drive the agenda forward.
The level of support already committed to research and development in wave and tidal energy is in excess of £15 million and we are determined to ensure that that early progress is sustained. This has helped the UK become clear world leaders in this field and we intend that this position is maintained. The Energy Bill which is progressing through your Lordships' House at present will put in place a legal framework to facilitate wave and tidal projects beyond territorial waters when these technologies are ready to move into commercial development.
I turn now to the question of the Severn barrage which is part of the overall programme. In the energy White Paper, the Government recognise the longer
548
term potential of large scale barrage schemes. But such schemes have a substantial impact on the local and regional environment and are very expensive. We concluded that it was clear that the plans for a Severn barrage would raise strong environmental concerns and would not be fruitful to pursue at this stage. There are, therefore, no plans to set up any further study of the feasibility and costs of a Severn barrage scheme.
I recognise that that is disappointing to many noble Lords, in particular but not exclusively to those who see the barrage as a great opportunity for Wales and the south west. On the face of it, the Severn barrage has the attraction of having the potential to contribute between 5 and 6 per cent of the UK's electricity and, therefore, to achieve around a quarter of the Government's 20 per cent aspiration for renewables, much more than any other single renewable project.
But extensive research, partly funded by the Government, has already evaluated the potential for generating electricity from tidal barrages. The Severn was the largest of the potential projects studied and the total cost of the Severn evaluation programme was over £8 million of which the Government contributed £4.8 million. This programme ran from 1978 to its completion in 1994. That evaluation concluded that the cost of the Severn barrage was not attractive compared with other energy options. Potential non-energy benefits were seen as relatively small as was the potential for reducing the costs.
The case for a Severn barrage has been re-examined fairly recently and the Government have reached the same conclusion: that the project is not attractive compared with other options. In July 2001 the Government commissioned the Severn Tidal Power Group, an industry grouping that co-sponsored the earlier programme, to undertake a short study of the project in order to establish whether developments since 1994 justified a more substantial review of the project. We published its report in January of last year. The Severn Tidal Power Group report concluded that reappraisal of the Severn barrage was justified because of an increased emphasis on renewables generation and creation of a market for greenhouse gas savings; secondly, the introduction of NETA has changed the electricity market favourably to the barrage through its ability to predict output and meet fluctuating demand and provide for peak lopping capability; thirdly, positive environmental impacts in addition to CO, avoidance, for example, in mitigation of coastal erosion and flooding risk and avoidance of flood damage costs; and, finally, significant reductions in costs of capital through emergence of project finance as a route for funding major infrastructure projects in other words, public private partnership arrangements.
However, the report acknowledged that the project could potentially demonstrate a surplus of benefits over costs only if the positive externalities are taken into account. In addition, further evaluation to provide a better cost benefit analysis and substantial further work including a full environmental impact assessment were needed before a final decision could be taken.

549
The Government considered these conclusions carefully in the preparation of the energy White Paper but do not share them. In broad terms, there are three factors to consider: security of supply, costs and environmental impacts. A Severn barrage could have advantages on security of supply grounds since its output is predictable. However, such an advantage would come at a very high cost. The Severn barrage would be one of the most expensive forms of renewable generation and could not be considered economic even with the benefits of the renewable obligation. While other forms of renewables are likely to come down in price as the technologies mature, there is little or no such prospects for the Severn barrage as it is based on established technology.
The development costs are also considerable. The STPG report estimates the cost of the scheme at between £IO billion and £14 billion at 2001 prices and the time from pre-construction activities to full power generation to take some 12 to 14 years. These are significant figures by any stretch of the imagination.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, rightly suggested that a public/private partnership-type arrangement could be used. But that does not reduce the cost side of the equation and it would require the Government to guarantee the project's future income stream for at least 40 years. From cost estimates in the STPG report, it remains clear therefore that the project will not proceed on a fully commercial basis in the private sector.
The Severn Tidal Power Group report also takes into account the non-energy benefits of a barrage in dividing its costings, but does not take account of all the other costs or potential socio-economic impacts. While a value is put on flood-avoidance, for example, no cost is given for the negative impact for the Port of Bristol where increases in the size of shipping using the Bristol Channel and the Severn estuary could have a significant impact on the scheme. Any restriction on the operation of ports such as Bristol could have severe commercial consequences.
In addition, completion of the second Severn road crossing has reduced the potential benefits of a road crossing across the barrage. The question of a railway across the barrage is an interesting idea but, I fear, one that would raise a number of wider issues and be likely to add to cost.
Finally, we must consider the environmental impact of a barrage. These were points that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, drew to our attention so I shall not repeat them. Most of the Severn estuary is internationally recognised as a special protection area for birds and is a proposed special area of conservation. With the loss of around 65 per cent of the intertidal areas, a barrage is likely to have a significant effect on the eco-systems of the Severn estuary for which these designations have been made. In these circumstances, we would be required under our international obligations to recreate intertidal habitats in order to compensate for that loss to the scheme in its construction operation.
In the light of these factors, the Government, in the Energy White Paper, took the view that it would not be fruitful to pursue such plans for the Severn barrage
550
at this stage. Shortly after the publication of the White Paper last year, the Science and Technology Select Committee published the findings of its inquiry that looked at UK investment in research and development in the field of low and non-common forms of energy. The committee in its report agreed with the Government's conclusions on the Severn project set out in the White Paper and went further, stating:
"We are not in a position to form a judgment on this project. except to say that there is plenty of scope for installing renewable energy generation with little or no environmental impact and these should be given priority".
The answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is no, we should at this point concentrate on other tidal opportunities, which are substantial though slightly more long-term than wind energy.
I have answered the main points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, but I want to deal with four specific questions which he raised. One was the total amount paid out in subsidies for wind generation. In addition to the assistance provided by the renewable obligation, the Government have committed £117 million in capital grants to round one off-shore wind development. This report is for first generation demonstration projects, which are presently economically marginal. However, we expect that the experience gained from these early developments will in time lead to improved economics for the technology. This is hard-won money from the UK Treasury, not European money. In these circumstances, we make such decisions most carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also asked whether the Government are satisfied with the reliability and viability of wind power with regard to costs. We recognise that wind energy is intermittent, but analysis carried out as part of the White Paper process shows that the electricity system could cope with an increasing reliance on renewable energy. But of course as the proportion of intermittent generation increases, the cost of maintaining stable supplies also increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked whether the Government accept that tidal power is a more predictable and powerful source of electricity generation than wind. We accept that tidal power is more predictable than wind, but in the case of harnessing it through the Severn barrage, it is a considerably more expensive form at this stage of electricity generation.
The Government believe, however, that other forms of tidal power generation have the potential to contribute to our renewable energy targets, which is why since 1998 we have committed more than £50 million to research and development on wave and tidal energy devices.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, finally asked whether the Government accept that turbine technology and heavy engineering methods have moved on since 1989 and that the expertise needed to take full advantage is readily available in this country. The technology required for the Severn barrage is mature technology and therefore has the disadvantage that it has limited scope to reduce costs, whereas there is huge capability to reduce the cost of offshore wind generation, which we think will follow the pattern of onshore wind.

551
Finally, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we are aware of Tidal Electric Limited, which has proposed several tidal impoundment projects at Swansea Bay and Rhyl. As the noble Baroness pointed out, Tidal Electric claims that it can build a tidal power scheme using proven and commercially available technology that can generate electricity for about 2.5p to 3p per kilowatt hour, which is well within the scope of the technologies supported by the renewables obligation.
The DTI has assessed its claims using an independent consultant with a background in the technology. We think that those estimates are extremely optimistic and that electricity costs are likely to be much higher—possibly by a factor of four, which puts the scheme at the top end of the range. Of course, if Tidal Electric's assumptions are correct, it has plenty of scope to convince investors of its case and could attract commercial funds.
552
Having said all that, the Government have not written off the Severn barrage or schemes of that type for all time. If circumstances change, we will reconsider the project, but now is not the right moment to do so. I hope that I have shown that although the Government are committed to our renewables target, we do not consider that the Severn barrage would be cost-effective compared with other forms of renewable generation.
As I mentioned, we are none the less pursuing the potential of harnessing tidal energy through research and development. The Government want to secure the potential benefits of tidal power as renewable energy and the industrial and economic benefits of a successful renewables industry. We must seek to do so within the framework of the White Paper on energy and our objectives on cost, energy security and environmental impact.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
(First Day)
Tuesday, 13 January 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Applications]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 3, leave out "gender" and insert "sex"
The noble Lord said: As I understand it, in this Grand Committee procedure, as in that of the House, we shall discuss all the other amendments in the grouping. I have no concerns about that except that I believe that Amendment No. 78 is very different from the others and I shall address myself to that amendment separately.
The great mass of the amendments are very similar in that they replace the word "gender" with the word "sex". That is because, apart from anything else, my concern is to smoke out in some way the Government's view of the distinction between those words or to ascertain whether they believe that there is a distinction between them.
I notice that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "sex" is defined as either of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively or the distinction between male and female in general. It states that the sum of those differences is in the structure and function of the reproductive organs on the grounds of which beings are distinguished as male and female and the other physiological differences consequent on those.
Turning to the issue of gender, we find a slightly different story. "Gender" is defined as:
"In modern (esp. feminist) use a euphemism for the sex of a human being often intended to emphasise the social and cultural as opposed to the biological distinctions between the sexes".
It seems to me that, even from reading those definitions, the issue arises of whether the Government believe that the Bill is about social matters or about the biological matter of the distinction between males and females. I believe that upon that rests, to a great extent, how the rest of the Bill will be dealt with. I shall say no more about those amendments because they are tabled merely for the sake of tidiness, listing many, as opposed to just one, of the places where the word would be replaced.
However, I then draw the attention of the Grand Committee to one or two other amendments and, in particular, to Amendment No. 5, which relates to page I, line 7 of the Bill. I believe that it is useful to take a look at that matter as we deal with it. In many ways, it lies at the heart of the Bill as it concerns the conditions under which a person of either sex or gender may make an application for a recognition certificate. I would place a third requirement upon that: not only that the person has been living in the other gender, as the Bill states, or, as my amendments would state, as a person of the other sex, but that the individual possesses the XX chromosome if the change desired is to the female sex or the XY chromosome if the change is to the male sex.
I am not sure how many people have been for certain issued with a birth certificate that wrongly categorises their sex at birth. I do not know whether the Government have any figures on that either. However, it is important that we have some sort of understanding of whether we believe and whether the House intends to legislate that a person with XX chromosomes can be a male or with XY chromosomes can be a female. That would seem to fly in the face of all biology. However, we should of course recognise that it is possible that a mistake could be made on a birth certificate. If a mistake has been made, of course it is reasonable to legislate to allow that mistake to be corrected. That is the third test that I would impose.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are simply consequential to the earlier amendments. They would leave out the words, "in the acquired gender" and insert,
"as a person of the other sex".
That makes it much clearer what the Bill is about and does not hide behind the euphemism of gender when it is really talking about sex.
Amendment No. 20 would require an addition to Clause 3. It deals with evidence that must be brought for an application to be successful, or indeed to be made at all. At present it requires that it must include,
"a report made by a registered medical practitioner practising in the field of gender dysphoria"—
that is a fairly vague area in any case—
"and a report made by another registered medical practitioner…or a report made by a chartered psychologist practising in that field and a report made by a registered medical practitioner".

GC 3
I would propose that we should add a third condition, that there should be,
"evidence that the chromosomes of the applicant are appropriate for the intended sex".
That is consistent with what I believe to be logical and factual.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment No. 78, which seems to be slightly oddly tucked in with these others, but none the less there is no reason why we should not deal with it now. It concerns the vital issue of marriage in Schedule 4. One of my doubts and misgivings about the Bill is the way in which it confuses the matter of whether marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman or whether it is something else and whether the Bill is opening the door to same-sex marriages. I know that the noble Lord said on Second Reading that that was not so. However, I beg him to consider the implications, particularly brought out by Amendment No. 78, which relate to the effect on marriage and amendments to the marriage act. The Bill would allow marriage to a person whose gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act.
We need to be perfectly clear about this issue. We should have a statement that, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Bill, no two persons, each possessing XX chromosomes, or each possessing XY chromosomes, or each possessing genitalia appropriate to the same sex, may be married, one to the other.
Since the Bill as currently drafted does not require the issue of a gender recognition certificate—which states that the person concerned has suffered what I would call "surgical mutilation"—the person would have, for example, a female birth certificate but male genitalia. If married, such people would have their marriages annulled, as the noble Lord said, on the grounds that the law does not allow two people of the same sex to be married. It would be two people, each possessing, for example, a female birth certificate.
That would free someone who has had a gender change to marry a person, not only whose chromosomes were the same, but whose genitals were the same. The noble Lord said that that would not be a same-sex marriage. I conclude my remarks at this stage by saying that the noble Lord may not think that that is same-sex marriage, but if it took place in a nudist colony, I think that most of those present would believe that it was. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): We return to issues that were spoken about powerfully on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others. I now have even less expectation that I shall convince the noble Lord, but it is nevertheless important that I set out the Government's position on these issues, which is my responsibility.
It is fundamental to the Bill that legal recognition is given to transsexual people on the basis of their gender regardless of their chromosomal sex. The Government
GC 4
have no intention of getting into an argument about the science of sex and chromosomes and the causes of transsexualism and gender dysphoria. The evidence around the issue is inconclusive and the argument continues.
The Bill will give legal recognition to transsexual people in their acquired gender. A person's gender will, subject to the issue of a full gender recognition certificate, become the acquired gender.
The Government's understanding of transsexualism is rightly founded on the Chief Medical Officer's recognition of gender dysphoria as a medical condition that may require treatment. Treatment has been available within the NHS for a considerable time.
The Government have discussed the aims, objectives and impact of the Bill with, among others, the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society.
The principle of legal recognition in the acquired gender is that a person's gender will, subsequent to the issue of a gender recognition certificate, become the acquired gender. That will ensure, on the whole, the continuing effect of gender-specific terms in legislative enactments. The Government have always intended that once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender. If the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex becomes that of a man, and, if it is the female gender, the person's sex becomes that of a woman.
Where under any legislation it is necessary to decide the sex of a person who has an acquired gender, or to say whether that person is man or woman, or male or female, the question must be answered in accordance with the person's acquired gender.
The Government, and the European Court of Human Rights, have always acknowledged that opinion is divided in some parts of the medical profession on the nature and cause of transsexualism. However, the Government support the position of the European Court of Human rights that the remaining controversy over the nature and aetiology of transsexualism must no longer stand in the way of transsexual people enjoying their basic human rights. That is the central and essential position that we take.
I should at this stage make a few more points on the Government's position. It is probably as well to read them into the record in a little more detail.
The Committee will also know that one reason, although not the sole reason, that this Bill is before us is that the European Court of Human Rights has found that UK law is currently non-compliant. I wish to quote a little from that judgment as it has direct relevance to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raises. The judgment states that, although there are no conclusive findings as to the cause of transsexualism,
"the Court considers it more significant … that [the condition] has wide international recognition … for which treatment is provided".

GC 5
It was not convinced that the inability of the transsexual to acquire all the biological characteristics took on decisive importance. The judgment continues that it was clear on uncontested evidence of a,
"continuing international trend in favour of not only increased social acceptance of transsexuals but also a belief in recognition of the new sexual identity".
The court also said—again, I believe that this is relevant—when commenting on Article 12, which concerns the right to marry:
"The court had found under Article 8 of the Convention that a test of congruent biological factors could no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual".
The court found no justification for barring the transsexual from enjoying the right to marriage under any circumstances and it concluded, therefore, that there had been a breach of Article 12.I refer—I hope not at too great length—to what Lord Justice Thorpe said in this respect.
We believe that it is false to say that sexual gender is determined purely by chromosomes. Chromosomes are one of the primary sexual characteristics. There are also a range of secondary sexual characteristics. In addition, gender identity is determined by a range of psychological factors.
I turn to the judgment of Lord Justice Thorpe in the Court of Appeal decision on the Bellinger case. He said:
"Can the legal definition of what constitutes a female person be determined by only three of the criteria which medical experts apply? Are judges entitled to leave out of account psychological factors? For me the answers do not depend on scientific certainty as to whether or not there are areas of brain development differentiating the male from the female. In my opinion the test that is confined to physiological factors, whilst attractive for its simplicity and apparent certainty of outcome, is manifestly incomplete. There is no logic or principle in excluding one vital component of personality, the psyche".
While he recognised that that added to the complexity, he felt that that was a proper basis on which to form his judgment.
I refer to these issues with two purposes in mind. I am no expert on medicine and I do not pretend to be one. The Government do not base their argument that there is a simple or conclusive medical definition on whether a person is of one gender or one sex or another. However, an injustice is created for a very small number of people in our society who are absolutely convinced that their real life gender, as they believe it, is out of congruence with what is recorded on their birth certificate. After a process of proper testing and validation, the state believes that it is right, fair and decent, as well as in accordance with European law, that we adjust that anomaly in the very limited number of circumstances in which it applies.
It is for those reasons that I do not wish, partly out of ignorance but partly because I do not think that it is central to our debate, to engage the great medical diversity on this matter. At heart, the Government's view is that this is a legal issue. Should the state give legal recognition to a person's birth identity when we
GC 6
believe that there are pressing and good reasons for recognising that it should be changed? That is the Government's position in this respect.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made use of creative textual amendment. But if one looks at that textual amendment—and the game is given a way by Amendment No. 5—it is quite clear that what he is seeking to do is to re-open matters of principle that were discussed at Second Reading. His speech was effectively a Second Reading speech. He is of the "sincerely throwing up his arms in horror" school at the very idea that anyone should ever have their gender reassigned. I do not want to go further into the gender/sex distinction because it was made very clear by the Minister a few moments ago. One has only to look for simplicity at the very clear judgment of Lord Justice Thorpe in the Bellinger case.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, throws up his arms in horror and takes further steps to try to wreck the Bill, I urge him to talk to some of his political colleagues in other countries which have already—well ahead of the United Kingdom—taken the European Court of Human Rights judgment and applied it within their domestic law. Perhaps from time to time the noble Lord, like me, enjoys holidays in Europe. If so, in recent times he will have been to a number of countries where the political establishment has not collapsed, where the economy is not in ruins and where the institution of marriage is extremely significantly stronger than it is in the United Kingdom, which is a matter of great regret to me. I speak as someone whose bride was, I am ashamed to admit, still in her teenage years. That was many years ago and, happily, I am still married to her.
The institution of marriage is not collapsing in any country because of gender reassignment legislation. International psychological, medical and scientific evidence supports these changes. The international evidence, particularly if one takes into account that of psychiatrists and psychologists, shows that there has been a very great improvement to the lives of a small number of people who, like everyone else, have rights. That improvement has taken place because of laws such as those that we are considering today.
I recognise and, of course, greatly respect the strongly held views of those who may, for example, have a theological opposition to this legislation. In the end, they, like all of us who have some principles, will have to consign those principles to the processes of Parliament and lose occasionally. If that is the view of some, I believe that in the final analysis they will lose on this legislation. I plead with noble Lords not to try to wreck this legislation by extending this Committee stage with many Second Reading-type speeches.
Baroness O'Cathain: I have one question for the Minister at this stage. In his opening comments he said that the evidence is inconclusive. He used the words "evidence is inconclusive". When have we legislated and put a Bill right through Parliament to ensure that

GC 7
it becomes an Act on the basis of inconclusive evidence? I thought that the whole basis of our work in this House was to ensure that we never put through legislation that we did not believe was watertight. Much legislation that has appeared has been proved not to be watertight, but we have not started a Committee stage of a Bill as important as this by saying that the evidence is inconclusive and therefore we expect to legislate on the basis of inconclusive evidence.
Lord Filkin: I said that there is not universal consensus on the medical evidence about the causes, the aetiology and the effective treatment for gender dysphoria, and I used the word "inconclusive" as a consequence. I stand by that. However, that does not go to the nub of the issue. While it is true that medical scientists do not show unanimity on this issue—not an unusual circumstance—we believe that the majority of them are of a view that this is a medical condition that can be treated.
Ultimately, that is a side issue. We do not seek a process that makes a medically perfect judgment about whether a person is male or female or how one treats people who believe that they have gender dysphoria. We are seeking to apply proper tests and principles to someone who believes strongly, and over a period of time, that his or her gender is wrong. We are providing a process, after proper inspection and inquiry, through which the state can recognise that it is necessary to change a birth certificate. That is the essence of what we are doing.
The consequence of that, and why it matters, is that it gives legal rights to people to live their lives in the way that they believe is important. Regardless of whether there is total unanimity or disunity on the medical issues, the central issue is that there is recognition by the state that it is right, proper and fair—and compliant with European law—to give legal recognition, after proper inquiries and tests, to the small number of people involved.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to the Minister, but I would like to know how the law can really give power to a panel of doctors and lawyers to decree that a man is a woman. We are back to the point about gender and sex. As I said on Second Reading, I was greatly encouraged by the Minister's opening speech, when he said that marriage is very important and that it is recognised as the union of members of the opposite sex, male and female. In the debate on Second Reading, we came to the conclusion that, if a man and woman had been married and the man decided that he wanted to be a woman or felt that he was a woman, that marriage would have to be annulled. The couple would have to divorce. How can the law now be given the power to say that people are actually male or female?
As we know, transsexuals have healthy bodies. They are not suffering from an intersex condition, in which there is a physical problem with their reproductive organs. Many transsexuals have married and have had children. A transsexual man is truly a man: he is male.
GC 8
He simply wishes to be female. Because of that, he is said to be suffering from gender dysphoria. We will be going through this Bill line by line. The reality is that if a person suffers from gender dysphoria and, just because they want to be a female, says, "I feel like a woman, I want to be a woman, I am a woman", then they will be allowed a gender change without any operation for gender adjustment, or whatever the terminology is—
Lord Tebbit: Sexual mutilation.
Baroness O'Cathain: No, not sexual mutilation; gender reassignment. It is not necessary. No medical intervention has to occur. The person can get a certificate saying he is now female and then go off and get married.
I accept that the medical evidence on the condition is inconclusive. However, there is a huge body of opinion that says that this is a psychological and not a medical condition. Many people are scared about the implications of the Bill. They want to feel that the legislation that comes out of this place is right and does not open the floodgates to some ghastly social and cultural situation.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I rise briefly at this point with a specific question for the Minister about what he said. First, however, I should like to comment on the discussion taking place in the Churches on this matter. I very much appreciated the speech by my noble friend the Bishop of Winchester on Second Reading. In recent years, he and I have worked on a small subcommittee of Bishops of the Church of England on both the specific issue of transsexualism and the wider issue of homosexuality. The predominant view of the Church is as he set out on Second Reading.
I am among those open to the possibility of recognising the reassignment of gender while also recognising the very powerful reservations held by people who feel differently. I also recognise the legal obligation that the Government are under and which I understand is overwhelming. I wonder whether the Government are right to treat this as a legal matter and then close their mind to other arguments, such as the anxiety being expressed on the right.
At this stage I shall restrict myself to a simple question. In the quotation from the European Court judgment, the Minister referred to post-operative transsexuals. One feature of the Bill is to recognise gender reassignment without medical intervention—as the judgment said, and as the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Tebbit, said at the end of his speech. That seems to raise questions of whether—as hard as it might seem; if one is to issue a gender recognition certificate and give people the right to marry in the acquired gender—there should not be a requirement of surgical intervention. Was that implied in the fact that the extract from the court judgment which the Minister read out referred to "post-operative" transsexuals"?
4 p.m.
Lord Filkin: Perhaps—
Lord Moynihan: I should like—
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. There is a slightly better chance—perhaps not much—that I will give proper answers if I take them two at a time rather than in a clutch. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her comments. I acknowledge that there is one—perhaps only one—issue on which we agree here: the importance of marriage, and the fact that it is a legal and moral relationship between a man and a woman, and that nothing else is possible.
The noble Baroness led us a little into the discussion that the right reverend Prelate also initiated—whether the physiological test ought to be a central issue. There is a half-implication that the noble Baroness's mind would be very slightly eased—though not much—if surgery had taken place, whereas the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would not be so eased. His grounds would then be the harder ones of chromosomal difference, rather than surgery.
In answering as best I can some of the points raised, I should like to say a few words about the Chief Medical Officer's advice on process. It is necessary to do so to avoid giving any impression that the Government think that, by whatever mechanism, this should he an easy, quick or simple process of the state giving recognition to such a fundamental change to a person's status and recognition in the world. I shall therefore talk first about the medical processes that the Chief Medical Officer sees as current best practice; then about the panel and how that bears on this; and then about surgery.
From the medical perspective, the gender reassignment process is divided into three stages. The first is the social gender role change, when a patient changes his name and informs his family and friends of his plans to live full-time in his chosen gender role. The second is the hormonal gender reassignment, when, after psychiatric assessment for suitability, patients are offered cross-gender hormone prescriptions. The third stage—the stages are not necessarily completely sequential—is surgical reassignment, after completion usually of two years living in the role, when primary surgery is undertaken in some but not all cases.
Therefore, from the medical perspective, there is a process which seeks to ensure that there is not a rush to anything as drastic or irreversible as a surgical change. In a sense that is a part of the process of the medical intervention—to try to ensure that people are reflective about what they are asking to do, and to ensure that their belief that they have a fundamental incongruity in how they are living their lives is well founded and well seated.
The panel has three tests. If I recollect them correctly, the first is that the person has lived in the gender which they believe is their true gender for at least two years. Many cases—the early cases—will involve those who have done so for very substantially more than that. We believe that that is a good and
GC 10
necessary test and that two years should he the minimum. The second is that, as far as one can judge, they are as committed as possible to wanting to live in that state for ever.
We could have included the further test, which some European Union countries impose, of requiring surgery. We have not done so for a number of reasons. In some cases, there will be medical reasons why the person cannot or should not have surgery. It therefore did not seem to us right to deny them, if every other factor seemed to indicate that they are genuinely showing clear evidence of an intent to live in that gender for ever. As we know that most transsexuals do seek surgery, in cases where the person has not had surgery we would expect the panel not to treat that as prima facie evidence that there was doubt, but at least to question why surgery had not taken place. It might, just possibly might, have a bearing on the seriousness of the intent.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I promise not to make a habit of interrupting him. However, if I may, I gently remind him of the first test, which gives the complete answer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, when she talked of someone who wished to change sex or wished to change gender. The first test is that they have to prove that they have or have had gender dysphoria. That is a very specific diagnosis, and in fact a very big hurdle to have to cross before one goes on to tests B, C and D.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is novel in such situations to receive assistance in Committee. I hope that it will become a habit. He is fundamentally right. 1 was wracking my brains trying to recall the third fundamental leg of this platform. I am grateful. Clearly, that is an issue where the panel will be looking for a diagnosis. If I recollect correctly, the diagnosis has to have two limbs; it is not simply a single opinion from one medical practitioner.
I shall take no more of the Committee's time on this. I think that those are the best answers that I can give to the points raised so far.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I would not normally begin by taking issue with a fellow noble Lord, but it seems that we need to be clear in the light of the earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. My sense—and I say this because it affects many of the rest of us—is that it is not fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was making a Second Reading speech. He seemed to be doing what others in Committee are doing—moving from Second Reading to proposing amendments. In doing so, one has to give at least a little background on why one is proposing amendments. I did not think that that was accurate. I mention it now, with all respect. because it seems important that we are clear about the ground rules on which we are working.
Before turning to the specifics of the amendments I should like to deal with another point hat runs through the debate. I noted that the Minister quoted more than one of the Law Lords and their judgment in

GC 11
favour of the admission of what they called "psychological factors". When I read that material, it seemed to me that that was as much a philosophical judgment as a legal one. I find that those judgments of the Law Lords have no power on me at all. However, such statements seem to be particularly natural in the present age.
I confess that I am not moved by the semantic question of "gender" or "sex". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will explain it later. I recognise the slightly different ways in which the words have come to be used. It seems to me that this is to do with the recognition of an acquired sex or an acquired gender. Unless the Government have a specific intention of using "gender" rather than "sex" throughout much of the Bill—and if they have, they have got into some confusion in Clause 9—it seems not to be a matter of great interest.
Nor do I think that this is the moment—and here I agree with the Minister—for getting into questions of causation, whether physiological or psychological, because I think that they are now beside the point. They are indeed, as he said, matters that are still controversial within the medical profession—as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, made clear on Second Reading, and as many of us know from meeting a range of general surgeons and psychiatrists involved in these matters.
I wish to repeat my comments on Second Reading about my profound sympathy for those who suffer from this immensely serious condition. I meant my comments then and I mean them now: I want to be as helpful as possible to their needs and the needs that others recognise to be theirs. I am therefore sensitive to the question of wrecking amendments and would not he minded to support the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in his Amendments Nos. 5 and 20, because they could be described as "wrecking amendments" in terms of the Bill's philosophy. The exception is that the Bill contains in Clause 9 those critical words "for all purposes". If the Bill were less far-reaching or less serious in its consequences, then I would want, as I made clear on Second Reading, to go with its basic premises for the easing of the position of trans-gendered people. But I would be careful, as I tried to be then and shall be now, about necessary limitations on the word "possible".
Of course I recognise, too, as the noble Lord, Carlile, noted. that those of us making such points may in the end prove unsuccessful. But it is a duty for myself and others to make our case regarding Amendment No. 78, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, is oddly yoked in this group of amendments, because it goes right to the heart of profoundly serious matters. It is perfectly in order for myself and others to argue that if one does not believe that gender or sex is changed in gender reassignments—and it is interesting that we are using words such as "assign" or "reacquire"—then it is clear that in the current wording of the Bill, if a person marries someone with an acquired gender, one will have a same-sex marriage, which the Government
GC 12
have consistently and admirably said they do not intend to make legal. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 78 is of a different order to the others and it is important that I support it.
Lord Chan: I have listened carefully to the comments of noble Lords and the Minister. I detect a slight change in his approach, which I accept. I also accept that only a small number of people are affected by the Bill and that we should therefore support their human rights—that I am very willing to do. My main concern is that in doing so we must be absolutely sure that those who are given the opportunity for gender reassignment, and to have a gender recognition certificate, are correctly diagnosed and fulfil all of the criteria that have been laid down.
Therefore, as a clinical/medical person I return to the issue of the diagnosis. I do not wish to go over the ground regarding causes, but, having had the opportunity to have a medical colleague ring up a number of medical organisations, it is clear that the majority of them take no view on the Bill. Their reason is that they feel that it is an area for the specialist—and we must accept that. My only worry, which has been signalled by other noble Lords, is that those who will agree with the diagnosis would be of one viewpoint and may not consider people who ask for gender reassignment and then change their minds. I am aware of two or three psychiatrists who have had such patients and that made them worried about criteria.
I ask the Minister about the grounds on which the Chief Medical Officer would agree with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Would that be on the grounds that the person, or should I say the patient, has been examined over a period of time? Because I see in the evidence under Clause 3, to which we shall come later, that there have been, so I understand, stricter criteria, that there has to be a definite diagnosis. It is not a simple matter where the person goes to a psychiatrist or psychologist, receives a report, and then applies for gender recognition. A certain period of time must elapse when that is done, and it would be important to emphasise that that was the case. Only then, after all options have been explored, would the diagnosis be assigned. We need to be absolutely clear that the right people, who are absolutely convinced of the way forward, would be those who applied and were screened carefully by the panel in order that they may be given the certificate.
Finally, we insist that people spend four or five years in a country before they can receive citizenship. Therefore, it would be rather surprising if we permitted people to change their birth certificates after two years.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: I shall try to address two specific points that have been raised in the debate on my noble friend's amendments. First, and central to them, is the response by the Minister that the person's gender becomes "for all purposes" the acquired gender. Throughout the passage of the Bill I shall focus on the implications for sport because they are widespread and

GC 13
significant. In the context of the person's gender becoming for all purposes the acquired gender, it is necessarily the case that governing bodies of sport, both international and national, would have to recognise the effect of that primary legislation. They would have no other alternative. That is why we are here deliberating. It is particularly a problem where there is doubt as to whether all sports bodies are private bodies or perform some public functions as public bodies. That is the central point in the Government's argument that the Bill would not apply to sport.
I tell the Minister that there is major doubt over whet her it is possible to define sport governing bodies as private. I draw his attention to the words in another place of the then Home Secretary at the Committee stage of the Human Rights Bill, when he specifically drew attention to a sporting body as being of the type that he would expect to fall within the 6(3)(b) category, which is "a quasi-public body". He said:
"There will be occasions, it is the nature of British society, on which various institutions that are private in terms of their legal personality, carry out public functions. 1 would suggest that it includes the Jockey Club … The Jockey Club is a curious body. It is entirely private but exercises public functions in some respects. And to those extents, but to no other, it would he regarded as falling within"—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/98; col. 1020.]—
this classification. That is likely to be of significance, not only to the Jockey Club, but to a range of other sports governing bodies.
Judicial support for the assertion of the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, that such bodies carry out public activities is particularly evident from the case law relating to the application for judicial review.
The Minister referred to Bellinger v. Bellinger in his response to my noble friend's amendments. In the context of gender reassignment, it is important to note that in that judgment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, stated:
"The legal consequences affect many areas of life, from marriage and family law to gender-specific crime and competitive sport".
He went on to state:
"The criteria appropriate for recognising self-perceived gender in one context, such as marriage, may not be appropriate in another, such as competitive sport".
If a governing body undertakes public functions, as many do, and is in receipt of public money, how can it defend its position against accepting a competitor with a gender recognition certificate without—and this is most important—any necessary operative surgical change to that individual? I fully accept the sensitivity about the reasons why the Minister put forward the case for not putting on the face of the Bill the distinction between post-surgical transsexuals and transsexuals who do not undertake any form of operation. One must be sensitive to those transsexuals for whom it is not medically possible to move from one group to the other categorisation.
However, in recognising that, it is important to identify its implications for competitive sport. It is a characteristic of gender dysphoria for the person moving from male to female to wish to be in the body
GC 14
of a female and thus to undergo the operations, as well as the treatments that would be of assistance when moving from one gender to another under the Bill. While one can be sensitive to that, I hope that the Minister will be conscious of the fact that that has widespread implications for competitive sport and for governing bodies. They will need to recognise that someone with a certificate who, for understandable reasons, under the proposed legislation does not have the surgical procedures will be able to present himself with the full weight of the law and—I repeat—becomes for all purposes the acquired gender of the person to compete in that classification.
I pick up on a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He asked why no one else has recognised the issue and made exemptions. I accept immediately that the noble Lord was not referring to sport at that point. Let us take one of the pre-eminent parts of the world in competitive sport. I refer to Sydney from where our rugby players have just returned. The New South Wales Parliament Act was passed in 1996. It specifically recognised the strength of some of the points that I have made on this set of amendments and will be making on subsequent ones, when it exempted sport. It made an exception to Part 3A and division 4 of that Act. It stated:
"Nothing in this part renders unlawful the exclusion of a transgender person from participation in any sporting activity for members of the sex with which the transgender person identifies".
That subsection does not apply, first, to the coaching of persons engaged in any sporting activity, or, secondly, for the administration of any sporting activity, or, thirdly, to any sporting activity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of the section.
Over 100 amendments have been tabled for this stage of the Bill and I believe that there are over 100 compelling arguments why competitive sports should be exempted. I have just made the first two of those arguments that I intend to develop under different sets of amendments, keeping closely in line with the advice given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
However, I urge the Minister to reflect, first, on the public nature of many sports' governing bodies and I accept, if nothing else, that that is an open matter. It is a critical, important and unresolved issue that a range of cases has thrown up. Even if it is unresolved, we can address the matter on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, if a person's gender becomes the acquired gender for all purposes, including sport, recreation and competitive sport, there is very real concern that that would have to take pre-eminence over any rules and regulations of governing bodies in accepting classification, however sensitive we are to gender dysphoria; and I believe that we should be sensitive to the condition of gender dysphoria.
Lord Cobbold: I return to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Clearly, they rule out the possibility of same-sex marriage. Is the Minister confident that the Bill, as it stands, does not open the door to same-sex marriage?
Lord Goodhart: The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, are important, but by raising them at

GC 15
this stage he has turned the discussion into a Second Reading debate. His points bear no relevance to any amendment in this group. Indeed, the relevant amendment is one to be moved by the noble Lord himself, Amendment No. 94. I recognise that the points are serious and that they will require consideration.
Lord Moynihan: It is very important indeed that we do not consistently return to the argument about Second Reading debates. I specifically attempted to address two issues, one of which came from the noble Lord's Benches on the subject of international legislation in this context. There is also the vital importance of the Minister's response to an earlier intervention about someone's gender becoming for all purposes the acquired gender, which is right at the heart of this set of amendments to Clause 1 and which is sought to be changed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
I could not have been more careful in phrasing my comments. I focused not only on what his noble friend has said, but also on what the Minister has specifically said in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I intend to do that throughout our proceedings in Committee because that is the issue before us. We have to look at the impact on all aspects of society and I shall be looking at the matter through the eyes of sports' governing bodies.
Lord Goodhart: With all respect to the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, he believes that the appropriate action on a Bill of this kind in Grand Committee is to speak only to the amendments relevant to the subject matter of the speech. At this stage no amendment to Clause 9 has been tabled that raises the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I shall move on.
I want to deal with the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I welcome the fact that he does not go the full length of supporting the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, recognising, as he does, that some of them, in particular Amendments Nos. 5 and 20, are genuinely wrecking amendments, because they would leave no possibility of recognising gender reassignment or gender change and would deal only with the situation, which I think can already be dealt with under existing law, where an actual mistake has been made as to a baby's gender at birth.
I also agree with the right reverend Prelate that Amendment No. 78 is not in itself a wrecking amendment. However, I believe that the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex is one of the most important features of gender. If someone is recognised by law as having acquired a new gender, but has no possibility of marrying a person of his or her previous gender, that person loses a central element of his or her acquired gender. Indeed, as I understand Amendment No. 78, a person in that situation could not marry anyone, because they would be prevented by Amendment No. 78 from marrying a person of their original sex, but the Bill would not permit them to marry somebody of their acquired sex.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: That might be a very good argument if there were at this moment people who were in possession of one of these certificates saying that they had changed sex. If the Bill were amended as I have suggested in Amendment No. 78, people would take that into account before they decided whether they wished to possess one of those certificates.
Lord Goodhart: That would obviously be a very severe drawback to applying for a certificate. If one supports the principle behind the Bill, it is essential that a change of sex should be recognised for the purposes of entering a new marriage. Therefore, I am unable to join the right reverend Prelate or the noble Lord. Lord Tebbit, in supporting Amendment No. 78.
Earl Ferrers: This is a very sensitive subject, and I am hesitant about taking part in this debate for fear of making a Second Reading speech. I have no intention of doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has accused my noble friend Lord Tebbit of making such a speech and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seems to think that it is a bad idea, so I want to be careful not to do so.
A fundamental question covers the whole of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Tebbit virtually said, "What is a gender—what is male and what is female?" When a child is born, one looks at the genitals and one discovers what it is. However, there is a deeper method, which is the chromosome method. The Minister said in what I thought was a slightly brush-away line that he did not want to engage on some fundamental issues. However, these are fundamental issues.
If a person is a male and has an XY chromosome and says that he wants to be a female, that is absolutely understandable. If he does not go through any surgical methods but says that he wants to be a female, goes through the process and "becomes" a female and has a certificate to say that he is a female, is he really a female? The answer, says my noble friend Lord Tebbit, is that he is not, because his basic composition is that of a male.
I find it difficult to say that by law, when a person's state has been changed, however much he may wish it to be changed, no one can refer to the fact that that was not what he was born with. In other words, we are making it a criminal offence to tell the truth. I find that terribly difficult, but perhaps the Minister can explain it. He said that there were not many cases in which people wanted to change sex. I have no doubt that we all know people who have, and one has great sympathy with the problems in which they find themselves. However, hard cases make had law and it is important to ensure that the law that we pass is right and is credible. We ought not, by changing the law, to make people criminals if they tell the truth about what a person was when they were first born.
Lord Filkin: There is a lot to respond to. First, I turn to the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I thank him for the way in which he addressed his remarks in the difficult

GC 17
discussions that we have had on the Bill between Second Reading and now. In passing, I believe that Lord Justice Thorpe was speaking ex cathedra, in giving his reasons why he had come to the conclusion that he had come to— but be that as it may. I agree, too, that the Bill does not fundamentally turn on the semantic distinction between gender and sex. However, I do not want to annoy the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, by saying that.
I also note that the right reverend Prelate is genuine in what he said at Second Reading about having compassion for people in these conditions, and about seeing that it is possible to go with the basic premises for the easing of some of that suffering. I have a lot of respect for that.
The right reverend Prelate asked me a specific question about why Clause 9 refers to sex. The reference to sex in that clause is because sex "in law" is needed, as some legislation refers to sex rather than gender. There you have it. I do not believe that there is anything fundamental there; the clause certainly does not make any broader philosophical point in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, is absolutely right in saying that it is important that the process ensures that there is a right diagnosis of gender dysphoria as one of the legs of the process to which we referred earlier, when the panel makes a decision whether to grant a gender change. One reason why I sought to read a little from the Chief Medical Officer's advice to the department was essentially to set out that it is not a sudden, one-consultation end decision. A careful and thorough medical process must be gone through before a doctor, or more than one doctor, comes to the conclusion that a person experiences gender dysphoria. That is absolutely right—it must not be a sudden process. A clear and definite diagnosis is needed, which is why that has been put into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, raised the question of whether two years was too short. In many cases, the time will be longer, but that seems to us a sufficient time for people to have experienced fully in their lives—in their work and social life—the effects of living with the gender that they believe to be truly theirs. No doubt, if the noble Lord wants to, he will come back to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of whether sporting bodies were private or public bodies. Without engaging on whether his speech was a Second Reading speech or not, I might call it a trailer for our discussion tomorrow, to which I look forward. I shall repeat what I said to him at Second Reading, as it may save time later. If the noble Lord has evidence from the sporting bodies that they are seriously engaged in this respect, I should be most pleased to receive it, as it would increase the likelihood that I could give a full answer when we come to that point in the Bill.
A layman's summary of the issue—
Lord Moynihan: I understood from the Minister's response in writing, for which I am very grateful—as I
GC 18
am for the time and trouble that he took with it—that he himself conducted research into governing body reaction and sent out 300 letters to governing bodies and international federations. No doubt, therefore, he has received a large amount of correspondence.
I shall refer to many of the governing bodies in the proceedings of the Committee. I can comprehensively inform him that a wide range of governing bodies, including the Badminton Association, Cycling Time Trials, the All England Netball Association, the Football Association, the British Judo Association and many more, have contacted me to seek an exemption for competitive sport. Indeed, not one governing body that I have contacted, while being sensitive to the issues, wishes to see anything but an exemption in the legislation.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I did not personally lick all 300 stamps; they were licked in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as one might expect. Nevertheless, it would assist me if he would let me have some of the documentation to which he refers. I am advised that there was a careful process of consultation, so that would assist me and him and the Committee.
Turning to the noble Lord's question, clearly some sporting bodies are private bodies. However, he is right that there are circumstances in which some sporting bodies could be treated as public bodies and, therefore, could come within the ambit of the ECHR and a challenge under Article 8 that they are potentially infringing private life. However, that is not the end of the issue. Our firm position is that a sporting body would be able, in the interests of competitive parity, to discriminate against transsexuals in that situation. That will be a defence and rebuttal. However, we shall come to that in more detail tomorrow.
Lord Tebbit: How would anyone know that they were dealing with a transsexual, since it will be forbidden under pain of criminal sanctions for anyone to refer to the fact that that person has a false birth certificate?
Lord Filkin: This is really straying quite a long way away from the immediate issue. However, the argument would run that, because it is legitimate for sporting bodies to uphold competitive parity, it is legitimate for them to make such inquiries as are appropriate to ensure that a person is physiologically appropriate to undertake that competition. However, I urge the Committee that I have been more courteous than I should have been in going into this detail at this point. I do not wish to excite further debate on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked a good question; he asked whether we were confident that the provisions would not open the door to same-sex marriage. We are confident because there is a process that seeks carefully to give judgment to whether it is legitimate for the state to recognise a change of gender. When that change of gender has taken place, it makes

GC 19
it possible for the person whose gender has been changed and has been recognised by the state to marry. That is why we are firm on that position.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, was admirably brief, and I envy his ability to ask such brief questions. However, the Minister's response effectively means that, if the state says that dawn is dusk and blue is brown, something becomes whatever it then becomes. That is the logic of the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
Lord Filkin: No, not so. I said that the state was entitled, as the Bill proposes, to have a process that allows for there to be a recognition in law that it is possible for a person's gender to be assigned and changed. The process is not a flippant one without evidence; it is not saying that the sunset is green rather than red. It depends on the tests set out in the Bill being met and tested by the panel. We believe them to be the right tests, and the appropriate tests, for so doing. Therefore, we believe that the state is absolutely right to legislate in this respect.
Lord Cobbold: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but it seems to me that there is a possibility of fraudulent application to go through the process in order to achieve a same-sex marriage.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord must be right in this matter, but there is a possibility of fraud in most areas of public life. However, one would expect the process that the panel was going through would be designed to reduce the likelihood of that, because there has to be a diagnosis and evidence. Clearly, there is a possibility of fraud in other aspects of marriage law. It is perfectly possible for someone to marry someone in a registry office, for perverse reasons if they wish to, by claiming that they are X rather than Y. However, let us leave that to one side. The fundamental point is that there is a process, which is as strong as it can be, to reduce that risk.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to my remarks on medical unanimity. What I was saying in essence was that the fact that there is not total medical unanimity on the issue is not a reason for not legislating in this respect. I sought to give reasons for that, which were bolstered and buttressed by the view of the ECHR and the Court of Appeal in this country. It is essentially a process whereby the state recognises the change of gender.
The noble Earl raised the other point, which we shall no doubt come to later in the Committee, on why we have the privacy enforcement. Essentially, it is out of compassion for the person who wishes to live their life in future in the gender which they believe is fundamentally the truth for them. They do not want to have it constantly exposed by administrative processes that they were once seen as having a different gender. That does not relate to someone who knew the person before their gender change was recognised. If they as a
GC 20
matter of record and fact knew that person before the gender change took place, there is nothing in the Bill that means that they are acting illegally in saying so. The provision is there essentially to prevent inquiry into the records in a way that makes that person constantly have to redisclose their former gender.
I hope that I have covered all the points that were made in the rather long debate on the first grouping.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I shall briefly take up some of the points that have been made, including some of the points that the Minister made, most reasonably and courteously as ever, but at times somewhat defensively. When someone says that they have no intention of getting into an argument about a subject, it always implies that they feel that the ground beneath their feet is somewhat slippery, at the very least. The noble Lord said that he did not want to get into an argument about chromosomes, but it is our chromosomes that decide our sex. This Bill is about deciding people's sex, so how can one not get into an argument about chromosomes, unless one simply wants to slide away from it because the point is indefensible?
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, observed that marriage is not collapsing elsewhere in Europe. Well, no, of course it is not—and I did not say that it was. I would not say that the Palace of Westminster was collapsing merely on the first evidence of dry rot in its foundations. However, a process goes on. We would not expect the Bill to cause the collapse of the institution of marriage within five or 10 or 20 years. These matters are slow in their effect, and we are very foolish indeed, when we are dealing with enduring institutions that have had a life of many thousands of years, to think that, merely because a Law Lord or some parliamentarians throw a bomb or introduce an infection into that institution, it will instantaneously collapse.
The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Carlile, talked about my amendments being wrecking amendments, but they do so because of their view of the Bill, not because of the nature of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, observed on Second Reading that,
"there is a group of people who while, biologically … are of one sex, are socially and in other respects … of a different sex".
He congratulates the Government for taking the view that those people,
"should be treated in relation to the sex to which they socially belong".—[Official Report, 18/12/03; col. 1315.]
This Bill is primarily a Bill that pits social concepts against biological facts. That is why it is such an objectionable Bill. If I may say so to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, I was not being merely semantic about sex and gender. This Bill is about the difference between sex and gender. Sex is a biological fact; gender is, to a very large extent, a wish, a social pose, or whatever. That is at the heart of the argument.

GC 21
I should like the Minister to reply clearly and simply to a couple of clear and simple questions. The first relates to Amendment No. 78. Will he confirm that the Bill as it is now drafted would allow people with genitalia of the same sex to marry? I hope that I have read the Bill correctly. I believe that I am entitled to ask him if that is a proper construction to put on the Bill. If that is so, does he regard that as being same-sex marriage or only same-gender marriage? Perhaps that is the delicate difference that he would like to draw—that because the two parties think that they are of different sexes, it is not a same-sex marriage, although they are physically identically equipped.
Perhaps indelicately, I suggested that if such a marriage took place in a nudist colony, it would be seen as a same-sex marriage. Let me put another point to the Minister. Let us suppose that, tragically, that couple then had a motor car accident and were both killed. At the post-mortem, would doctors conducting the post-mortem conclude that one was a male and one a female, or would they conclude that they were both of the same sex? That is at the heart of the arguments of this Bill and these amendments.
Lord Filkin: I would feel more pleased to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, if I felt that the implication of his question was that he would be in accord with the Bill if it was a matter of a man who wished to have his profound belief that he needed a gender change to a woman, and who would therefore have surgery as part of that process, as would usually be the case. That is the implication that I would wish to draw from his question, although I do not believe that it is the case. If it is not the case, I wonder what the thrust of the question is. I say this with great courtesy, because in Grand Committee one does not need to get too formal on these issues, that the thrust of his question has all the nature of a bait for a tabloid headline. It places the discussion of these issues almost at a schoolboy level.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I shall just touch on a point that 1 made earlier. I am broadly in favour of the Bill and am among a minority, perhaps, of Christians and church people who are willing to go with the Bill and recognise that it is a way in which to deal with a genuine issue. However, this specific point is a matter not of tabloid headlines but of same-sex marriage, or something that is seen as same-sex marriage.
In the Minister's earlier remarks, the implication was that there was not a legal requirement on the Government not to insist on surgery. He said that other European countries did insist on surgery, so that is not part of the legal drive behind the Bill. I fully recognise and understand that—so why, given this debate, can the Government not at least give consideration to our arguments? They do not have to do so on the basis of the wrecking amendments or tabloid desires of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on which I take no view. Instead, they might do so after listening to those who are sympathetic to the Bill but believe that, if someone is going to be able to marry in the acquired gender, having changed sex—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—one should
GC 22
properly expect there to be surgery. That picks up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Given the legal possibility that has been admitted, are the Government at least open to that variation on their present position?
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to respond more straightforwardly to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and also to respond to the comments of the right reverend Prelate. It follows from my previous remarks that the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, are possible. That is what I said previously. Not everyone who goes through a gender change recognition process will have to have surgery. There could be circumstances in which it is inadvisable and inappropriate to force the issue. It therefore follows that the person, having had his gender change recognised, would have a full legal right to marry. The circumstances that the noble Lord describes could occur in that situation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Is not the right to marry a legal right—that is, the right of someone who is defined in law as a man to marry someone who is defined in law as a woman? Is not the Bill simply seeking to clarify what the law is to enable that legal contract to be entered into where one or both of the parties have suffered from gender dysphoria and obtained a certificate under Clause 2?
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is exactly right. It is a point that I have made on a number of occasions. It is a process whereby, after a proper inquiry, the state gives recognition to the fact that gender change can and should take place. The gender has changed and therefore that person is entitled to marry in his new legal gender. That is the long and the short of it.
As for the noble Lord's second question about what a doctor would decide, I do not know and I do not intend to speculate on it. Many people in this society—not thousands, but many—have a physiology that is more complex than the norm. However, I do not think speculation on the matter will take us anywhere. That is the best answer I can give to that inquiry.
I think that we will return to the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate. We will undoubtedly reflect on it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that marriage is the right for a man to marry a woman. The Minister is saying that if there has been a gender change, that person has changed from being a man to being a woman. However, that is not necessarily so if their sex is actually the same.
Lord Tebbit: We have had a most interesting debate. I think it has illuminated in admirable fashion both the Bill and the difficulties that arise from it—between those of us who think that sex is not a lifestyle choice that we make for ourselves, but a choice that is made above and beyond us and is inherent in our biological nature. Sex, some of us think, is not a psychological

GC 23
phenomenon. I suspect that gender may, at least in the mind of the Bill's supporters, be a psychological and mental and fashion phenomenon.
I do not have the impression that the Minister and his colleagues will accept any of my amendments—it is odd how these impressions sometimes come upon one gradually. Therefore, in order to stay within the limits of the understandings on how this Grand Committee should work, and to leave myself a little scope for Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Gender Recognition Panels]:
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 5, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Secretary of State for the Home Department"
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 12, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 13. These amendments are designed to probe the Government regarding to whom they intend the responsibilities set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 to go if the position of Lord Chancellor is abolished.
Let me make it absolutely clear that we are opposed to the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. We believe that it is extraordinary for the Government to continue to add to the list of the duties of the noble and learned Lord through legislation. Surely it would be sensible now to make it clear on the face of the Bill precisely who in the Government's view should be performing these duties. Have the Government made up their mind on that matter? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I am now enlightened about why the Home Secretary came into the Bill which exercised me briefly at lunchtime.
The short answer is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, knows, we have signalled our intention to legislate to remove the functions of the Lord Chancellor while also legislating to ensure that we uphold and promote judicial independence. The Bill refers to the Lord Chancellor at this stage through a process of parliamentary drafting purity as subsequently a Bill will be introduced in this House to make recommendations on how the role of the Lord Chancellor will be changed. That Bill will then adjust this Bill accordingly.
I refer to the probing amendment regarding the Home Secretary. Clearly the appointments to the gender recognition panels and of presidents and vice-presidents will be judicial appointments. Therefore, they will be made by the Lord Chancellor as part of his function and office for as long as it exists. We shall have to wait with bated breath until the constitutional Bill is introduced, which will set out the specifics of how those functions will be dealt with in the future. However, it will be no great shock if I refer to the
GC 24
judicial appointments commission as we have already signalled that in the consultation papers. But for the here and now the Lord Chancellor will make these appointments until such time as legislation changes that.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Determination of applications]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 22, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: The Bill states that an applicant to a gender recognition panel must have,
"lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made".
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain precisely what that will entail. How strictly will an individual have to abide by that requirement before they are issued with a full gender recognition certificate? For example, where there are small children involved who may not he old enough to understand the process which their father or mother is going through, would the applicant be allowed flexibility in the extent to which they live in their acquired gender for the sake of the child?
Would a pre-certificate applicant be expected to change in the changing rooms of their birth or acquired gender? What evidence would be sufficient to prove that an applicant had not fulfilled the criteria of living in the acquired gender for two years? How have the Government come up with this arbitrary period of two years? Is it based on advice from specialists? Are there any circumstances, apart from for the purpose of the fast-track scheme, in which an exception could be made?
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for writing to me in response to the questions that I raised at Second Reading. In his letter of 5 January 2004 the Minister referred specifically to rights and freedoms of others. That is a point to which I also referred at Second Reading. At Second Reading I made the point:
"Whose human rights take precedence? How does one judge in individual circumstances what is balanced and proportionate".—[Official Report, 18/12/03; col. 1292.]
There is no question that through the two-year period the individual will have to operate with a great deal of sensitivity but at the same time live to the extent required by the panel in order to meet the criteria required to obtain a gender recognition certificate. I wish to quote from the Minister's letter to me of 5 January. The letter stated:
"As I stated in my opening speech, however, this Bill does not bring transsexual people into existence, it just gives them legal recognition. This is particularly important to bear in mind in relation to the specific contexts that you mentioned, such as sports changing facilities. Transsexual people already use changing rooms as they go through the various stages of transition before fully assuming their acquired gender. Typically, rather than trying to attract attention to themselves, transsexual people are keen to

GC 25
live their lies in a discreet and ordinary way. Most transsexual people are aware of public sensitivities and take care to avoid causing alarm or offence".
However, during the passage of this Bill we need to understand to what extent these individuals are able to carry out their daily lives in a discreet way but at the same time meet the criteria required in order to satisfy the panel that they have lived according to those criteria. Much impinges upon the word "lived" in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for a thoughtful, probing amendment. The criteria for recognition of gender change, of which the two-year period is one, are not in a sense set by government as a set of hurdles to be leapt over. Their purpose is to try to ensure that before there is a process—which is essentially a judicial process—of recognition on the part of the state that a person's gender should be changed, it is right, proper and necessary that. we are as certain as we can be that that is not a whim, a short-term preference or something that could be regretted later. Clearly, a range of measures are involved including the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and evidence of the commitment to want to live in the relevant gender in the future.
However, I believe that it seems right to many—it certainly seems so to the Government—that one would certainly expect a person who was genuinely committed to wanting to live in that new gender for the rest of their life to demonstrate the reality of that by living that gender in the here and now. It is not like opting for a change of clothes; it is a matter of believing at heart that there is something incongruous in one's birth gender and wanting to bring into alignment as far as one can the totality of one's life. The matter should not be interpreted as the Government saying, "You must live this life". Transsexuals who believe passionately that they want to be fully recognised will already be in this position. They will be living their lives in the way that I have described. They will have acted in that way in the totality of their lives. All the panel is doing is checking to see that there is evidence of that. I cannot fully second-guess how exactly it will inspect that process. However, I would expect it to undertake that process seriously to check that the relevant criteria had been complied with. The test in the legislation exists for a purpose; it is not a minor issue.
That is the essence of the matter that we are discussing. It is a necessary part of ensuring that before a decision is taken by the panel, the person has demonstrated their fundamental commitment to the very major change that they want to undertake. We are talking about two changes. I refer to the change that the person has signalled they want to make socially, which they can do without the state doing anything at all. Many transsexuals do that and have done so for many years. They change their dress, how they are addressed and how they behave. However, we are not talking about that change but the change that occurs when the state recognises the justification for giving
GC 26
legal recognition to a change of gender. Therefore, I do not think that the two-year test is in any sense burdensome or unfortunate, if I may put it that way.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I hope that I may come to the help of the Minister for a change. There is one more point that he could have added. My understanding is that this is something to do with the Benjamin protocols or the Benjamin rules or whatever and that consultants working in this field are responsible and follow that kind of code and will themselves supervise the matter in a thoroughly responsible way.
I confess that I had not thought before about the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, regarding whether the process can or cannot be carried out. Clearly, adjustments will have to be made in a range of directions. From meetings with those concerned my understanding is that these matters are pursued in a responsible manner, particularly on the part of those responsible for the medical supervision and the decisions that are being made.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I make much the same point. My information, which I have acquired over a number of years from those involved in treating people suffering from gender dysphoria, is that precisely the criteria that are set out in Clause 2(1)(b) are applied in gender reassignment clinics as a prerequisite to surgical treatment. Therefore, for a change, the test in law will be similar to the medical test that is applied. Would that we had so many consistencies between the law and medicine, for example, in the law of provocation for diminished responsibility in relation to homicide. However, we do not have that consistency and the law and medicine frequently have to apply quite different criteria. In this case they will be the same and that is useful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the very important question of children and how people are to conduct themselves during the two-year period. My understanding of the way in which the medical profession that specialises in gender dysphoria—for example, at Charing Cross—works is that it does not apply a set of rules as such. For example, the party who is in fact the mother in the household does not give up all domestic duties because the children might think that they constitute a mother's role. It is a continuum but one in which there is an evolving element. The word "lived" is broad enough to satisfy the test regarding the interests of the children. If one takes into account the background medical evidence contained in the Bill, the measure is sensible, practical and consistent with what has been done for a long time.
Lord Moynihan: I should be grateful for the Minister's help on a matter concerning the world of sport that impacts directly on my noble friend's amendment. In the Minister's view what would be the reaction of a gender recognition panel to a sportsman competing in a sport who then recognised that he would have to stop competing as a male for two years in order to persuade the panel that under the condition of gender dysphoria he had been a woman for two

GC 27
years? However, during those two years he had not been able to compete as a woman because he had not been recognised as a woman and did not have the relevant certificate. Would he lose the opportunity during those two years to compete internationally as a sportsman?
Is it the Minister's understanding that, should this Bill be enacted, the gender recognition panel would look favourably on the specific circumstances of an individual sportsman who had genuine gender dysphoria who wished to continue to participate in competitive sport as a man throughout that two-year period until the point at which he receives the certificate and then competes as a woman? Or is it the Minister's interpretation that during that two-year period the sportsman could not compete internationally or at national level?
Lord Filkin: I have no idea what the gender recognition panel would decide in such a case. I believe that it would consider the totality of the situation rather than regard such a narrow or exceptional set of circumstances as the issues on which the whole matter turned.
Lord Moynihan: I was expecting the Minister on behalf of the Government to say a definite no in response to that question. I point out yet again that unless there is clarity on the matter the proposal to exempt competitive sport is stronger than it was before I rose to my feet to speak.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to my questions. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for their helpful contributions. This has been an important and helpful debate to clarify the issues, but on behalf of my noble friend I remain concerned about sports issues. The Minister may have recognised that I shall leave those issues to be argued in large part by my noble friend. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
"(5) No order may be made under subsection (4) unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 18, I wish to refer also to Amendment No. 19. Clause 2(4) gives the Government power to draw up a list of countries that are "approved" for the purpose of changing gender. This route of obtaining a gender recognition certificate could be an extremely popular one for transsexuals who are nationals of other countries, or those who moved overseas in order to be recognised in their
GC 28
acquired gender, before such provisions are in place in the UK. Given the potential significance of this aspect of the Bill, this subsection should be strengthened.
Amendment No. 18 is tabled on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's third report that the negative procedure in the Bill as it stands is an insufficient level of parliamentary scrutiny, and that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate.
Alternatively, Amendment No. 19 requires the Secretary of State to publish a document and lay it before both Houses of Parliament detailing the criteria he will use to determine whether a country is "approved". Would, for example, the safety of any medical procedures or practices be a consideration? Can the Minister give examples of those countries that it is likely would be "approved" and those that would not be "approved", and the reasons for this? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 108 and 110, in the names of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and myself, are grouped with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Amendments Nos. 108 and 110 reach exactly the same result as Amendment No. 18 ensuring that the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative resolution procedure, is used for any order designating an approved country under Clause 2. We prefer that course to Amendment No. 19, which seems to us an unsatisfactory alternative.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out in paragraph 5 of its report that,
"the power is not limited on the face of the bill to prescribing"
those countries,
"that have criteria equivalent to our own".
The report goes on to state:
"Should the policy change in the future, the power might be used for prescribing also other countries, thus extending the cases in which an application could succeed without the need to satisfy the Panel about the specific matters in clause 2(1)(a) to (d))… In view of this, we conclude that the negative procedure does not provide an appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for a power of such potential significance in the context of the bill. We recommend that the affirmative procedure should apply".
Speaking for myself, it seems to me that the committee's recommendation on that subject is absolutely right.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made two recommendations in respect of this Bill. It recommended that the power to specify "approved countries" in terms of applications from individuals who already have recognition overseas be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. It also recommended a change to the provision in Schedule 3, paragraph 11, which seeks to accommodate a regulatory reform order relating to the registration system for England and Wales, which is already in progress. The Government will accept both recommendations of the committee. Amendments will be tabled on Report and I hope that they will find favour with the House.

GC 29
These amendments concern the same delegated power as the first of the recommendations. The Bill provides a straightforward mechanism by which those who already have recognition of their acquired gender overseas may apply for recognition in the UK. An applicant has to establish that he or she has recognition in an "approved country or territory".
The Secretary of State has the power to specify a list of approved countries or territories. The power will be exercised only after consultation with the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to remind the Committee that this is not a devolved matter in Wales.
Only those countries that have criteria for recognition equivalent to those in this Bill will be approved for these purposes. This is to ensure that all those who have recognition of their acquired gender in the UK have met the criteria set out in the Bill; that is, taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the acquired gender. Without this mechanism, individuals could go abroad to another country that may have less rigorous criteria for recognition and that recognition would be valid in the UK.
As I have said, the Government accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee, that just as Parliament is now exercising proper scrutiny over the criteria in the Bill, it should in the future be able to exercise proper scrutiny over the criteria by which the list of approved countries or territories is drawn up.
As I said, the Government will bring forward an amendment on Report to ensure that this power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am only sorry that he feels unable to accept our amendments as they stand. I hope that we shall find that the amendment tabled on Report will be complementary to what we have tried to achieve today. For now with pleasure I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Evidence]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 42, after "required" insert "by order made"
The noble Lord said: Clause 3 specifies the evidence and information that must be provided in support of an application for a certificate under the Bill.
Clause 3(6)(b) empowers the Secretary of State to require further information or evidence. As the Bill now stands, those powers can be exercised without a statutory instrument or, indeed, any parliamentary procedure although the Secretary of State has to consult the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel. Quite
GC 30
why the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel is the relevant department I am not altogether clear.
This was a matter of some concern to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee. Although it did not make a definite recommendation that parliamentary procedure should be adopted, it was rather critical of the matter. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the committee's report state:
"The prescription by central government of the particulars or evidence to accompany applications as part of a formal procedure is often made the subject of rules or regulations, whether or not subject to a Parliamentary procedure. This accords with the view that the prescription of general rules about these matters has the characteristics of a legislative, rather than a purely administrative, act. For this reason we considered whether, in this instance, the particulars and evidence should be specified in a statutory instrument, to which the usual publication requirements will apply.
The reason given by the Government for wishing the matter to be left to "administrative" action only is that the details are likely to change. We recognise that this is a good reason why the details should be left to regulations, but, given the flexibility of the delegated legislative procedure, it does not provide an explanation why there should be no formal procedure of any sort. However, we recognise that the number of applications is likely to be small. We suggest, therefore, that the House may wish to invite the Government to explain more fully why, in this case, the general requirements about information and evidence to accompany applications should not be set out in regulations, whether or not subject to a Parliamentary procedure".
I naturally agree with the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and indeed I would go somewhat beyond them. The fact that few people are likely to be involved is not in itself a sufficient answer or a relevant factor. The new requirement on evidence may have a serious effect on the ability of transsexual people to exercise their rights under the Bill. I would suggest that Clause 3(6)(b) should indeed require a parliamentary procedure and should require the negative resolution procedure. I am not suggesting that the matter is important enough to require the affirmative procedure, but it does seem that the negative procedure would be appropriate. Having said that, I shall wait with interest to see how the Minister responds to the challenge laid down by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to explain why the Government think that no form of statutory instrument is required in this case. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 22, which is grouped with these amendments. This amendment also refers to the suggestion from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in that it requires that the Secretary of State must write and publish regulations outlining his expectations of an individual applying for a gender recognition certificate. That would involve details of what other information or evidence he may require as part of the application procedure. We believe that these measures would greatly enhance the transparency of the panel's decision-making process and allow an applicant to know what they may be letting themselves in for. In this way they could make a fully informed decision and there could be no unpleasant surprises as to the nature of the information they will be called on to disclose.

GC 31
It is likely that the type of information required by the Secretary of State will change over time. For that reason, we think that it would be inappropriate to have it laid out on the face of the Bill. There is nothing, however, to prevent the publication of regulations that could be updated as often as necessary by the Secretary of State. Similarly, it is not as if the details of each case will be so wildly different as to make any attempt at generalisation, as would be required in regulations, impossible. I can see no reason, therefore, why this amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall try to rise to the challenge that has been laid down. It might help if I clarified what the power will be used for. It will be used to set the questions that are asked on the application form. Its purpose, therefore, is very narrow. That is why we do not believe that any parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. The application form will ask questions that will enable the panel to determine an application. Contact details, for example, will have to be requested. At the same time, the application form will contain questions relating to the criteria in the Bill. The application form may, for example, ask an applicant to specify what evidence is being supplied to satisfy the panel that the applicant has lived in the acquired gender for at least two years.
The power is therefore already constrained by the criteria in the Bill. If the application form is used to ask for information that does not pertain to the criteria in the Bill, the applicant will be able to challenge that request and, ultimately, if he or she remains unhappy with the request, to apply for judicial review.
It is not typical for legislation to be used to specify the content of an application form. There are many advantages to taking an open approach and to allow ongoing refinements. This will, we believe, be to the benefit of transsexual people and will facilitate the process. For example, 10 years ago, no application form would have asked for an e-mail address, but email is now a very important form of contact. If the amendments were accepted, a change in the application form to ask for an e-mail address would have to be scrutinised by Parliament. In effect, subsection (6)(b) allows the information requested on the form to be altered to suit the panel's or the applicant's needs. The criteria for recognition cannot be changed by the subsection so the use of the subsection is clearly limited. We therefore believe that the amendments proposed are unnecessary.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I will study what he said and consider whether this is a matter that can be left as it is or it should be returned to on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) In the case of an application under section 1(1) from a person who is married, a Gender Recognition Panel must take evidence from the spouse and children of the applicant before making any determination under section 1.
( ) Evidence from the spouse or children may include a report from a chartered psychologist or a registered medical practitioner on the effect of issuing a certificate on the spouse or children of the applicant.
( ) The spouse or children of an applicant shall have the right to offer oral and written evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel and, before issuing a certificate, the Panel shall have due regard to the effect of issuing such a certificate on the spouse or children of an applicant.
( ) In the case of an application under section 1(1) from any unmarried person a Gender Recognition Panel may take evidence from the partner or children of the applicant before making any determination under section 1.
( ) In the case of minor children evidence may be given by a representative appointed on their behalf."
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 69 and 74. This set of amendments are designed to further address the problem to which I drew attention on Second Reading—that of balancing the rights of transsexual persons with the rights of third parties affected by the actions of the transsexual. In particular, the rights of the spouses and children of the transsexual need additional protection. There is barely a nod in their direction throughout the Bill as it currently stands. Worse than that, the spouse is put in the extremely awkward position once an interim gender recognition certificate is granted of having to obtain a divorce and therefore break up the family.
Given the impact that granting a gender recognition certificate will have on family life, we believe that the family should at least be given the opportunity to express their opinion. Amendment No. 23 would give the panel a statutory obligation to hear evidence from the spouse and children of an applicant to give them a chance to have their say in this process that would bring about such a fundamental change to their lives. The evidence may include a report by a psychologist or a doctor. The provision recognises the trauma that such a process could initiate and allows weight to be given to the health and psychological well-being of the family members involved. To that end, the panel must have due regard to the effect on family members of issuing a certificate before it does so. The amendment would also be beneficial by providing the panel with added material on the history and psychological background of a transsexual person, enabling the panel to gain a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding a particular application.
Amendments Nos. 61, 69 and 74 would make provisions in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that, with the consent of the individual holding a gender recognition certificate or following their death, a child or grandchild could be provided with a copy of the original birth certificate. That would save children or grandchildren considerable embarrassment and prevent them having to go into detailed personal explanations to account for having two female or two male parents or grandparents. That

GC 33
is particularly important in cases in which documents must be produced to show evidence of the place of birth of parents or grandparents—when seeking nationality or taking up residence overseas for employment purposes, for example.
The amendments include a condition that the holder of a gender repetition certificate must have given consent if they are alive, because a person who has gone to great lengths to obtain such a certificate will understandably be reluctant to have original copies of their birth certificate in use. The amendments would go further to protect the rights of the intimate family of a transsexual and, alongside the amendment to give spouses and children the opportunity to give evidence to the panel, the Bill would move closer to a position that protected the rights of all individuals affected rather than just those of the transsexual person. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am strongly sympathetic to Amendments Nos. 61, 69 and 74.I have a grown-up daughter who lives in the United States of America. My wife and I spend quite a lot of time going to offices in this country to obtain transcripts of various kinds to prove that she is who she is and we are who we are and that our grandchildren are as they purport to be, despite their very young age. That would seem to be an entirely appropriate target of the legislation, even if the words of those later amendments are not correct. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I disagree with Amendment No. 23 for the following reasons. I would understand her amendment better had she inserted some kind of additional public interest test into Clause 2. She has not done so and nobody else has sought to do so. There is no public interest test there.
Clause 2 contains a set of subjective tests that relate to the social and medical condition of the applicant for the certificate. The effect of the items set out in Amendment No. 23 on the tests in Clause 2 is difficult to understand. There is no logical connection between them. What is the tribunal supposed to do with the evidence obtained under those tests? The answer is self-evident. There is really nothing that it can do with them. Therefore, they are otiose requirement because they do not relate to the medical condition of the applicant.
This House is full of people with extraordinary ranges of experience. Part of my experience, which I am delighted to have put behind me donkey's years ago now, is appearing for one side or the other in defended divorce cases in the courts. There was nothing less attractive than appearing in such cases because, having earned one's money appearing before a judge who was understandably irascible at having to hear in a public forum—almost literally—who washed the dirty linen, one was left mitigating nothing and simply adding to the heat of the occasion and the disagreement between the parties. Amendment No. 23 would introduce an unwelcome element of a contested hearing into a situation that may already be utterly fraught with difficulty. A contested refusal would not
GC 34
mitigate an already difficult situation. In sheer practical as well as logical terms therefore, with respect to the noble Baroness whose aims are laudable and totally understandable, I fear that the situation would be made worse rather than better.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I am grateful, both for the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the response by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am very interested in that response. My sense was to be warmly supportive of the other three amendments in the group and of Amendment No. 23, but with the suggestion that the word "must" in the first paragraph of Amendment No. 23 is too strong. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned offering opportunity or something of that kind, because such people may not wish to give evidence. I would argue that they should be offered the opportunity.
I can see the strength of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, especially if the end product were contested refusal. The noble Lord and others who are lawyers will know better than I, but I have a sense that "due regard" has some legal meaning. It would be perfectly in order, supposing that the Bill becomes law, for a recognition panel to give due regard and so judge that, in the circumstances, it would be proper for the person to go forward in such a way.
From personal experience I am aware of the results of more than one case—although I have particular awareness of one—in which a person went through the process and lived entirely as a transgender person. Although the marriage was sustained, it led to an absolute breakdown with children, grandchildren and siblings. I have no doubt that there are others involving similar pain.
I imagine that if the process were defined in law, the panel might find itself engaged in encouraging various types of mediation, second thoughts, questions about whether this was the right ultimate step to take or whether there were steps to shorten the process that might meet that person's needs—if I can put it that way—and save their relationships. The marriage relationship is one thing, but children and grandchildren are also a serious matter. I do not know that the process is as cut and dried as the noble Lord suggested, although I recognise the force of his point.
Lord Tebbit: I hope that this does not unduly unnerve the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I think that he is right about Amendment No. 23 and about Amendments Nos. 61 and 69. Since this Bill is about recklessly creating rights for a particular category of people, regardless of reality and of the effect upon other people and institutions, the logic of Amendment No. 23 is that considerations about the family and children of such persons have no place in this Bill at all. This Bill is not about them; it is about granting this particular group of people rights regardless of the effect on other institutions or people. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right.
On Amendments Nos. 61 and 69, the noble Lord and my noble friend are also absolutely right. Surely, it is manifestly absurd that, if a child or grandchild sees

GC 35
that their mother or grandmother is engaged in proceedings that will lead to them being recategorised as a man and that a new birth certificate will be issued to say that the child's mother is now a man, the child would be very foolish indeed—if he were old enough and wide-awake enough—not to go at once and procure copies of the true birth certificate, setting out the true facts. Otherwise, as has been said, he would be in the awkward position of having to explain why he had a birth certificate stating that his mother was born a man and always had been a man.
Since the child can do that—if he is wide enough awake and thinks about it—it would be entirely unfair on other children and grandchildren who are perhaps not old enough to see the implications of what is happening to say, "You missed the date. Now you can't have a copy of the birth certificate. Your elder brother and sister have already got a copy, but you can't have one". Quite clearly, that is manifestly absurd, as I am sure the Minister will accept.
Lord Chan: I rise to support the three amendments moved by the noble Baroness because I believe that they are all very important, especially because the condition involves psychological and even psychiatric issues. When the family is given the opportunity to come forward and give their views, there would be an opportunity for the people concerned to reconsider their positions. A small number of transsexuals change their minds after further probing and discussion. The proposal may well be a way of stimulating that, especially if the professionals consider only the patient's condition without having due regard to his or her family.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: The amendments would protect the rights of third parties, especially those of the children and partner or spouse of a transsexual person. I respect the motivation behind the amendments, but the Bill is focused primarily on providing transsexual people with rights guaranteed by European human rights law. That primary purpose must be what guides us. However, central to all human rights legislation is the balance between rights and responsibilities. That is why, wherever possible, we have sought to address those and it is why the Bill ensures, in Clause 12, that a person who is a mother or father retains those responsibilities subsequent to a change of gender.
Similarly, the Bill envisages the end of existing marriages. When the court deals with the dissolution of the marriage, it will be able to deal with issues surrounding financial provision for a spouse and the arrangements to secure provision. As I have already said, the Government are also concerned to ensure that a smooth transition into the formation of a civil partnership is available for couples who wish to remain together. If the legislation is enacted as we intend, a transsexual person and his or her spouse will be able to gain legal recognition of their relationship and their mutual rights and responsibilities as part of the process offered by that Bill.
GC 36
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit: the proposed amendment threatens to change the nature of an application for gender recognition. If the application were accepted, the panel would have to make a penetrating and intrusive determination of the applicant's personal circumstances. The purpose of the Bill—in accordance with the UK's obligations under European law—is to ensure that transsexual people gain the right to seek recognition in their acquired gender. The direct answer is that the panel must consider that. What would they do with evidence which showed that the partner or children did or did not like what was happening? I am afraid that it would be "apples and pears", as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I recognise the logic of the Government's position as, in their different ways, and because this is a debate, the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Tebbit, enunciated it. However, in the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was a hint that makes clear what underlies something that the Minister has just said. It is clear that, just as there are possibilities of contesting a divorce petition, so here, only more so, somewhere in what the Minister just said is a clear statement that the process should be given the green light, whatever the cost to spouses and children, even if the marriage is coming to an end. That is the clear implication of the Minister's statement.
That brings us to the major question of the one-sidedness of the whole operation. As I made clear on Second Reading, the Goodwin judgment is significantly lacking in a series of respects. Paragraph 90 begins:
"Nonetheless, the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom".
The judgment goes on to speak of,
"the protection … given to the personal sphere of each individual".
The Minister makes crystal clear that the Bill is intended to give respect to certain things. I have said that there are elements of the Bill, short of some particular points, which I should like to encourage and to give a fair wind. At this point it seems crystal clear that the Government are, without remainder, giving rights to one set of people and taking no notice of the rights of another. The amendment of the noble Baroness merely lays down that the panel should give "due regard". That is an entirely proper request to make of the panel, granted that, if the proposition were to he agreed, a number of parties and institutions have rights alongside that of the transgender person.
Lord Goodhart: Once again, I am afraid that I disagree with the right reverend Prelate. The procedure proposed by Amendment No. 23 comes far too late and is likely to aggravate pressures within the family. It is plainly desirable that, when one parent contemplates having a gender reassignment, psychotherapy should be available to the children of the marriage, especially if they are not yet adult. They will face quite exceptional difficulties and strains during such a period. However, if it is to be of any use,

GC 37
such treatment should clearly he provided well before the stage of applying for the certificate. An attempt to block the granting of a certificate after an application has been made would be highly confrontational and would almost certainly cause more harm than good. Any treatment or attempt to deal with the internal strains within the family must come at a much earlier stage than the application.
Baroness Buscombe: What is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of the second part of Amendment No. 23, in which we suggest that:
"Evidence from the spouse or children may include a report from a chartered psychologist or a registered medical practitioner on the effect of issuing a certificate on the spouse or children of the applicant"?
Does the noble Lord not think that that is a good idea?
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I would like to add one postscript: suppose either the spouse or children judged that they had evidence to offer concerning the effect on either the physical or mental health of the person concerned which they themselves had not judged right to bring forward or of which their medical practitioner was unaware? Would that not he of interest?
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may seek clarification. I have listened with acute concern to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He mentioned the quite exceptional difficulties and strains that the transgender issue places on children and immediate family of the transsexual involved. If we are to return to a situation in which it must be shown that the transsexual has been living the life of a transsexual for two years, would it not be better if the transsexual should make his or her view known and then there should be a period of two years during which the children, siblings, grandparents and immediate family circle—cousins and all the rest of it—should all have psychiatric treatment?
Lord Goodhart: What the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, suggests makes a good deal of sense. It is clear that all members of the family should be aware of someone contemplating gender reassignment at an early stage. The result of discussion at an early stage may be that the person wishing to change gender decides not go ahead with the plan for family reasons or to defer gender change until a later stage. However, once we have reached the application stage, firm decisions have clearly already been taken. It is most unlikely that any matters would be improved by denying the great efforts and difficulties that the applicant has gone through and by insisting that the status quo be preserved. It is too late. Once we have reached the application stage, the status quo cannot be preserved.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: Is the Minister saying that, in the case of a single parent with young dependent children who wishes to investigate the
GC 38
possibility of a gender recognition certificate, the rights and needs of the children would not be taken into account in the process?
Lord Filkin: Let me start from where the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart took us, because, in essence, that is the reality of the issue—all members of the Committee who have spoken recognise the strength of the human issues surrounding circumstances of this type. We are talking about a person who applies to the panel for recognition of a change of gender. As part of that process they will have had to have demonstrated that they have had gender dysphoria for at least two years. It is not a new or sudden issue, but one that the family will have faced and grappled with in all its complexity for many years.
Lord Tebbit: That is not necessarily true. In the case of a broken family, the children may have been with the parent who was not seeking a gender reassignment and may have had no contact for some time with the other parent or contact in a form in which one parent has arranged that the children will not be aware of the process through which the other is going. It is not quite as simple as the Minister believes.
Lord Filkin: I grant that what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit says, is conceptually possible. However, I would be surprised if that happened in practice, because one would expect it to be part of normal social behaviour for one partner to refer to the fact that the father or mother was seeking to go through such a process. One would expect it to be a duty of parenthood in such situations to bring those issues into the open before the children. Therefore, I seek to illustrate not that there is a simple, perfect or happy answer to these human difficulties—there are not—but that they are issues with which the family would have been struggling for years before we reach the process of deciding whether the legal gender should be recognised by the state. They are not sudden.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I intervene in case I can save him from going on further. I wonder whether part of the point would be met by my proposal to alter the word "must" in the first paragraph of the amendment. If one took out the word "must" and inserted instead something such as "should offer opportunity", which was part of the original form of words introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, then I believe it is most likely that in almost every case all those concerned would react as the Minister describes. This is something that we know about and of which we have been part. Whatever its cost to the person concerned and to ourselves, we know where we are.
I believe that for some people it is basic justice that they should have opportunity. They may responsibly take that opportunity and I suggest that they do so. I say that while recognising that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out that the various expressions have been explored previously. I believe that those issues would have been explored in any responsible medical practice.

GC 39
However, there is still a possibility of a residue that needs to be considered not only regarding the effects on the spouse and children but, as I said a little while ago, also on the person concerned. Therefore, I wonder whether one might have to labour less if one was considering the words "should give opportunity" rather than the word "must" in the first paragraph of the noble Baroness's amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I wish that I could make the right reverend Prelate happy and my life easier by saying "yes" in response to that, but perhaps I may explain why I cannot do so. The tough answer is that the right which the panel will decide whether or not there is evidence in the application to grant is not a right that can be balanced. The state can seek to mitigate it but it cannot say, "Well, because the wife does or does not feel strongly, this is an issue that we can take into account". I believe that that is the nub of the matter.
Secondly, perhaps I may give an illustration of the issue in practice. One can speculate on what a child would feel in some of these situations. He would feel confusion, concern and no doubt embarrassment at some stages but, above all, an anxiety, a hope and a wish that his father, for example, would continue to love and care for him. What evidence could he give that a panel would expect? If he was of tender years, the child could not be put in the position of being asked, "Do you agree or not that your father could change?" That would be completely invidious. On the other hand, if the child was of mature years, in a sense, I believe that it would be otiose.
As for the wife, one can imagine the complexity and distress in the marital relationship. It is impressive how, despite that distress and pressure, many transsexual couples still retain a close bond between each other and an affection and compassion. In many cases, although not all, they retain an interest in retaining the relationship. That will sometimes be the case but sometimes it will not. Often, the situation will be far more confused and somewhere in the middle. But what is the panel meant to do about that? The wife may say, "I think it is true and right and he should have his gender changed", in which case it is otiose, or she may say, "I am ever so upset about this. This has put my life into complete turmoil". The panel would say, "We understand that but it does not have a direct bearing on the issue". That is the sadness of the matter but it is the reality.
In mitigation, I shall make one or two points. First, if the applicant wishes to submit evidence from his or her spouse or child, he may do so. However, for the reasons that I have given, I believe that it is unlikely to be relevant.
Secondly—a point touched on by other noble Lords earlier in the debate on this group of amendments—as the Committee knows, the gender recognition panel merely gives an interim gender recognition certificate to an applicant who is married. For reasons that we shall come to shortly, before that is turned into a full
GC 40
gender recognition certificate, the applicant must go before a divorce court and obtain a divorce consequent on that. Therefore, procedurally, if the couple have doubts or concerns, they have an opportunity to consider further before they finally trigger the divorce.
As I indicated, we are optimistic of bringing before Parliament imminently a Bill on civil partnerships. While, for reasons that are clear, that will not offer a marriage, it will still offer the opportunity for a couple, if they so wish, to have a legal status put round their relationship through a civil partnership.
Lord Moynihan: Will the Minister kindly give way? Does he accept that many transsexuals find it odious that the interim certification process is proposed in the Bill? If he is aware of that, what is his response to those people?
Lord Filkin: I suggest that we discuss that issue when we come to the amendment on marriage, which, if we travel hopefully, we shall reach later this evening.
I turn to the proposed amendments to Schedule 3. I should make clear that the original birth records—
The Lord Bishop of Chester: Perhaps I may return to the point that I made about a single parent. I accept the points made by the Minister concerning a husband or a wife but, in relation to Amendment No. 23, I specifically raised the question of a single parent with children. As things stand, there is no reference in the Bill to consideration being given to the rights and needs of children. I should like to know whether under Clause 3(6)(c) the panel, which can ask for other information or evidence, would have the right to inquire about the effects upon children? It seems to me that there is an obligation to ensure that the rights and needs of children are given some clear standing, notwithstanding that the Bill primarily concerns the rights of the adult where a single parent has dependent children.
I fully accept that, without doubt, the situation will be difficult and tense in all kinds of ways throughout the process. But surely that is no reason to leave open the possibility that the rights of children will simply be ignored. One could imagine a single parent going through the process without the children knowing what was happening. That is rather difficult to envisage but it seems to be allowed here. Does not the Bill need a provision whereby the rights of dependent children this is especially apt where there is only one parent—are taken into account by those who adjudicate on the matter?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I beg forgiveness for intervening so soon after an earlier intervention. However, does the Minister agree that some noble Lords in this Committee are overlooking the reality of what happens during the two-year plus period before an application goes before the gender recognition panel? The reality is that, in the clinics that deal with these cases, an exhaustive inquiry is made, including family inquiries. In some cases, family therapy, although, heaven forfend, not compulsory psychiatric treatment, is given so that by the time the case reaches

GC 41
the tribunal, every possible inquiry will have been made. Does the Minister agree that, in some families—perhaps not in the majority but in some—the process will have lifted the burden from the family rather than imposed a new one?
Lord Filkin: Not for the first time, I am grateful for the expertise and clarity of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on these issues. He describes the situation exactly. As I sought to indicate earlier in my response, this is not a sudden occurrence; it is the climax of a long process of change, development and testing in exactly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, signalled. As part of that process, one would expect that the rights of the children would be inquired into.
Clearly, in the situation that we are describing, as part of that process, the doctors and the psychiatrists are evaluating whether the individual—say, a single parent—is genuinely committed to the change of gender. They ask, "Have you really thought it through? Are you aware of the implications? Is this something that you wish to live with permanently for the rest of your life?" Therefore, as part of those inquiries, it is perfectly right and proper to ask, "And what about the effect on your child? How are you going to care for your child? How does your child see all of this? Have you thought it all through? Have you lived it all through in practice?"
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way on that point. If that does not happen during the two-year period, in effect the children and close family members of the transsexual will have absolutely no rights under the Bill. I believe that we need clarity on that point. The Bill concerns only the rights of transsexuals.
Lord Filkin: As I indicated earlier, essentially the focus of the Bill concerns how we fulfil what we think of as our legal and moral obligations to implement a process that recognises a reality for a limited number of people. Children have rights and protections under other legislation—for example, the social services child protection Acts—and, clearly, if the issue of children's care and welfare arises in these circumstances, then there is a right and a duty to intervene.
I turn to the amendment proposed to Schedule 3. The original birth records will not be destroyed. The Bill does not rewrite history. The original birth records will remain in existence and will be available to any person who has the relevant birth details. Therefore, a child or grandchild will be able to search for, and obtain a copy of, the original birth record entry. The Bill requires no amendment to ensure that result and I am glad to be able to confirm that.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to these amendments. In relation to Amendment No. 23, the Minister made clear—of course, he was absolutely right—that, in bringing forward this legislation, the Government are seeking to respond to the UK's obligations under European
GC 42
law. But that does not mean that we cannot improve upon the law and ensure that we have a better law in this country than our European Union partners.
I am grateful, in particular, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for immediately pointing out that the amendment is defective in the sense that we are wrong to use the word "must". As I made clear in my opening remarks, we are talking about an opportunity for the family to be a part of this very difficult process.
I hear what the Minister said about this situation not necessarily happening overnight; in most circumstances, it will take place over a long period. However, I cannot accept that that means that the family should be denied the opportunity to take part in what is a very difficult process at this stage.
I thought that the Government were interested in a holistic approach to supporting families, and that is what I seek in these amendments. The Government have often talked about supporting victims of crime and wanting to give victims the opportunity to have their say about an issue that has affected them. While I do not even begin to say that this matter can be related to the criminal law, I do say that no issue such as this should affect the family so intrinsically that some may feel that they are victims. That may be the case if the legislation allows them to have no opportunity to state their case. Indeed, as we suggested in the second paragraph of our amendment:
"Evidence from the spouse or children may include a report from a … psychologist or a registered medical practitioner on the effect of issuing a certificate on the spouse or children of the applicant".
I am very grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Goodhart, who made it clear that there is no public interest test in Clause 2. The Bill does not seek to include the feelings, if I may express it that way, of the family, but I believe that it should do so. The right reverend Prelate used the word "mediation". I believe there is a strong possibility that giving the family the opportunity to take part in the process, even at this stage, could help the process rather than hinder it.
I tried to put myself in the position of a person who is going through this process. Perhaps one reason that so many of the few who are involved in this issue are able to bring with them the support and love of their spouse, notwithstanding that they want to go through a gender reassignment, is that there has been good ongoing communication, however tough, between those couples. I honestly feel that our amendment is saying, "Let's see that strength of communication through to the final process of the change". I also believe that, as a member of the gender recognition panel, I would want to know what was going on in the minds and hearts of the families involved.
Therefore, I hear the Minister's response and the helpful contributions from other noble Lords but I want to think very carefully about this amendment. I would certainly seek to amend the wording to give the spouse and the family a choice rather than use the word "must". I believe that the use of that word is a mistake.

GC 43
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, also raised the reality of some people going through the process to some extent and then changing their minds. Surely there cannot be too much discussion or communication between families before the final certificate is received. I shall leave it at that with regard to Amendment No. 23. However, I want to give the matter further consideration, perhaps with a view to returning to it on Report.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 61, 69 and 74, I want to ask the Minister a question. I apologise for extending the debate in this way. The Minister reassured me to the extent that he said that the spouses and families of such individuals would be able to obtain a copy of the original birth certificate. Would they be able to do that while the person was still living?
Lord Filkin: Yes. If they knew the name and the date of birth, they would be able to obtain a copy of the original birth certificate.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The Panel shall give reasons for requesting information or evidence under subsection (6)(c)."
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a fairly short point raised by Liberty. Clause 3(6)(c) enables the panel to require further information or evidence. In these cases, information can, of course, sometimes be intrusive and distressing. It is therefore desirable that the panel should require further information or evidence only where there is a justifiable reason for doing so.
A decision to require information or evidence will potentially be subject to judicial review. But judicial review is far more effective if the panel is required to give reasons which can be reviewed by the High Court. The purpose of the amendment is to require that when a panel needs further information or evidence, which obviously must be specific to the case, it must give reasons for doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is not uncommon for judicial panels to request further information when they are considering a case on the papers. The gender recognition panel may, from time to time, need to ask the applicant for further evidence in support of his or her application. It is good practice for a panel to give reasons for such requests—not only to assist the individual in providing the correct information but also to reassure the individual that it is necessary.
It has always been the intention that members of the panel will give their reasons if they need to request further information. An amendment to the Bill will enshrine that requirement in law and will strengthen trust in the panel.
GC 44
I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of this issue and I undertake to table a government amendment on Report to achieve the change that he has suggested.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Successful applications]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: This is the first amendment in a very long group which takes up two lines on the groupings list. In moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to all the amendments in the group, apart from Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The question of the effect of a gender recognition certificate on an existing marriage has been a matter of great concern, not least, of course, to transsexual people. Where an applicant is married at the date of the hearing, under the Bill as it now stands the panel can grant only an interim certificate. That will be converted into a full certificate only if the marriage is dissolved or annulled in proceedings commenced within six months of the grant of the interim certificate. Meanwhile, the interim certificate has no effect, except to give an additional ground for annulling the marriage.
It is known that in some cases—it will certainly be a minority but there will be some—both parties to the original marriage will wish to remain married to each other in spite of one of them having acquired a new gender. The question is: why should they not be allowed to do that? The Government say that the law must not recognise a marriage between a couple who are seen in law as being of the same sex. It may well be justifiable to say that marriage can be entered into only between a couple of the opposite sex, but it does not follow logically that a marriage validly entered into must be annulled before the gender change can he recognised by law. If the couple were legally married originally and wished to continue their marriage, I believe that it would be wrong to present them with the dilemma either of having to terminate the marriage, which both wish to keep, or of depriving one of them of the right to legal recognition of gender change.
After the Second Reading debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, explained that the Government had problems with the effect of a continuing marriage on the right to benefits and pensions. I accept that those problems exist. That is why we included in this group Amendment No. 82, which treats a marriage as having come to an end for benefit and pension purposes on the date of the issue of the certificate. For other purposes—for example, for relief from inheritance tax on the property passing from one of the original spouses to the other—the marriage would continue.
The Government say that the problem will be solved when the civil partnerships Bill is enacted and comes into force. The parties can annul their marriage one day and enter into a civil partnership the next. I believe that that is not an adequate answer. First, at this stage, the civil partnerships Bill is simply a hope for the future. We have been told that it will be introduced this Session but we cannot be certain that that forecast will be satisfied; nor can we be satisfied as to when the civil partnerships Bill will be enacted.
Secondly, I suspect that couples in that situation would also greatly prefer the continued recognition of their existing marriage to entry into a new and different legal relationship.
There are a large number of amendments in this group, but I do not propose to go through them in any detail because most of them are merely consequential. This group of amendments proposes to abolish the entire concept of interim certificates and to enable the panel to proceed directly to the grant of a full certificate where there is a subsisting marriage. That will leave the grant of the certificate as grounds for annulment of the marriage under Schedule 2, if either party wishes that course to be taken. It is obvious that if either party wishes to terminate a marriage in those circumstances, they should be allowed to do so.
The Government require the termination of the existing marriage as a precondition to legal recognition of the gender change. That is not logical, necessary or compassionate, and I ask the Government to reconsider the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak to Amendment No. 53, which is grouped with the other amendments. I did not take part in the debate on the first group of amendments in relation to marriage and same-sex marriage because I wanted to reserve what I have to say for this grouping of amendments.
As I understand it, the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Carlile of Berriew, would result in two individuals, who are recognised in the law as being of the same sex, marrying each other. We on these Benches have a free vote on this Bill, but I cannot envisage a time when we would support legislation for same-sex marriage. I made that point at Second Reading— that we have never supported any form of legislation that would allow for same-sex marriage. That is my personal point of view as well. Therefore, we do not support the amendment.
My amendment is a probing amendment. I am trying to get around the difficulty that the Bill is asking people to divorce. As I said at Second Reading, that so much goes against the grain; and at the same time we want to help transsexual people through this process. The amendment seeks to find a way around what is one of the most unfortunate consequences of the Bill—that is, when a happily married transsexual person is forced to get a divorce before being entitled to any of the rights and obligations that are bestowed on the holder of a full gender recognition certificate. In a society that believes that marriage is a sacred union between a man
GC 46
and a woman, there seems to be little alternative but to require the marriage to end before there can be legal recognition of the gender change.
The amendment is trying to find an alternative. If the Government believed that the amendment would lead to same-sex marriage, I hope that they would make it clear in their response, because it is very important that we avoid that consequence. We hope that the amendment would give the holder of an interim gender recognition certificate full recognition of their acquired gender, apart from when it comes to their status in marriage. In that instance, they remain in the law as their gender at birth. I do not deny that that leaves the transsexual in a rather ambiguous category—and it is far from ideal. However, the question is whether the untidiness that the amendment would add to the Bill is worth accepting for the sake of keeping a loving family together, which is what the amendment seeks to do.
I know that noble Lords will not need convincing of the critical importance of keeping a family together where at all possible. That the families who will be affected by the Bill will in most cases have gone through years of uncertainty, confusion and pain and have still managed to stay together is a testament to their commitment and love for one another, and their own belief that a marriage is for life. For the Government to put that relationship through yet further trauma would be extremely unfortunate.
As the Bill stands, gaining an interim certificate does not affect the status of a transsexual beyond its simply being a passport to getting their marriage annulled. If our amendment, or a version of it, were accepted, it would bring the rights and obligations of the holder of an interim certificate into line with those of a holder of a full certificate, except that they would not be allowed to have an amended birth certificate. I am looking at the Minister and I believe that that will fall before it has hardly come up for air.
This is Grand Committee stage and we have been racking our brains to try to find a way around the problem. Perhaps we are failing, but we are trying. The interim gender recognition certificate would continue for as long as the marriage, hence the term "interim" may have to be altered. The amendment is intended to explore possibilities and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: There appear to be two different questions before us at the moment. I confess that I am at a loss, just as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart was, as to why Amendment No. 53 is in this group. I shall return to it in a mint. the. As for the rest of the group, I am delighted, as I was at Second Reading, to find that on this matter the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Carlile, and I and A number of other noble Lords seek to say the same thing. I welcome the speeches made and this line of amendments, with at their heart the fact that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill.

GC 47
I shall not repeat what I said at Second Reading, except to remind the Minister that he knows my reasons, which I continue to believe to be cogent, for disbelieving what he may tell us, that only if Clause 5 stands part and divorce is mandatory in those circumstances, can the Government avoid backing same-sex marriage. He knows that he and I disagree with that, but I note that that was a point that I made.
Since speaking on 18 December, I have been made aware of three, possibly four, other instances of people who are deeply anxious about the proposal that they will have to choose between one party in the marriage seeking a gender recognition certificate and the continuation of the marriage. They regard their marriages as commitments that they made to each other, in some cases before God—in other cases not before God or not explicitly so—and they find it a matter of sheer cruelty that they should be made to break up their marriage. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made clear too—I was delighted to hear him say so—marriage and civil partnership are not the same thing. I do not believe that the Government will propose that they are; if they do it will make life still more difficult for themselves. It seems to me that for those reasons this is an extremely important set of amendments.
Perhaps the Chairman or other noble Lords will think that we should wait until we get to Clause 9 to work on Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It is an amendment to Clause 9 and that clause contains what the Government describe in the Explanatory Notes as the fundamental proposition of the Bill. I had imagined that, at this point where I disagree fundamentally with the basic proposition of the Bill, I could not see how it could be amended. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has managed to produce Amendment No. 78, which I take to be such an amendment. I believe that we shall have to discuss those at another time if we are not to cause each other confusion.
Lord Tebbit: As I was listening to other noble Lords I was reminded of a little rhyme that we probably all learned from our mothers at some stage in our childhood:
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive".
The problem is that the Bill is based on a deceit, on a lie. We constantly come up against the most difficult questions, which are caused by the fact that the Bill is based on a lie. We try to twist and to turn it around and say that people who are of opposite sexes are both of the same sex. That creates a complication because if they are married, that will look like a same-sex marriage. So now we must say that we cannot have that, so we must provide that the marriage is annulled, that it never really existed because the certificate will be due to say, when it is a full certificate, that one partner to the marriage was born a different sex from that which they were. We compound, one upon the other, these extraordinary statements. It all goes
GC 48
back—I do not want to make a Second Reading speech—to the fact that the Bill is based on an entirely false premise. That is why we are in such trouble.
Having said that, we need to think our way through the problem and try to ameliorate the nastier consequences of this legislation. As we all know, many marriages continue through love and companionship which has grown up over many years and they are no longer related to what one may describe as sexual activity. That is probably true in a number of the kind of cases with which the Bill seeks to deal. That is why the partners may wish to continue living together in some kind of ordered and legalistic structure, although the marriage is quite clearly as dead as a doornail in conventional terms. We have to deal with that problem. We cannot brush it aside in the way that we have had to brush aside the interests of the children by saying that the children do not matter, which is what the Bill says.
I do not know the appropriate way to deal with the matter. I am inclined to take the view which I suspect the Minister will take, that it is clear that such a marriage must be annulled, and not solely on grounds—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, nodding quietly—of social security or benefits or anything like that. She is responsible for such matters. I am overjoyed to see a Minister showing some signs of parsimony. We are not used to that, except in relation to defence or some such subject. I have the greatest sympathy with those who are trying to make sense of the Bill and who are seeing how they can limit the damage that the Bill, by its very nature, will do.
Baroness O'Cathain: This is probably one of the most difficult issues. It comes back to the effects on the family. Someone who wants to acquire a gender recognition certificate may live as a companion with a spouse, having brought up children together. They may have a social structure of friends and family and suddenly in one fell swoop because one of them feels that he or she has to have gender reassignment, that all falls apart.
That means that Clauses 4 and 5 emphasise how ridiculous are the practical implications of the Bill. Granting a gender recognition certificate forces the end of a legitimate marriage; that is one where the two parties are of opposite sex, exactly the definition given by the Minister. The Government claim that it does not want to create same-sex marriages in law, which is what would happen if such marriages were allowed to continue after the legal change of sex. However, a gender recognition certificate will allow the holder to marry someone of the same biological sex. That will create same-sex marriages in fact. It seems to me that the choice in the Government's eyes is to have same-sex marriages in fact or same-sex marriages in law and in fact. Those who believe in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage want neither.
In the wonderful speech of my noble friend Lord Tebbit he said that such people could live in a marriage that is as dead as a dodo for many years. In fact, many marriages are as dead as a dodo, not because of want

GC 49
of gender recognition, but because of paralysis, strokes and illnesses of all kinds but they are very strong marriages.
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend is absolutely right. Indeed I should have said of marriages that may remain in being despite one partner suffering a mental illness—the partner may simply be a different person—that the bonds are so strong that such marriages last. I believe that that is the kind of situation that we face with this legislation.
Baroness Buscombe: Am I right in thinking that my noble friend believes that marriage is just about sex and that it is as dead as a dodo if there is no sex?
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I can correct my noble friend. I can reassure her that I said that it was certainly not only about sex. It is not just sex that keeps alive a marriage. People who marry before God, or elsewhere, can remain committed over a long period of time despite illness—my noble friend mentioned mental illness—and they are some of the strongest marriages that I know.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the illogicality of the situation that arises when an applicant is married. I observe that earlier today noble Lords pointed out that it was not necessary for the panel to be satisfied other than in relation to the particular criteria set out in Clause 2 of the Bill, which include proof of intention to continue to live in the acquired gender until death. On the other hand, notwithstanding the acquisition of a new gender, Clause 12 provides that that will not affect the status—observe the word "status" —of the person as father or mother of a child. The consequence of the issue of a certificate is that the person is still married and is therefore a spouse. The other party, who has had no rights in the context of an application, remains a spouse and is entitled, whether he or she wishes or not, to raise an action for decree of nullity, or in Scotland a decree of divorce, on the ground that a certificate has been issued.
Going through the fiction in law, as regards the children of a marriage, the person who has acquired the new gender remains the parent who was normally called "father" or "mother" beforehand. There seems little difficulty in having a fiction that someone who has been the spouse of a person who has changed gender by acquisition should remain a spouse until the parties determine one way or the other whether they wish that relationship, and all the consequent rights that go with it, to remain. I am bound to say that I find myself entirely sympathetic with the view that there should be no distinction made between a person who is married or one who is unmarried as to the issue of a gender recognition certificate and the consequence on legal rights.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Following the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, one
GC 50
should go a little further. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for provoking consideration of issues, in his inimitable way, that otherwise may have gone unnoted. He said that a marriage would be as dead as a doornail—I think that was the expression—in conventional terms when one party to the marriage received a certificate.
Lord Tebbit: I actually said "as dead as a dodo".
Noble Lords: The noble Lord said "as dead as a doornail".
Lord Tebbit: I meant to say "as dead as a dodo". Let us all agree on "dodo". I believe I said "in conventional terms", but I should have said "in sexual terms". That is the point that I wanted to make.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord has rather spoilt my intervention. This is important. Everyone is grappling with a hugely difficult set of issues. It is important to remember and the noble Lord quoted a famous saying which talks of deceiving everyone. I do not believe that anyone is trying to deceive anyone about anything. In a way, the noble Lord may be arguing against himself. Surely the endeavour here is to be honest about a relationship.
The marriage relationship is an extraordinarily complex and many splendoured thing. The truth of the matter is that those—I am tempted to say, who are in an unfortunate predicament—who still love each other and who still have children, would, as the right reverend Prelate said, destroy a marriage or have a marriage destroyed, with all kinds of consequences that I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would not want to see come about. I put it to him and to the Grand Committee that whatever the outcome, one must recognise that social reality evolves. In the kind of minority marriage that we are talking about, it does not do justice to honesty or to reality to pretend that the core of the relationship does not still exist and is not vital.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord is quite right. The deceit to which I referred was the deceit that is at the base of the Bill; the deceit that we can change a person's sex. Law Lords may believe that they are very powerful and that the law can change people's sex, but that quite clearly is arrant nonsense. I stand by what I said about deceit in the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am tempted to say, "Oh, what a deceiving web we weave, when first we tangle". I believe we are getting into a tangle over legal provisions, while probably sharing a set of laudable intentions to make family life as easy as possible after a gender recognition certificate has been issued to those who have gone through the traumatic process, which it is for everyone.
I am one of those associated with amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Goodhart and I do not resile from that for one moment. However, I ask the Government to consider postponing any final decision upon this part of the Bill to see whether we can

GC 51
find a way of seamlessly translating relationships, whether from one legal relationship to another, or so that there remains a definition that permits the existing legal relationship of marriage. I entirely see the logic of what the Government are trying to do. It is far and away the simplest and least tangled approach available, although it may not be the best for families.
At the very least I invite the Government to consider the possibility of trying to make the translation, if there is to be one, from marriage to civil partnership—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for that phrase—completely seamless and automatic. If the civil partnerships Bill had been considered by Parliament before this Bill, the matter could have been made completely seamless. Please may I beg the Minister to consider whether somehow we could find a legislative means so that this part of the legislation can be hitched into the civil partnerships Bill? Can we have an undertaking that it will be, so that there can be automatic translation without any need for any proceedings, rather than the cumbersome tangle we find ourselves in today? I do not resile for one moment from supporting the views of those who wish to remain married, but I recognise the difficulty and ask, as a back stop, for that possibility to be considered as a practical answer.
Baroness Buscombe: I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said. That is the reason why I have brought forward an amendment to say that Clause 25 stand part as that is all about the commencement of the Bill. The reason why I tabled that—we shall probably debate it tomorrow—is that if only the civil partnerships Bill had been debated and come into force before this Bill, we would all be in a better position.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps I may offer the Minister a word of advice. It is intriguing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, inviting him down what is so far from a primrose path as to be a path of thorns and thistles of all kinds. It cannot be the case that there is an equivalence between marriage on the one hand and civil partnership on the other. The notion that there can be a seamless join means that we are into dusk and dawn again. There cannot be a seamless join between two significantly different relationships.
To suggest to people who are married, whether their convictions are based in the practice of a faith or not, that notwithstanding the enormous crisis of transgendering, which may be quite analogous to the crisis of a chronic illness of whatever kind or a whole range of other things, that the matter can be resolved by walking down the road of a seamless transition to civil partnership, seems to me to be utterly unacceptable.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful for the chance to join this important debate. I am glad that someone has taken Auden's advice and stopped the clock, so we are in good time. According to the clock we have another hour and 10 minutes!
GC 52
As will be apparent, the aim of the Bill is to give transsexual people the right to live legally in their acquired gender. It is not to make special allowances for transsexual people which do not apply to other groups in society. If the existing marriage of a transsexual person were to be allowed to continue after a change of gender, it would be a same-sex marriage. I was explicitly clear on the Government's position on this point—not to universal acclaim—at Second Reading. Same-sex marriages are not permitted under UK law. The Government believe that that should remain the case.
Acquiring a new gender brings with it—it is tough but true—all the rights, responsibilities and restrictions that currently exist in UK law. We believe that it is not possible, nor is it right to have a mix-and-match situation. In deciding whether to seek legal recognition in the acquired gender a person has to take all of the implications of that change into account, including the effect on an existing marriage. My noble friend Lady Hollis, when responding to Amendment No. 82, will also signal that and it applies to all the financial and relationship implications.
The right to marry under Article 12 of the convention applies only to men and women of marriageable age. There is no ECHR issue here. The Strasbourg courts have not required that a state have an institution of same-sex marriage. We would have heard about it had they done so. The fact that recognition of a transsexual person might require a previous marriage to come to an end was recognised by the Strasbourg court in Goodwin v UK when it noted,
"it is for the Contracting State to determine inter alia the conditions… under which past marriages cease to be valid".
What the Bill provides, however, is a simple mechanism whereby an individual who has decided to seek recognition can dissolve his or her existing marriage. In designing this mechanism we have had two aims: to leave the individual in control of the process and to tackle the practical difficulties that ending an existing marriage may create.
If a married individual applies and is successful, he or she will receive an interim gender recognition certificate. That certificate will provide the basis for a new ground for dissolution of the marriage provided in Schedule 2. On dissolving the marriage, the court will substitute a full gender recognition certificate for the interim certificate.
In this way, the Bill proposes to avoid the situation where a married applicant must first end his or her marriage and only then learn whether his or her application meets the criteria for a gender change. The process provided in the Bill prevents the applicant falling into the vulnerable position of learning that his or her application has been unsuccessful after having already ended his or her marriage. The applicant is therefore in control of the process and able to plan his or her affairs.
When the court deals with the ending of a marriage, it can also deal with ancillary, practical issues. It will, for example, be able to consider orders for financial provision, a pension-sharing order or provisions regarding the children of the family.

GC 53
In taking the stance of requiring existing marriages to end, we nevertheless recognise that the relationships in question might be very strong. In acknowledgement Of that partnership bond, we want to enable couples who have stayed together through the most difficult gender transition of one partner to regain a legal status for their relationship.
As Members of the Committee will know, the Government are also planning to legislate so that same-sex couples can gain legal recognition of their relationships. When the civil partnerships Bill is enacted, the institution of civil partnership and the rights and responsibilities that go with it will be available to a couple who were previously married after one partner receives recognition in the acquired gender. That couple will then be a same-sex couple and will be able to form a civil partnership just like any other same-sex couple.
Forming a civil partnership will address the issue of legal recognition of the relationship. It will bring rights and responsibilities. Clearly it is important that the process of transition from marriage to civil partnership is as smooth as possible. I commend the clarity of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on this point. He recognises the logic of the Government's position and that we are not intending to change it. It is absolutely important that we make that process of change as painless as possible.
In developing the civil partnership proposals, the Government have been considering ways of making the movement from one status to another. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is right. These are different statuses. No one is pretending that they are not. The status of marriage is very different from that of civil partnership. Nevertheless, the proposed civil partnerships will seek to give legal clarity to the relationship between two people who wish to live together and will seek to resolve some of the current uncertainties.
Therefore, in developing the proposals, we have considered ways in which the gap between the ending of a marriage and the formation of a civil partnership can be minimised. Exceptionally, I should like to mark the efforts that officials have put into this. It is difficult stuff and they have been working very hard on it.
The intention of the Government's civil partnerships proposals is to permit a couple who have ended their marriage—in order to allow one party to change gender—to give notice and enter into a civil partnership with each other on the same day as their marriage is annulled. Therefore, while there will be separate processes, we think that it is possible to bring the two as close as possible so that there will be no gap if the couple do not wish there to be a gap as a consequence. Clearly, they are in control of that process. The process is not forced on them.
Should the Gender Recognition Bill be enacted as we intend and be implemented prior to the civil partnership legislation, it will—as we have already
GC 54
touched on—be for a married transsexual person to decide whether to wait for the implementation of civil partnership proposals or to seek gender recognition as soon as the gender recognition panels are in place. Again, those individuals are in control of the process. If they did not wish to move into a legal void in which they could not move into a civil partnership, they would be able to wait and not pursue the gender recognition process until the other legislation had come into force.
I shall leave Amendment No. 82 to my noble friend Lady Hollis.
I turn to Amendment No. 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. As we know, marriage is connected to many other legal rights and responsibilities. It is not possible to say that a person is of one gender for marriage and another gender for everything else. Marriage will include much of what is in the other category; for example, parenthood, inheritance, pensions and benefits.
Ultimately, to say that a person is of one gender for marriage and another gender for everything else is to attempt to subvert the principle of opposite-sex marriage, in a way that we cannot support. I am sorry about that because I recognise the earnestness of the endeavour of the noble Baroness in that respect. The Government recognise that when a marriage has survived the often difficult process of one partner's transition to another gender, there exists a strong and important partnership bond. That is why we believe it is important that the state does what it can to make that continue at least in a legal framework.
UK law has clearly defined marriage as an institution for opposite-sex couples. That is the history of the institution and its distinct nature. Same-sex partnerships will provide an alternative form of recognition which will not be marriage but which will have the benefits on which I have touched.
On Clause 25 and the argument that we should defer the Bill until we have the civil partnerships Bill, there are powerful arguments for allowing married couples to move smoothly into forming a civil partnership when one partner has changed gender. I do not believe that anything is gained by preventing transsexual people from applying for gender recognition until the civil partnerships Bill is enacted. In other words, the vast majority of this group, who are not married, therefore should have the right to exercise their right to change their gender, while the others, who cannot as yet avail themselves of civil partnerships, can exercise the option I indicated of waiting until the civil partnerships Bill is enacted. That is a better remedy than saying nothing must happen at all until there are civil partnerships. I hope before long to be able to add reinforcement to my indications that we are committed to the early introduction of the civil partnerships Bill, so that the Committee will see that these are not mere loose words.
I shall now leave my noble friend Lady Hollis to deal with Amendment No. 82.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I shall not seek to repeat the comments of my noble friend. At the end of the day the issue is about an informed choice. Someone might live their life in their preferred gender, go for surgery, but if they do not seek a gender reassignment certificate, the legal basis of their marriage remains. They can do that until or if or when they wish, perhaps to move on to a civil partnership. The problem is that we are not just dealing with legal rights in a vacuum, but legal rights that carry a whole frame of financial responsibilities, as the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Goodhart, accepted in previous discussions after the Bill's Second Reading.
I tried to suggest that we could not run a social security system where the rules of social security are based to some degree, particularly pensions, both on gender and on marital status. One has to think only of basic state pension. One cannot work a social security system which allows some individuals to be married for some purposes and not to be married for others. It must be universal.
Our talk was perhaps the genesis of Amendment No. 82. It seeks to exclude social security, so that one ends up with people who have undergone gender reassignment being able to remain married in other parts of their lives but being separate individuals for the purposes of social security. That also presumes that the words "social security" are sufficiently ring-fenced that one can make that clean distinction. One cannot do so. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has very real experience in this matter, will recognise that, certainly—for example—regarding the impact on occupational pension schemes. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Lord in greater detail on the issue. Non-contracting out schemes are not covered by Schedule 5, so the payment of such pensions and survivors' benefits would operate as though the marriage had continued, despite the effect of the amendment.
That could result in different treatment for a surviving partner of a member of a contracted-out scheme and the surviving partner of a member of a scheme that is not contracted out. Equally, contracted-out pension schemes could also he affected because the calculation of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP), which assures that one is no worse off than if one had stayed within the state system, would have to be altered. Contracted-out schemes, which provide benefits beyond GMP rights would suffer administrative difficulties.
Due to the fact that Schedule 5 does not apply to pension rights above GMP rights, if Amendment No. 82 were to he accepted, there would be acute difficulties in that the marriage would be void for the purposes of contracted-out rights, but not for the benefits over and above these rights. Linked to that is the issue of the survivor's GMP. If the marriage were to be considered ended for the purpose of social security benefits, the surviving partner would not be
GC 56
entitled to a survivor's GMP. Some decision would have to be taken by the occupational scheme about the rights of survivors' benefits exceeding the GMP rights and so on. I could continue. It is extremely technical stuff.
I recognise the spirit behind the intent, which is to extract social security. But one cannot say that for some purposes one is married and that for other purposes one is not and have a social security system run by 130,000 staff across the country and make it discretionary. One cannot do that.
Therefore, I recognise the pressure behind it to try and exclude social security, but that again assumes that a clean line can be drawn. It cannot, because given our occupational pensions, the guaranteed minimum pension, which is what people who contract out receive, ensures that the provision offered by contracting out is no less favourable than would have been paid out under the old SERPS national insurance scheme. All of those are intimately linked. One cannot draw such a clean line, and therefore I repeat, along the lines of my noble friend, that one cannot pick and mix which gender one can have for different purposes. It is regrettable, but if a marriage is so valued by both parties, at the end of the day an informed choice can be made to live one's life in a new gender, even to have the surgery, but not necessarily go for gender reassignment, because that is the legal framework upon which the benefits have to rest.
Lord Goodhart: We have had substantial debate on the issue and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part—in particular to those who have supported the amendments, notably the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Winchester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
I shall not repeat the arguments—they have gone backwards and forwards. The only matter which was not raised and needs briefly to be discussed is that of the benefit and pension issues, of which no other Member than the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has spoken. Schedule 5 is relatively simple on the face of it, but I suspect that there are anomalies that will arise, even if the Bill is enacted as it now stands, in relation to matters that are not under state benefits, but really matters of contract such as occupational pensions, insurance policies, and so on. They may have to be worked out. I am also not convinced that it is beyond the wit of the Department for Work and Pensions to come up with answers to the problems relating, for instance, to GMPs and the difference between contracted-out and non contracted-out pensions. I would certainly welcome a letter from the Minister on that issue.
The issue is important and thus deserves a hearing in the Chamber, so I shall bring it back for debate on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Interim certificates: marriage]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 39 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Errors in certificates]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 7, leave out from first "person," to "for" in line 8 and insert "an application may be made"
The noble Lord said: I sometimes wish that the Committee would not proceed quite so quickly. I have some sympathy with the Minister when things move on suddenly and unexpectedly and he is desperately scrambling for his notes, which is an experience that many of us have.
Amendment No. 41 concerns errors in certificates. Essentially, it should not only be the person or the Secretary of State who make the application, but any other person who has good reason so to do. Clause 6(2) would then read:
"Where a sex recognition certificate has been issued to a person, an application may be made for a corrected certificate on the ground that the certificate which has been issued contains an error".
That seems to be a fairly common-sense provision. I do not see why the application should be restricted only to the Secretary of State and the applicant. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: As a Minister, one wonders sometimes whether one sees problems where there are none. Nevertheless, let me explain why we are minded to resist the amendment.
The purpose of Clause 6 is to make it possible for a person or for the Secretary of State to apply for a correction to a gender recognition certificate.
A correction will be made in the gender recognition register if an error is subsequently discovered in the original birth record, an error has been made in the gender recognition certificate supplied by the gender recognition panel or if an error has been made in copying details into the register.
The types of corrections envisaged are in relation to the spelling of a person's name or the date on which a certificate was issued. Given the nature of the corrections that will be made, it is appropriate that only the applicant or the Secretary of State have the power to apply for a correction. So, for example, if the spelling of a name is wrong, the applicant will apply. If the certificate has been issued with the wrong date, the Secretary of State may apply.
If the scope of those who may apply is changed so that it is unlimited, the prospect of inappropriate applications is raised. Someone may seek to challenge the reasons on which the certificate was issued in the first place. The Bill makes no provision for such a challenge—and rightly so. The purpose of the Bill is to allow transsexual people access to basic human rights. Although rights must be balanced with responsibilities, we do not believe that in this case it is for others to restrict access to those rights.
GC 58
Having said that, I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, if he wishes to advance further arguments for changing the documentation that could not be adequately addressed by either a third party speaking to the applicant or the Secretary of State and drawing it to their attention. If the noble Lord would, I should be pleased to make sure my ears were open to reflect on that issue.
Lord Tebbit: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It is quite clear from what he says that this is essentially a bureaucratic provision—perhaps I may put it in that sense. There is a detail that is wrong and can be corrected. I had in mind that there are persons perhaps outside—the other interested parties such as the children, for example, of a person who has had a certificate made. It may have been falsely made for some reason—perhaps, for example, to enable two persons of the same sex to enter into a marriage. One may have falsely argued his or her way through the process and been issued with a certificate in order to conduct a same-sex marriage. I recognise that in the lawyer's view it would not legally be a same-sex marriage.
That was the kind of thing that I had in mind. Clearly, that is not the sort of issue for which the provision was intended. Therefore, it would be best for me to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to give further thought about whether I might devise something which may answer the problem or possibility that I saw, as opposed to the purpose of this provision, which the noble Lord has so clearly explained. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"REVERSAL OF APPLICATION PROCESS
(1)Where a successful applicant subsequently changes his or her mind, or decides a mistake has been made, and wishes to resume his or her original birth gender, a further application must he made to the Gender Recognition Panel for the issue of a further gender recognition certificate in the resumed gender.
(2)The Panel may grant the application on the same basis as the provisions set out in sections 1 to 5.
(3)Only one reversal of an original decision made by the Panel may be permitted."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would insert a new clause that deals with the reversal procedure. The problem is well documented of the many people who have gone through the process of gender recognition and who have come to the decision that they want to reverse the situation. They may do that for all sorts of reasons —because they have been badly advised; because they have come to their senses, as they would say themselves; or because they recognise that a very big mistake has been made. After all our discussions today, I suspect that the full import of what they had decided to do hit them afterwards, when they realised the implications for their extended

GC 59
family and all their social circle. The net result is that there are people who have wished to reverse the procedure.
Some medical advisers say that it is not possible to reverse the procedure—and I am looking straight at the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and wondering what he feels about it. However, in actual fact it does arise and has arisen. There are two cases in Australia at the moment in which people who have had gender recognition or gender change are actually suing the state for wrongful advice.
Surely the Government must acknowledge that that represents a hole in the Bill. If they do not acknowledge it, I am sure that we could give supporting evidence to the fact that it is a very difficult situation. If they do acknowledge that there is a hole in the Bill that can be covered by an additional clause, surely they must agree that it needs to be dealt with. If they agree that it needs to be dealt with, I wonder what the Minister's view would be on the process of how to deal with it.
The other part of the amendment is based on the sure case for saying that, if a gender recognition certificate has been issued and the person is no longer of the gender into which he or she was born, there must be some block on their being able to change their minds again and again, so they do not go chopping and changing at whim. I suggest that, under the amendment, we should agree that they can change, but change only once.
In the United States, apparently, there is recognition that this reverse process is necessary, and there is a limit to the number of times that the gender can be changed—and that limit is three. I suspect that that is really not acceptable, and certainly it is not acceptable to me. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to be brief. Acquiring a new gender is a long, difficult and painful process. It involves a lot of medical advice and a lot of trauma with family relationships. We do not expect individuals to want to change back, having met the medical criteria and been through the minimum of two years' waiting. Having said that, the noble Baroness is right in saying that a very small proportion of people—perhaps 1 per cent—have asked to go back.
The position is in essence exactly as I hinted to her yesterday. The procedure as set out in the Bill allows an applicant who wants to reverse to apply. All that I would say about that—and I would emphasise this even more strongly in the case of her even more hypothetical situation of a person who wanted to change three times—is that one duty of the panel is to be convinced that the person is committed to a permanent change of gender.
Therefore, the panel will be looking at that intent, no doubt with even more care when a person seeks to change gender and—how shall I put this—with very great attention indeed if someone came before it three times. The panel requires to be satisfied on that issue. It has a complete discretion in law, which the Bill will
GC 60
grant, to say "No" if it is not convinced of that commitment for good reason. That apart, the Bill allows that which the noble Baroness wishes to happen.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I must say that it was not apparent to me that the Bill allowed that. That is why I asked the question, among others, on Second Reading. Does the Minister remember the statement on page 25 of the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group? This is a statement of its own rather than a part of the material that it reported others making. The left-hand column on page 25 states:
"Many people revert to their biological sex after living for some time in the opposite sex, and some alternate between the two sexes throughout their lives. Consideration of the way forward must therefore take into account the needs of people at these different stages of change".
I was interested to read that at the time. It seems to me that this is simply a prudential element that the Government would be wise to include. I confess that I am not persuaded by the Minister's response. It seems to me to be a rather straightforward enactment. I can understand his anxieties about new subsection (3). That may be thought to restrict the activities of the panel. Otherwise, it seems a proper suggestion, particularly in the light of the work of the interdepartmental group.
Lord Filkin: I do not seek to be contentious. I gave the only answer that I could give in honesty to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—that the Bill allows exactly what she wants. It is a matter of fact.
Lord Tebbit: Can the Minister say where the Bill allows for the revocation of a certificate on the ground that it was falsely obtained?
Lord Filkin: To my recollection the Bill does not. I have had a further thought. The panel can be informed of any fraud. Under Clause 8(5),
"the Secretary of State may refer the case to the … Court"
and seek the quashing of the certificate. It is marvellous what a little reflection will provide.
Lord Tebbit: I have often had that experience myself, when I have been in the position of the noble Lord.
Lord Chan: The Minister said that the provision is in the Bill. Could it be made more explicit so that there is a statement of that nature for anyone who wants to revert after having had a gender recognition certificate?
Lord Filkin: I do not believe that we should confuse parliamentary draftsmanship by stating facts that are clear to lawyers. I am happy to state the position on Report and to write confirming it. I do not intend to change the Bill.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am very grateful to the Minister, and I am particularly grateful to the other participants in this brief discussion on a matter that I

GC 61
consider very serious. I shall read the debate in Hansard. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Applications: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 21, after "specified" insert "by order made"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 44, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 45. These amendments too are derived from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They raise the same issues as are raised by our Amendment No. 21, and could perhaps have been included in the same group.
Our amendments provide for orders prescribing forms and fees made under Clause 7 of the Bill to be made by statutory instrument. In fact, neither our amendments nor those in the same group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, involve a parliamentary process. That is plainly unnecessary for an order that does no more than specify the form and manner of the application. It is not usual —although perhaps it should be—for orders that specify the fees However, we believe that they should at least be made by statutory instrument which, of course, makes them more easily accessible. Nowadays statutory instruments appear on the Internet and are far more easily available than orders made without any parliamentary process. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall not detain the Grand Committee. I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Carlile. My amendments are designed to achieve similar ends. My Amendment No. 46 and the consequential Amendment No. 106 can serve only to enhance transparency within the system by requiring a Secretary of State to publish regulations that develop and expand on the details of Clause 7. Applicants can then turn to the regulations as a guideline on what form and manner they can be expected to use to make their application and how large a fee they will have to pay.
In this instance as well as in Amendment No. 22, where I called for regulations on the additional information or evidence that the Secretary of State could require from an applicant, the details may vary over time and hence should not be written into the Bill. But the case by case variation would not be so great as to prohibit the Secretary of State from publishing regulations on both the form and manner of application and the fees payable.
Lord Filkin: Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State, after consultation with Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, to specify the form and manner in which an application is to be made. It also enables the Secretary of State to determine the level of fees that should be charged for making applications to the gender recognition panel.
GC 62
It will, of course, be necessary to change the format of application forms from time to time to reflect changing needs. Those are administrative alterations to addresses, telephone numbers and the like, and it would be wasting parliamentary time to bring such issues before it. We envisage that the application form itself will be readily available, for example, on the Internet, and hence that transparency is already achieved.
The application form does not stipulate the criteria for recognition. Those are outlined on the face of the Bill and the application form is merely the vehicle for communicating evidence to the panel. To change the criteria for recognition would, of course, require the legislation to come before Parliament again.
The amendments, in so much as they suggest that the format of the application form should be a matter for Parliament, take parliamentary scrutiny too far. If it is to be efficient, it is vital that the panel has the flexibility to do its job and to determine how best to receive the information in accordance with the Act.
Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to set the fee or fees. The Bill confers that power on the Secretary of State to enable a degree of flexibility. However, since the Bill was drafted I have considered the matter in detail in the context of fees for other judicial matters and have come to the conclusion that, given the arguments advanced, this situation should be changed. Of course, such fees are routinely changed. They are increased annually with inflation. Furthermore, given that Parliament has oversight of court fees and the like, it seems to me that it is right to extend the power to fees for applying to the panel. Therefore, I accept the spirit of the amendment and shall introduce a government amendment on Report to give effect to that.
The suggested amendment to Clause 23 is unnecessary as any fee or fees would he set by order, not by regulation.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for what he said on the subject of fees. The provision that he mentioned is appropriate and I look forward to seeing the Government's amendment on it. In view of that, we shall not bring forward any further amendment on the order regarding the application forms. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 14 January at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  North/South Language Body: Budget
  North/South Language Body: Budget
  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Ministerial Accountability to Assembly
  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Ministerial Accountability to Assembly
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Business Plan 2004
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Business Plan 2004
  Iraq: Samarra Incident
  Iraq: Samarra Incident
  Parking Enforcement: Contracts
  Parking Enforcement: Contracts
  National Service Framework for Children
  National Service Framework for Children

  Northern Ireland: Priorities and Budget 2004–06
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  Following consultation on the Government's draft priorities and budget for Northern Ireland, which were launched on 6 October 2003, I am today setting out the Government's priorities and spending plans for Northern Ireland departments for the next two years, 2004–05 to 2005–06.

  When devolution was suspended in Northern Ireland we pledged that we would work tirelessly to rebuild trust across the political parties and bring about an early restoration of devolved government. We have worked, and we will continue to work, towards that aim. However, for as long as direct rule continues we are determined to govern in an open and fair way to improve the delivery of public services for the people of Northern Ireland in ways that meet their needs and expectations.

  The priorities and budget which we are publishing today build on the progress made by the Northern Ireland Executive under devolution and continued by Northern Ireland ministerial team since devolution was suspended. It is our view that the policies and priorities identified in the former Executive's draft programme for government in September 2002, and continued in Building on Progress—Priorities and Plans which I announced in December 2002, remain relevant in the context of the economic and social challenges facing Northern Ireland. For this reason we have retained the five priorities as the basis for our work over the coming year.

  The continuing priorities for delivery of public services in Northern Ireland therefore are:

  Growing as a Community;

  Working for a Healthier People;

  Investing in Education and Skills;

  Securing a Competitive Economy; and

  Developing North/South, East/West and International Relations.

  WS 20
  We want to ensure that the four key cross-cutting themes announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his Statement on progress and priorities in June last year are fully reflected in all aspects of our work. These themes are:

  (i) Tackling sectarianism, community division and disadvantage;

  (ii) Equality, rights and victims;

  (iii) Improving service delivery; and

  (iv) Reinvestment and reform.

  These priorities and themes are central to the work of government in Northern Ireland and as such they are reflected in, and permeate through, all aspects of the priorities and budget we are announcing today.

  Sectarianism and inter-community conflict act as barriers to social and economic growth and recovery and as a disincentive to investment. Building trust and confidence between and within communities, promoting equality of opportunity and justice for all, developing social capital and tackling sectarianism are key priorities for us.

  Tackling poverty and social exclusion continues to be a key priority for us. Under devolution the former Executive adopted new targeting social need as its strategic approach to combating poverty and committed to evaluating the effectiveness of this approach. This review is now complete and we will soon publish and consult on proposals for future policy and strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion.

  We are committed to working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector, which plays a vital role in community development and in helping to promote social inclusion and tackle disadvantage and community division. We will therefore continue to support and facilitate better partnership working with the sector.

  In pursuing these priorities we will seek to work in partnership with social and economic partners and to harness actions within and across departments and agencies to achieve measurable improvements in equality, poverty and disadvantage and community cohesion. We will continue to promote respect for cultural diversity and community understanding through a broad range of policies and programmes.

  We remain fully committed to driving forward the equality and human rights agenda, which was central to the work of the former Executive. Work will continue across departments and agencies to ensure that equality considerations are fully mainstreamed into policy development across government, and that there is effective operation of the statutory duties under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
  WS 21
  In acknowledging our fundamental accountability to the people of Northern Ireland we recognise the importance of being able to demonstrate what is being achieved from the resources available to us. A particular focus of the priorities and budget we are announcing today is on improving the delivery of public services. We are committed to ensuring better public services for the people of Northern Ireland through improvements in the delivery of these services.

  Last spring, departments published reform plans setting out priorities for reforming key services to improve the quality and delivery of services to the public. Those plans represented a useful first step, but the challenge now is not only to identify new ways of improving service delivery through reform and modernisation, but also to demonstrate how and when improvement has been achieved. For this reason we have selected a number of key targets in the public service agreements which are of particular importance and which my ministerial colleagues and I will review on a regular basis over the coming year and beyond. These key targets reflect the cross-cutting themes underlying the priorities and budget and cover a number of key public services including health, education, employment, the environment, roads and transport and economic development.

  Turning specifically to the budget, I am now in a position to confirm our plans for 2004–05 and 2005–06, building on the proposals we outlined in the draft budget which we launched in October last year. The key development is a clear shift of spending power from consumption to investment. This is a clear step to increase the drive for significant reforms in the way public services are delivered in Northern Ireland, so that we can do even more to promote reinvestment than we had planned up to now.

  In the course of last year's national spending review, the Chancellor allocated significant additional resources to Northern Ireland for the period up to April 2006, and the region's share of the sustained additional provision for health in 2006–07 and 2007–08. This year the resources available to us remain essentially those allocated at that time, supplemented by local revenue and the use of the borrowing power available under the reinvestment and reform initiative as well as some £15 million for Northern Ireland announced in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report in December.

  As I have indicated, improving the delivery of public services is a key focus of the budget being announced today. We will do this by ensuring that the progress of reform and modernisation is accelerated to provide better public services, and by continuing to take forward the significant programme of infrastructure development initiated under the reinvestment and reform initiative. This means some significant downward pressure on administrative costs in departments and non-departmental public bodies.

  The budget allocations we are announcing today have been determined taking account of the level of revenue necessary to secure access to borrowing under the reinvestment and reform initiative. After taking
  WS 22
  account of the additional revenue from the introduction of rating of vacant property and the phasing out of industrial derating an increase of approximately 9 per cent on the domestic regional rates and 3.3 per cent in the non-domestic sector is necessary. If we assume that district councils increase their domestic rates by around 6 per cent this will mean an increase of around £35 per year—less than 70p a week—in the average domestic rates bill and will ensure the continuation of the infrastructure development necessary for our public services. The strategic investment programme which I announced in February last year provided for spending on infrastructure development in excess of £2 billion. The continued access to borrowing, which has been secured through increased revenue from rates, means that we can continue to maintain the momentum of the strategic investment programme, the total value of which is now in excess of £2.7 billion.

  The resources available to us over the next two years provide for an increase of nearly 14 per cent in spending on services. This is a substantial allocation which will provide for sustained economic growth and development across all key public services.

  The budget allocations reflect our commitment to improve public services through sustained investment. Capital allocations for almost all the key public services have been increased above the levels in the draft budget.

  In seeking to provide better service delivery, a key objective of this budget is to ensure that more resources are directed to front-line services by reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. The budget provides for a reduction in departmental administration costs for the majority of departments of around 2 per cent for next year, with further reductions in 2005–06, compared with the draft budget in October.

  Health remains the Government's top priority in Northern Ireland. The budget provides for a rise of more than 16 per cent in spending on health over the next two years. This will enable investment in priority services such as renal, cancer and other critical care services and will provide for enhancement to community, primary and intermediate care services and services for the elderly and those with mental illnesses.

  Spending on education will increase by almost 11 per cent over the budget period. The increased resources will enable schools to build on the impressive educational achievements of pupils in Northern Ireland. It will also enable government to address a number of pressing issues in the education sector including the continuation of existing support measures for schools in interface areas which are being adversely affected by continuing community tension. The schools estate will benefit significantly from investment under the strategic investment programme with projects in excess of £246 million being taken forward over the next two years.
  WS 23
  The budget provides for increased spending on regional development of more than 15 per cent over the next two years. This reflects the substantial additional resources for investment in roads, water and transport infrastructure, including a number of major capital programmes, and public/private partnership schemes to the value of some £530 million.

  In agreeing the priorities and budget we have sought to ensure that resources are allocated to key public services to secure continuation of the required infrastructure development, fundamental to the effective delivery of key services such as health, education and regional development. At the same time we have sought to ensure that the planned allocations and the processes for managing them will secure the necessary improvements for better public services.

  The priorities and budget fully reflect our determination to ensure that during this continuing period of suspension we will govern in an open and fair way to improve the delivery of public services for the
  WS 24
  people of Northern Ireland in ways that meet their needs and expectations.

  I have placed copies of the Priorities and Budget 2004–06 document in the Library.

  Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992: Delegations and Authorisations
  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  Since the last report to Parliament, (Official Report, Commons, 28 January 2003, col. 34WS) new authorisations have been made to the Assets Recovery Agency and to the Chief Land Registrar, HM Land Registry from 20 February and 1 October 2003 respectively.

  The authorisations were made subject to the condition that recipients comply with the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code as amended from time to time. Copies of the Civil Service Management Code are available in the Library of the House and electronically at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/managementcode/index.htm.