Sitting of 21 January 2004

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

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords].
  Motion made [7 January],
  That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
  That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Wednesday 28 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES OFFICE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES OFFICE

    Crime Statistics (Vale of Glamorgan)
    Mr. John Smith: What discussions he has had with the Home Office on crime statistics in the Vale of Glamorgan. [148349]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales. Recorded crime in the Vale of Glamorgan between April and December 2003 was 3.4 per cent. lower than the same period in 2002.
    Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Superintendent Josh Jones and the officers of the Vale of Glamorgan division for yet another record-breaking year in tackling crime? Domestic burglary is
    1306
    down 20 per cent.; car crime down almost 20 per cent.; and the force has the highest detection rate in south Wales.
    However, is my hon. Friend aware of the growing public concern in my constituency about the road traffic police investigation into the death of Stuart Cunningham-Jones in a tragic school bus accident in December 2002? The shortcomings of the investigation were highlighted in this week's coroner's inquest. In the interest of restoring public confidence, will he call on the Crown Prosecution Service to re-evaluate the case and the evidence to see if there are grounds for proceedings? Will he also do anything he can—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his ration.
    Mr. Touhig: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the officers serving in his police division. As to the second matter that he raised, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing once again our condolences to the family of Stuart Cunningham-Jones. I know that Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham-Jones requested a review of the decision not to prosecute anyone in connection with the death of their son, Stuart. Given that prosecution decisions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue. However, I take my hon. Friend's remarks very seriously and I will ensure that I am kept fully informed of all developments.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: In south Wales, including Glamorgan. crime has risen by 6.3 per cent., which is very good in comparison with north Wales, where it is up by 48.5 per cent. Why does the Minister believe that crime is rising so rapidly in some parts of Wales? Could it be because the police are bringing fewer criminals to justice? Last year 190,000 crimes went unsolved—an increase of 50,000 from 1998–99.
    Mr. Touhig: We all recognise that fighting crime is a major issue and the Government are putting in the resources and carrying through the legislation to fight crime. The hon. Gentleman's party is committed, of course, to a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure. What would that do for the resources that we need to fight crime? Indeed, his party continues to oppose the legislation introduced by the Government to make our communities safer, so we need no lessons from him about fighting crime.
    Mr. Wiggin: Unfortunately, that is absolute nonsense. The Minister well knows that we are already pledged to increase the number of police officers in Wales by 2,199. He should be thinking about why the number of special constables has fallen by half and why violent crime has also increased in south Wales, including the vale, by 29 per cent. No doubt the Minister will be proud of that in comparison with north Wales, where violent crime is up by 137 per cent. Why is violent crime rising twice as fast in Wales as it is in Greater Manchester or London?
    Mr. Touhig: This gets better. When the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, crime doubled.

    1307
    When his leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was Home Secretary, police officer numbers fell by 1,000. We have invested more money in putting more bobbies on the beat in Wales and under the Labour Government police numbers in Wales have risen 12 per cent. since 1997. There are now 7,354 police officers on duty in Wales. What the police service wants is support, investment and reform. The Government are delivering that; Conservative Members will not.
    Mr. Wiggin: That is most surprising, given that we have made a pledge to increase police numbers by 31 per cent. Why does the Minister believe that the number of robberies has also rocketed? Surely he would agree that that crime is a particularly unpleasant violation of people's homes, so why is expenditure in the Welsh Office now £10,609,486,000 when nothing is happening to cut the huge rise in robberies? In south Wales, robberies are up by 53.4 per cent., which is better than north Wales, where the figure is 77.2 per cent. Is that not another example of Labour taxing, spending and failing?
    Mr. Touhig: We would take the hon. Gentleman's remarks more seriously if he could get his facts right. The Welsh Office no longer exists; it is the Wales Office. More than that, we do not have a £10 billion budget; that is the National Assembly's budget. If the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right, I would pay more attention to his question.

    Miners Compensation
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Wales sub-group dealing with matters relating to miners compensation schemes for chest diseases and vibration white finger last met; and what progress was reported. [148351]
    6. Mr. Martyn Jones: If he will make a statement on payments to retired miners and their families in Wales under the respiratory disease and vibration white finger compensation scheme. [148355]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The Welsh monitoring group dealing with coal health claims last met on 12 January and discussed the good progress being made on both chest disease and vibration white finger claims in Wales. The latest compensation figures show that £284 million has been paid out under the chest disease scheme, and £103 million under the vibration white finger scheme.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which shows that the Government are treating seriously the long-standing problems of illness among miners. However, will he give me some idea of the progress being made on claims by surface workers for that compensation?
    Mr. Touhig: Indeed, that matter figured in our discussions at our last meeting on 12 January. The Department of Trade and Industry has already undertaken extensive work in consulting medical experts and conducting dust surveys in respect of
    1308
    affected surface workers. The Department considers that no evidence has yet been found to suggest that it is liable for respiratory diseases suffered by surface workers, but the Government are co-operating very fully with the claimants' solicitors. The judge handling the matter has requested those solicitors to identify lead claims and to gather more evidence for him to consider at the next hearing on 3 February. As I said, the Government, to help the solicitors, have provided access to all the necessary archives, and have made it clear that they will react positively if evidence emerges that the DTI is liable for compensation in this case.
    Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nearly £5 million paid out for dust disease compensation in my constituency shows that the Government are tackling a problem that the Tories ignored for 18 years?
    Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend speaks the truth, as ever. If the Conservative party had not resisted the legitimate claims of miners over the years when it was in government, many miners who are now no longer with us would have received compensation when they were alive. Our priority has been to compensate the oldest miners, the ones who are most ill, and the widows. I can tell the House that the claims of the overwhelming majority of people in that category have been settled. At the beginning of January, 87 per cent. of high priority miners' claims had been settled, and settlement offers had been made in respect of 80 per cent. of widows' claims.
    Adam Price: What was the Minister's reaction to the news that the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers have benefited personally to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds from the miners compensation scheme? To prevent Welsh miners and their families from being ripped off by the company set up for the purpose of securing the compensation, does the Minister believe that the Government should suspend its special deal with the UDM, pending a full investigation of its financial affairs?
    Mr. Touhig: Let me make it clear that the arrangement between the UDM and the company, Vendside, was agreed between them and the DTI. The same sort of scheme has been agreed with the claimants' solicitors. As for additional costs and payments, to solicitors or anyone else, I and other Labour Members are on record as saying that we totally condemn any organisation that, in addition to receiving the legal fees being paid by the Government, seeks to take compensation away from miners. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: Vendside has been involved in some 120-odd claims in Wales, but it ill behoves him to preach to the Government on the matter. I am not so sure that he was quite so outspoken when a leading member of his party doubled his salary by heading an organisation that was taking between 5 and 10 per cent. of compensation from miners and their widows.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the DTI originally agreed to compensate surface workers in exactly the same way as it compensated underground workers? There are only

    1309
    4,700 surface workers in the entire country. Underground miners had to go through years of hard fighting with the previous Conservative Government to get compensation. Instead of requiring surface workers to go through that, would not it be much more sensible to compensate them in exactly the same way as the underground workers?
    Mr. Touhig: I confirm my hon. Friend's point on the DTI's original position on surface workers, but I reiterate that the judge who has been handling the matter has required the solicitors acting on behalf of the claimants to submit evidence. The Government are collaborating closely and fully with the claimants' solicitors and have made it clear that if a case can be made and justified, and if it is demonstrated that miners have been injured as a result of dust intakes when working on the surface, they will respond positively. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the numbers are small. We are keeping an open mind on the matter and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion very soon.

    Student Finance
    Ian Lucas: What discussions he has had with the Assembly Secretary of Education concerning the funding of student support for students from Wales attending English and Scottish universities in (a) 2006, (b) 2007 and (c) 2008. [148352]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I have been working closely to ensure that, subject to Parliamentary approval, we have the best possible deal in place to enable the Assembly to take over responsibility for student support in Wales from 2006–07.
    Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a university education should be about extending choices and experience? I have been informed by a senior academic in Wales that nationalist Members of the National Assembly for Wales have called for financial incentives to be given to students from Wales to attend universities in Wales rather than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he assure me that he will not countenance support for any such policy?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I will. At the moment, some 18,000 students from Wales study in England. It is their right to study where they wish, and we want to increase opportunities, not put up barriers. If the new policy of the Welsh nationalists is that they want Welsh students to study only in Wales, that is typical of their narrow, parochial, nationalist vision of Wales, instead of an internationalist vision. We want a modern, confident Wales in the world, not an isolated, narrow and nationalist Wales in the world. I hope that they vote on Tuesday to devolve powers over student finance to Wales and support the Higher Education Bill. Otherwise, those finances will not be devolved.
    Lembit Öpik: The Government want to raise student grants from £1,000 to £1,500 and to provide loans to help students to pay top-up fees. Given that both measures would increase public
    1310
    expenditure, how much extra money would the Welsh Assembly get for them as a Barnett consequential, so that Wales is not short-changed even if Assembly Members choose to reject top-up fees for Wales?
    Mr. Hain: There is no question of the Welsh Assembly being short-changed on that. Discussions have been going on to agree the figure for the money that would flow across the border to Wales if the powers were devolved. However, I make the same point to the hon. Gentleman that I have already made. If he wants decisions about student finance in Wales to be made in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales, he should vote for the Bill on Tuesday. Otherwise, that will not happen.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If the Higher Education Bill is passed on Tuesday as it stands, will not the likely consequence be that English students in Welsh institutions will be subsidised from money intended for Welsh schools and hospitals? Will the Secretary of State make a statement on the consequences of the devolved settlement before we are asked to vote on Second Reading?
    Mr. Hain: As I have explained, funding for Welsh students, currently held in London, will be transferred following the devolution of power if the Bill is passed, which means that it must receive its Second Reading on Tuesday. If it is passed, the necessary funding will go to Wales. If the National Assembly decides in the end not to permit universities in Wales to raise extra money from fees, that extra money will have to be found from somewhere. As my hon. Friend says, that is a decision for the Assembly, but I am sure that it will not want to short-change any other budgets. The Assembly will want to find a solution that puts Welsh universities in a competitive position to gain world-class status, which is just what we want to achieve for English universities.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has just said that it is up to students to decide where they want to be educated and whether they want to go from Wales to England. Does he not realise, however, that thanks to tuition fees and variable top-up fees students will increasingly be in debt and thus unable to afford to go from Wales to university in England or Scotland? When I went to Swansea university, I paid no fees and I received a grant, but now students are being clobbered with huge debt—even now, the average debt for students is £8,000.
    Mr. Hain: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government cut funding for students, while the Leader of the Opposition was in government, by a third per student. We are bringing back grants and providing a package that will benefit an enormous number of students throughout Britain by up to £3,000. What does the hon. Gentleman propose? He proposes cutting grants and cutting the number of students. His successor as shadow Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee that the Opposition hoped to reduce
    "the number of places or, to put it at its worst, the number of opportunities for people who leave school".—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 16 December 2003; c. 49.]

    1311
    They want to cut the number of Welsh school leavers who go to university; we want to raise that number, with a support package to help students through university and to ensure that they get the opportunity they deserve.
    Kevin Brennan: Whatever one's views on top-up fees, is not it a welcome development that the UK Government, following the lead shown by the National Assembly, have reintroduced maintenance grants for poorer students? On another matter related to cross-border student movement, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn the practice of some universities in England that reject A-level Welsh as a qualification for entry?
    Mr. Hain: I am very happy to reject that practice. In fact, I wrote yesterday to the vice-chancellors of Bristol university and Nottingham university, as those universities had apparently barred from consideration a Welsh student with an A-level in Welsh. An A-level is an A-level whatever the subject. A Welsh A-level is just as valid as an English A-level or an A-level in any other language, and I hope that every university in England and, for that matter, Scotland, will recognise that. The A-level is of high quality, academic standards are strong and it is important that Welsh students are not discriminated against.

    Holiday Homes
    Hywel Williams: What assessment he has made of the likely change in the number of holiday homes in Wales as a result of the Chancellor's proposals regarding changes to self-invested personal pensions schemes. [148353]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The Government want to simplify the tax rules governing pensions, and we are consulting on proposals to do that. No assessment has been made of potential implications for holiday homes, but if the hon. Gentleman has a view—I am sure that he does—he may wish to submit his evidence and comments to the consultation, which is open until 5 March.
    Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that answer. I certainly have a view. The proposal is an outrageous tax perk for the super-rich, as AJ Bell said in the Financial Times. The proposal will be very good for second homes, of which there are 4,500 in the county of Gwynedd. Will the Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State, resist these outrageous proposals within the Government?
    Mr. Touhig: I have made it clear that the matter is under consultation and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his views. There are 15,000 holiday homes in Wales, which account for less than 1.5 per cent. of the total number of homes in Wales. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no proposal for a new incentive to purchase holiday homes for private use, but I urge him to submit his evidence to the consultation.
    Albert Owen: Holiday homes and second homes cause tension in many communities throughout Wales, including in my constituency of Ynys Môn, predominantly due to the lack of affordable housing in those areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to increased economic activity, there is a need for planners and developers to set land aside for affordable homes to ensure that we build tolerant and cohesive communities in which local people can work and live—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members for quiet. The House must allow Members to put their questions and Ministers to reply.
    Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) made some valid points, and it is important that they are part of our discussions on those issues. My colleagues in the Assembly are making available £56 million under a social housing grant to improve the provision of affordable housing. Added to the funding from registered social landlords, we anticipate that that will generate more than £90 million to provide about 1,000 extra homes for rent at low cost. I think that will have an important impact on the area that he represents.

    Miners (Retirement)
    Mr. Roger Williams: If he will make a statement on the arrangements for retirement on the ground of ill health for miners in Wales. [148354]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Mining has been an extremely important industry in Wales for generations, and miners deserve a decent retirement. It is a dangerous occupation, and I am very concerned that proper benefits are paid to miners when they retire, especially if retirement is due to ill health.
    Mr. Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware that the serious ill health scheme, which has supported miners who have to retire through ill health, has run out of cash. The Government recently received £51 million arising from a 1993 revaluation of the investment fund. That was before the Government took the responsibility of acting as a guarantor for the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry meet with coalfield MPs and National Union of Mineworkers officials to see whether we can release the £51 million so that miners can have that support during their most testing time?
    Mr. Hain: I am very happy to meet with coalfield MPs—indeed, I am one myself, so I shall be meeting with myself—to see whether we can resolve this matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government paid to the mineworkers compensation scheme £400 million last year in order to boost its opportunities. We should try to resolve this matter together.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Michael Fabricant—[Interruption.] Order. Once again, the House is far too noisy.

    Police Funding
    Michael Fabricant: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on police funding in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [148356]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Police funding in Wales has increased by £58.4 million, or 20 per cent., since 1997.
    Michael Fabricant: That may sound like a large figure, but it is just 3.25 per cent. on the previous year. The Secretary of State will be aware that police authorities said that they needed a 6 per cent. rise on the previous year just to maintain present standards. So, apart from telling a load of fibs about what Conservative spending plans might be, what does the right hon. Gentleman say to council tax payers who are now having to stump up even more money?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that, when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, cut the number of police officers across England and Wales by over a thousand. Since we came to power, an extra 761 police officers have been recruited in Wales alone. Crime has been going down, more police officers are being recruited, and people are feeling safer as a result, compared with the dreadful record of the Tory Government.
    Chris Bryant: We have had a pretty good deal in the Rhonda—we are getting a new police station in Porth in a few months' time—but we still want to see more police officers on the beat. We also want to make sure that when a new police officer is allocated to a beat that person does not just stay there for three or four months, but stays for three years. Is my right hon. Friend having discussions with senior police officers in Wales to make sure that there is continuity of policing?
    Mr. Hain: The point about continuity of policing is very important. I remember it coming out of the big conversation event in Newport, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held last year. I was present—[Interruption.] The Conservatives may jeer about local opinion and the anxiety that local police officers stay in the area for as long as possible, as my hon. Friend says. This is an issue that we want to pursue, along with tackling antisocial behaviour and rises in crime wherever they occur. We deserve the support of all Opposition Members in the battle against crime, instead of their consistently voting against Government measures.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In supporting the battle against crime, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the position in Dyfed-Powys, where a 7.3 per cent. increase is required just to stand still. That means a shortfall of 4 per cent., which in turn means a 16 per cent. increase on the police precept. How on earth can it possibly comply with the national policing plan?
    Mr. Hain: There has been a big increase in funding in Dyfed-Powys, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of more
    1314
    than £7 million, compared with what happened under the Conservatives, and compared with what would happen under nationalist policies. If Wales were independent, it would become bankrupt, and policing in Wales, including Dyfed-Powys would be savagely attacked and undermined.

    Vehicle Crime (North Wales)
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on trends in vehicle crime in north Wales. [148358]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): Between April and December 2003, the number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population fell by 5.3 per cent. compared with the same period in 2002. In numerical terms, there were 323 fewer vehicle crimes.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging answer. is he aware that figures released last weekend for vehicle crime in Bangor in my constituency show that it has gone down by 51.45 per cent? Does he agree that the main reason for this success is that we have seen an increase in police officers, in community beat managers—who work closely with residents' associations, such as Maesgeirchen and Taistesion—in wardens in housing estates and local councillors?
    Mr. Touhig: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. I also recognise the contribution that the Government have made to increasing investment in the police service and increasing police numbers. Since the Government came to power there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the number of police officers on duty in the north Wales police area. I think we are moving in the right direction; I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [149311] David Burnside: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    David Burnside: I look forward very much to joining the Prime Minister in the Lobby later today to support the amendment in his name on the unity of the United Kingdom, which states that all Members of the House will have a right to debate, speak on and participate in all matters affecting all parts of the United Kingdom. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and in the Irish Republic, very serious allegations have been made that political parties such as Sinn Fein are being funded by the Provisional IRA through criminal

    1315
    activity. Would the Prime Minister join me in making the United Kingdom's law uniform and in applying to Northern Ireland the same legislation on the funding of political parties as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree entirely with what he said: I hope we will always have one class of Member of Parliament in the House. Secondly, I would like to say that any criminal activity of the sort he has described is completely unacceptable—we cannot have a situation in which people are expected to sit in government with political parties that are attached to active paramilitary organisations. In relation to his point about political parties, certainly it is important that in the course of the review we look at all the issues that are raised, in order to make it absolutely clear that there cannot be a situation in which a political party is being funded by anything other than purely democratic and peaceful methods.
    Diana Organ: At a recent meeting that I held with senior police officers in the Forest of Dean we discussed the relationship between crimes such as theft and burglary and those committed by people with a serious drug habit. However, one officer expressed his concerns about the message that the declassification or reclassification of cannabis sends young people, and said that it would prove problematic to the non-tolerance policy that is excellently used in Forest of Dean schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new classification of cannabis does lead to a mixed message with young people and drugs?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we have a very clear message that possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence and that, whatever the reclassification, the police still have the power of arrest in relation to it. I think what is hoped is that the police will be able to concentrate, obviously, particularly on hard drugs, which are a huge problem. The link between heroin and crack addiction and crime is well known, and it is important that the police use all their efforts to bear down on it, but it does not alter the fact that the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Prime Minister read out to the House what his manifesto at the last election said about top-up fees?
    The Prime Minister: I do not have the precise words in front of me, but I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we said. [Interruption.] We said we will not introduce top-up fees. In particular, I would point out to him that we are changing the existing fee structure totally, so that people will no longer have to pay up-front fees; instead they will have to pay something when they graduate, on a fair basis—far fairer than the existing system.
    Mr. Howard: I do have the manifesto here, as it happens. I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot
    1316
    bring himself to read out the words on which he asked all his hon. Friends to stand at the last election. What he said in that manifesto was:
    "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."
    Is it his case that, when he actually said that, what we should have all understood by those words was, "We will introduce top-up fees; we will legislate to introduce them."?
    The Prime Minister: But what people can know is that instead of the existing fee structure in which fees are paid up front, instead of the existing system with no maintenance grant for poorer students, instead of having a system where there is no cap on fees, we will have no up-front fees—so no family has to pay those fees when their children are going through university the reintroduction of maintenance grants for poorer students and a cap on fees. That surely is a fairer system than the present system. Over the past few days, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying that
    "we don't have proposals"
    on tuition fees, yet at the selfsame time, his shadow spokesman is saying:
    "Let me place on record…every young person should have the chance to go to university without paying tuition fees."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself wrote a short time ago to all people in the Conservative party saying that he would scrap all tuition fees, including existing fees. So if we are going to have a debate about respective policy, what exactly is his policy now?
    Mr. Howard: We have made our policy absolutely clear. Both my party and the right hon. Gentleman's party stood on the same pledge at the last election. We are not going to break our promise to help him break his.
    The Prime Minister told "Newsnight" this week that universities would be substantially better off as a result of his policy. The Education Secretary told the House last week that the costs of the Bill will all be met from the higher education budget and not from additions to that budget. If that is right, the universities would actually be worse off. Who is right—the Prime Minister or the Education Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: That is complete nonsense. The universities will be about £1 billion a year better off as a result of higher fees, although those fees are not to be repaid until the graduate actually graduates—and on a fair basis. What we have also done, however, is reintroduce maintenance grants for poorer students, so one part of the money goes to universities and another part goes to poorer students. That surely is a fair system, and better than the existing system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is sticking to his existing policy, but let me just quote what the vice-chancellor of Buckingham university said after a meeting with the Conservative education spokesman:
    "Tory education spokesman said to me, 'It does not matter whether'"
    our policy
    '"is the right policy or the wrong policy…Once we are in power we can then start to really think sensibly about what we should be doing.'"

    1317
    Does he also recall, a short time ago when he became leader, saying about the politics that he was going to implement:
    "No narrow…opportunism for us."?
    What is this if not the most risible opportunism that we have seen?
    Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister may regard sticking to election promises as opportunism: we do not. He has conspicuously failed to endorse what the Education Secretary said last week. I put again to the Prime Minister what the Education Secretary said. He said that the extra costs associated with the Government's Bill will be met from the higher education budget and not from additions to that budget. The costs add up to well over £1 billion. The fees will raise about £900 million. If the Education Secretary is right, is it not clear that universities will be worse off?
    The Prime Minister: The extra fee income goes to the universities, which is why they are going to be able to increase their funding per student by about 30 per cent. The other money goes to the students themselves—especially those from poorer backgrounds—and is also to ensure that they do not have to pay anything up front. That is why it is a better deal for universities and students—I would have thought that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have got that. As for saying that he is going to keep to his policy, he has not been able to keep to his policy over even the past few weeks, never mind the past few years. Let me repeat what he said the other day. He said, "We now have no proposals on tuition fees." How can that lie with the comments made by his education spokesman, who said that he is committed to scrap all fees? Which is it: scrapping all fees or no proposals?
    Mr. Howard: I have told the Prime Minister exactly what our policy is. This debate is about his policy, and we will be voting next week on his proposals and his attempts to bully his hon. Friends into breaking their election promise. Is it not absolutely clear that the top-up fees policy is a complete dog's breakfast and that the Prime Minister and his Education Secretary do not even know from one day to the next what their proposals involve or who is going to pay? Will it be students, will it be taxpayers, will it be the universities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, let the Leader of the Opposition speak. I am telling the hon. Gentleman not to shout across the Floor. He is not entitled to do so.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Howard: Should not the Prime Minister simply admit that he has got it all wrong and that he should scrap his Bill, instead of forcing his Members of Parliament to break their election pledge?
    The Prime Minister: What we should do is continue with a policy that gives universities an extra £1 billion a year, that relieves all families of the obligation to pay up-front fees at all and that operates a fast, fairer system
    1318
    of repayment so that, for example, a graduate who earns £18,000 a year after graduation pays just £5 a week. We should proceed with a proposal that reintroduces maintenance grants and support for the poorest students. That is fair for universities, fair for middle-class families and fair for families with lower incomes. Surely that is the right thing to do, as the OECD said yesterday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right: yes, next week is a test for the Government, but it is also a test of the credibility of the Opposition, and he has just failed it.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: This morning's dispatches from the French capital confirm the unfortunate impression that there are those among our Gallic cousins who are sneering at the prospects of a UK Olympic bid. I am far too communautaire to indulge in low abuse of a nation that has problems of its own, but what can the Prime Minister do to convince those of us who still harbour a smidgen of cynicism that the UK Olympic bid is realistic and attainable?
    The Prime Minister: Anybody who heard the presentation made by Barbara Cassani and her team last week would have heard a bid that is technically good and that gives this country the chance of hosting the world's greatest sporting event in the world's greatest capital city and of doing that immensely well. The more that people look at the bid, the stronger they see it. As for commenting on anyone else's bid, of course that would be quite wrong.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Bush referred to the search for
    "weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities".
    Can the Prime Minister confirm that that is what the Iraq survey group is now searching for and, in the process, explain to us all exactly what that means?
    The Prime Minister: The President was referring to Dr. Kay's report—the Iraq survey group report—which has already indicated evidence of the concealment of weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Iraq survey group, of course, looks not merely for the programmes, but for the weapons themselves.
    Mr. Kennedy: We began on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister then moved on to finding weapons of mass destruction programmes, and, last night, the President spoke of the search for
    "weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities".
    As the rhetoric of both the Prime Minister and the President on this vital issue has kept shifting, does that not underline yet again, at the end of the day, the need for an independent inquiry into the entire basis on which this country was taken into the war in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: The Iraq survey group, as I said a moment or two ago, continues the search not just for programmes and the evidence of concealment of those programmes, but for the weapons themselves. It is important that it continues to do that. As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt—absolutely no doubt—that those

    1319
    weapons existed. That has been said not only by this Government and the United States Government, but was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and its inspectors. It is the job of the Iraq survey group to find out what has happened, which it will do. When it comes up with its final report, we can debate it.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large amount of the antisocial behaviour faced by people in all constituencies across the country is perpetrated by the under-16s? If the fixed penalty notices that are issued to 16 and 17-year-olds as part of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 are successful, will he consider extending them to the under-16s?
    The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. The new measures will obviously give the police and others important powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. She is also right in saying, however, that there is another issue to address since much antisocial behaviour, I am sorry to say, is caused by youngsters under the age of 16. It is precisely for that reason that we have the power to extend fixed penalty notices to them. We are considering the time scale in which we can do that. I very much hope that we do it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given that the Prime Minister's rationale for war in Iraq, as he confirmed just a moment ago, was based on the presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, how does he reconcile that with our battle tanks and armoured vehicles being sent into the front line without the requisite chemical filters?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to equipment, I know that there is a particular issue in respect of Sergeant Roberts, and again I express my condolences to his widow. In respect of some of the other issues, the National Audit Office looked carefully at the whole question of equipment in the Iraq conflict and whether that equipment was proper or not. It found that, on the whole, it was a tremendous success. The conflict involved a huge logistical operation that was difficult to carry out, but it was carried out. In respect of specific issues, we consider each and every one of them, and we will look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as well.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When the Conservatives were in office and introduced the initial student loans Bill, their higher education spokesperson was described by Lord Beloff as the Pol Pot of academia. In order to tackle some of those problems, and they are being tackled by the Government's proposals, instead of scrapping student debt after 25 years, why not tackle them from the other end? When people have immediately graduated and are in greater need of assistance, why not provide them with a holiday from debt? That would assist many people, including mature students.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. We are trying to meet his concerns in two ways. First, we are relieving families of the obligation to
    1320
    pay up-front fees. As I think I said to him the other day at our parliamentary meeting, about 26 per cent. of students whose parents are not eligible for help with the up-front fee at the moment have to fund part of it out of their own pocket. The abolition of the up-front fee will help them.
    Secondly, in relation to my hon. Friend's specific point, it is precisely because we recognise that people need more help at the outset of their career that we have changed very significantly the basis on which the combined maintenance and fee loan is to be repaid. At the moment, students repay their maintenance loan at the rate of more than £17 a week if they are earning £20,000 a year. For both maintenance and fee, we are halving that rate. We are trying to achieve what my hon. Friend articulates, but are doing it in a way that does not mean that we have a shortfall on public finance that we cannot make up.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Last year the New Forest basic command unit was reduced by five police officers. This year it is to be reduced by a further five officers. Can the Prime Minister explain why, despite increased resources and higher taxes, public services are deteriorating?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously I do not know the precise details of the basic command unit in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I have here the police numbers for Hampshire as a whole: there are more than 240 more police officers than there were in 1997. I will write to him and tell him exactly where those extra officers are. I also point out to him that, alongside extra police officers, there are more teachers, more nurses and more jobs in his constituency, and on every indicator—the health service, the education service and crime—it is better than it was in 1997.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Are not the overwhelming majority of students in the United Kingdom already subject to variable tuition fees? Is there the slightest evidence, anywhere in the UK, that variable fees have deterred students from doing part-time degree or further education courses, or joining the Open university?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are now variable fees for postgraduates and part-timers. One of the things that we are able to do in this package is introduce some support for part-time students. By setting a sensible cap and giving universities freedom, while giving a huge boost to students from poorer backgrounds, we will increase the possibility of such students having the right and the ability to go to university.
    Mr. David Amess: The Prime Minister is aware that the week before Christmas I visited my constituent Majid Narwaz, who was being held in jail in Cairo with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and of the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The Prime Minister will be aware also that at the end of the trial, when a verdict was expected, the court adjourned for five months. He can well imagine how the families felt when those four

    1321
    individuals were brought to court on Christmas day, for a two-minute hearing, and the case was adjourned, yet again, until 25 March.
    Will the Prime Minister now agree to meet the families of those men, and will he personally contact President Mubarak to intervene in this human rights issue, because the Government representations so far have been to no avail as far as the families are concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the issue for the families of those involved in the trial. It is important to explain the background to the case: four British nationals were detained on 1 April 2002 and accused of being involved with the Islamic Liberation party, which has been outlawed in Egypt since 1974. I say that simply to indicate that this is obviously an issue of huge sensitivity for the Egyptian authorities as well as our own.
    I have instructed our ambassador in Cairo to call on the Egyptian Foreign Minister to express our concerns about the case. I know that Baroness Symons met the families last week to hear, first hand, of their concerns. I fully understand their disappointment at the delay, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will closely keep track of the case. I ask him to understand, however, that because of the history of these issues in Egypt, this is a sensitive matter for the Egyptian authorities too.
    Kevin Brennan: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 200 MPs from all parties have now signed early-day motion 200 calling for pension compensation for Allied Steel and Wire workers and others? Why should our constituents have to put up with a pensions injustice that civil servants, Ministers and Members of this House would never tolerate for themselves? Is it not a disgrace that despite the fact that the Conservatives have been pretending in public to support those workers, in private the party's pensions spokesman has written to his Back Benchers, telling them not to sign the early-day motion?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the situation facing members of Allied Steel and Wire in relation to their pension scheme. Obviously, I have great sympathy for them and for other scheme members. As my hon. Friend will know, we have announced proposals to establish, first, a pension protection fund, which will be the first ever insurance scheme for defined benefits in the United Kingdom, so that employees do not have the injustice of seeing their pension rights disappear if their scheme winds up. Secondly, there will be a more active pensions regulator to focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration, and on encouraging best practice. I understand the problem. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Pensions have been meeting representatives and affected members from Allied Steel and Wire. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all that we can to resolve the situation.

    Friends Meeting House
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will make an official visit to the Friends meeting house in Totnes.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: If the Prime Minister had come to meet the Quakers and to see those peaceful people, he would have heard that their primary concern is the increasing level of council tax and the way in which it funds an army of bureaucrats and administrators rather than front-line services. Will he acknowledge that Devon county council employs as many people as the European Commission in Brussels, and that the managing director of Torbay council is now paid £more per annum than a Minister of State in the right hon. Gentleman's Government? The Prime Minister could cut council tax at a stroke—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Friends are better behaved than the hon. Gentleman.
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman began his question, I temporarily turned to the wrong part of my file. I do not want to comment on Devon county council; I am not as aware of the facts of who is employed there as the Quakers. My understanding is that that county council, along with others, has received a very significant increase in the amount of grant from central Government. We believe that the additional amount of grant is important for local authorities. I am sure that when he heard the Quakers' complaints he told them that his party voted against the extra investment that we allocated to local authorities.

    Engagements
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the Prime Minister value the work carried out by special schools up and down the land that care for children with special educational needs? If he does value their extraordinary work, will he come out in opposition to the plans of the Labour-Lib Dem-controlled Gloucestershire county council to close the only special school in my constituency, Alderman Knight, which is greatly valued not only by the parents and teachers in the area but by the pupils, who really need the school?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on the particular school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as I do not know the facts about it. In the end, as I hope he realises and other hon. Members appreciate, it is important that these decisions are taken locally and that they are determined by the local process of democracy and consultation. I can only point out to him—this I do know—that the Gloucestershire local education authority budget has received an extra £670 per pupil in real terms compared with 1997–98. It is in the end up to the council how to spend that money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is surely right for the Government to point out that we have substantially increased education funding. Once again I point out—I say this with no rancour—that he and his colleagues voted against that extra spending.
    Paddy Tipping: Although unemployment in the Nottinghamshire coalfield has fallen by 60 per cent. over the past six years, does the Prime Minister agree that there are still small groups of people who find it difficult to get to work? Will he look closely at today's rural bus challenge announcement of £20 million, which will allow services such as the Boughton Boomerang and the Sherwood Sweeper to be set up to get people from coalfield villages to employment sites?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the boomerang service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—
    1324
    although I have a few boomerangs out myself. The £20 million rural bus challenge will be important, because the point that my hon. Friend emphasised is correct: there is no doubt that unemployment has fallen and employment has risen substantially in the past few years, but one of the biggest difficulties, especially in rural areas, is people being unable to get to work because of difficulties with local transport. I hope that the additional investment in rural bus services will help to rectify that problem.

BILL PRESENTED
  SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
  Sue Doughty presented a Bill to require the drawing up and implementation of a strategy to promote sustainability among local communities; to make provision for the inclusion of targets and indicators in the strategy; to make provision for councils to implement the strategy in their area; to make provision in respect of the powers of electors in relation to the implementation of the strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 40].

Universal Funded Pensions
12.30 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require people to save for a guaranteed pension sufficient to avoid reliance on means-tested benefits.
The biggest problem facing every developed country is how to pay for pensions as people live longer and have fewer children. Britain used to be better placed than our continental neighbours to cope with that problem, because we had built up more investments to pay for our future pension liabilities than the rest of the European Union put together. Now, both our state and private pension systems are in crisis. The Government's £5 billion a year pension tax, increased means-testing and the stock market fall have combined to undermine retirement provision. Company schemes are closing to new members and millions of people are simply not making remotely sufficient provision for their old age.
My Bill would introduce a universal funded second pension to replace the present, largely unfunded, state second pension. Everyone, including the self-employed, would be required to have a pension fund into which they would make payments throughout their working lives sufficient to provide an income in retirement, which, together with their basic state pension, would enable them to avoid being dependent on means-tested benefits.
I started out opposed to compulsion in the sphere of pensions, but we already compel people to contribute towards a state second pension; moreover, we compel prudent people who voluntarily save enough for their own future to pay again through tax to support the less provident who do not save enough and rely on benefits. I concluded that it would therefore be preferable to require everyone in work to contribute towards a pension at least sufficient to ensure that they would not have to depend on means-tested retirement benefits.
To enable everyone to build such a fund during their working life, they would receive a flat-rate rebate from their national insurance contributions paid into their fund sufficient to finance the standard level of pension. Just as employers underwrite the pension provided by defined benefit occupational schemes, the state would guarantee to top up each person's pension if for any reason their fund did not perform well enough to provide a pension at the standard level.
The result of my proposal is that everyone would own their own pension fund. Ownership brings choices and incentives. Once people have their own pension fund, they will find it far easier to put in additional savings. In Australia, the introduction of mandatory superannuation accounts led to a doubling of additional voluntary savings. The effect in this country should be even more marked. The current system of pension credit means that more than three-quarters of the population know that they will face means-testing when they retire, so they will lose 40 per cent. of every extra £1 of pension for which they have saved. Once everyone knows that their minimum contributions to their pension fund will lift them above the means-tested level, they will have every incentive to save more than that basic minimum.

1327
Indeed, the pension credit, which extends the disincentive up the income scale, will become redundant.
Ownership of a pension fund will give more people more choice about when they retire. They will be free to do so once their fund is sufficient to prevent them from being dependent on state benefit. However, it will give them a double incentive to work beyond the normal state pension age, as every extra year that they work will mean that another year's contributions will be paid into their fund, and there will be a year's less pension for it to finance. There is evidence that people with defined contribution pension funds work longer, whereas groups without such provision retire earlier. Without such incentives, the Government could meet their target of increasing to 60 per cent. the share of pensions funded by savings only by raising the state pension age in line with longevity to make it compulsory for people to work longer. It is better to give people freedom while providing them with an incentive to work longer.
Requiring everyone to have their own pension fund will cut the amount of savings absorbed by the cost of administering pension funds. Over half those costs are due to the cost of acquiring customers. Requiring everyone to have their own fund would eliminate the cost of persuading them to set one up; the amount of advice required and the cost of compliance would be greatly reduced; and the remaining costs would be spread across a far larger pool of savings. My Bill would also make a significant cut in the cost of providing annuities, as I explain in my pamphlet, "Save our Pensions", which is available from the Social Market Foundation for £15, or free at my website, www. peterlilley.co.uk.
Currently, people who contract out of the state second pension must use their fund to purchase an annuity lasting as long as they live. Insurance companies providing those annuities must provide against the risk of unlikely but conceivable increases in life expectancy, for example as a result of the invention of a golden bullet cure for cancer. If those increases in life expectancy do not occur pensioners will have paid too much for their annuities. The need to make such provision would be
1328
sharply reduced if the Government shouldered the risk of excessive increases in longevity at the far end of the spectrum by paying the second pension on a pay-as-you-go basis for people over 85. People's compulsory savings would only have to fund a fixed-term pension or annuity covering the first 20 years of retirement, which would be disproportionately cheaper than an unlimited annuity.
At the same time, my Bill would help to tackle the greatest unfairness in our annuity pension system. At present, people on lower incomes, who tend to have a lower life expectancy, subsidise the better-off, who tend to live longer. My Bill would require the national insurance recording system to provide life offices with summarised information about people's lifetime income, similar to the information in someone's tax code, so that they could relate annuity rates to the life expectancy of different income groups. People in lower paid and manual jobs would get better annuities or pensions for a given amount of savings than people on higher earnings.
My Bill would not only ensure that everyone had a comfortable and dignified retirement but would bring about the largest extension of wealth ownership this country has known since the spread of home ownership. It would give more people more choice about when to retire, and more incentive to save and work longer. It would generate a massive flow of committed long-term saving and investment, would enable some of the burden of providing for an ageing population to be spread globally and, ultimately, would reduce the largest single burden on the taxpayer. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. David Cameron, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. John Maples, Mr. David Ruffley and Andrew Selous.

UNIVERSAL FUNDED PENSIONS
Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to require people to save for a guaranteed pension sufficient to avoid reliance on means-tested benefit: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 41].
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Case for a Civil Service Bill
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move,
  That this House calls on the Government to introduce a Civil Service Bill in this parliamentary session.
  It is a pleasure to make a guest appearance at the Dispatch Box, which I have encountered in the past. It is always an honour to represent one's party on the Front Bench, and I am grateful to my old friend the Leader of the Opposition for inviting me back to speak on this particular subject, about which I feel strongly, and which it is extremely suitable for the House to take on at the present time. I suppose that it could be said that my right hon. and learned Friend is hoping that I shall practise for the role of an elder statesman, because this is an elder-statesman-type subject, which addresses the problem of the British constitution—which is being interfered with, and not being interfered with very successfully—and the style of our public life and trust in its integrity, about which, as hon. Members of all parties realise, many among our electorate feel acutely.
  The subject is suitable for me, as a former Minister and former Opposition spokesman, because I have seen an astonishing degree of support for the proposals in the Bill that we commend to the House. The Bill was proposed by an all-party Select Committee, the Public Administration Committee, on which there was only one dissenting voice. I hope that its Labour Chairman will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker. I assume that it is supported by the Liberal Democrats; they have always supported the principle behind it. It is certainly supported by the Conservative party, and, with the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the party, I will repeat our commitment to it. It is supported by leading civil servants and by successive chairmen of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
  The appeal of the Bill seems to be overwhelming, with the great and the good of every political complexion supporting it. That is hardly surprising, given that its purpose is to entrench the core values of the civil service; to give clear powers and responsibilities to the Civil Service Commission; to defend the integrity and independence of the civil service; and to set limits on the number of special advisers, stipulate what they cannot do, and allow Parliament to have a say on it. Even the Government will say that they support the ideas in the Bill in principle. We are having this debate because they have been saying it for so long, doing so little about it, and acting in such contradiction of the principles in the Bill, that we all realise that they are speaking with forked tongue.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: We shall see with what tongue the hon. Gentleman speaks.
  Mr. Dismore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has so far failed to mention part 2 of the Bill, which is
  1330
  couched in identical terms to the ten-minute Bill that I introduced yesterday. He claims that his hon. Friends all support the Bill that he advocates, yet 21 of them voted against my Bill. Will he urge those who seem to have changed their minds between the original tabling of the Bill that he advocates and that of mine yesterday to change their minds again and to support my Bill on its Second Reading on 30 January? Or can he explain why there is a difference of view?
  Mr. Clarke: I was present in the House yesterday. I did not vote against the hon. Gentleman's Bill, nor did I vote in favour of it—he appeared to have more than adequate support—but I assure him that I was in favour of his being given leave to introduce it. He is obviously going to vote with the Opposition today given that, as he says, the terms of his Bill are replicated in the Bill that we are commending. I have to say. however, that his Bill represents the least important part of our Bill, which perhaps shows that although he has the courage of an independent Back Bencher, he has only a bit of it, as he fastened on the one point that, as most members of the Select Committee would agree, is not at the heart of the matter.
  I have read statements made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will open the debate for the Government. I know that the Government will say that they support the impartiality and integrity of the civil service and that they undertake to make some progress towards consultation and so on, but they have been saying that for more than seven years.
  We are pressing the point because, despite their protestations, the Government have politicised the civil service as never before. Party political control over the formulation of policy is steadily developing, and party political control over the presentation of policy has become almost absolute.
  It is no coincidence that we are considering the matter on the eve of the report by the Hutton inquiry. In no way will I attempt to prejudge the outcome: I am genuinely waiting to hear what Lord Justice Hutton has to say about the matter that he was asked to address-the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. However, the evidence given to the Hutton inquiry throws such a light on the way in which decisions were reached and the relationship between the non-elected, non-accountable powerful figures whom the Prime Minister has brought into No. 10 and the civil servants who should have shared public responsibility for the matter that today is the day for the Government to be driven away from saying, "We will consult. We agree in principle." Action is required if we are to win back the public's confidence in our political and public service system.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who can tell me whether he is indeed the Chairman of the Committee whose draft Bill we are commending.
  Tony Wright: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right person, and it is a joy to see him back on the Front Bench.

  1331
  Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman reverts to old Front-Bench habits and just for the sake of fairness and illumination, will he remind the House that the old Treasury and Civil Service Committee proposed a similar Bill in 1994 and that the Government of the day, in which he was a Minister, did nothing about it?
  Mr. Clarke: I quite agree. Before I become more partisan—I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will become partisan—I appeal to hon. Members such as him because important issues are involved. There are a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who agree and who can take an interest in these matters over and above ordinary party politics. There are Labour members of the Public Administration Committee who have been pressing for a civil service Bill for a considerable time. There are Members on the Labour Benches who agree with me about the need for parliamentary reform and strengthened parliamentary control over the Executive. They are people who should take the matter seriously and add to the pressure on the Government. The issue matters to us all, whichever political party we represent. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that none of us can remember a time when public regard and respect for politics and public trust in the public service has been so low. The case for a civil service Bill has been building up since it was first put before the last election.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that before the last election, the Conservative Government had its own troubles, when the Opposition were pressing us on various matters and invented the word "sleaze" and when I was dogged by the problems caused by the sexual adventures of some of my colleagues and the financial adventures of one or two Back Benchers. We were accused of most things, but we were not accused of politicising the civil service, which is what has happened now. We respected convention when conflict entered our relations with our civil servants, and we did not use public money for party political propaganda. We had half as many special advisers as the current Government. None of our special advisers had authority over members of the civil service, and there was no question of anything interfering with the civil service's right to give impartial and frank advice. Frankly, I knew perfectly well that some of the best civil servants with whom I worked had never voted Conservative and would never vote Conservative, but I respected the professionalism with which they gave their advice, and the public respected their integrity when they were able to see the factual explanation and defence of Government policy to the public.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his duties. He said that he always treated the civil servants who gave him advice with the utmost respect. Did he therefore condone what the current Leader of the Opposition did when he dismissed Derek Lewis as head of the Prison Service?
  Mr. Clarke: There are occasions on which Ministers are entitled to take a view on the dismissal of public servants. I was a Minister for 18 years, and during that
  1332
  time I asked for two of my civil servants to be replaced. I could only ask the permanent secretary to look into the difficulties: in the one case, it was because the man was burnt out; in the second case, it was because the man was deliberately ignoring Government policy. Those things occur. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman can only think of one example that got into the public domain and that I can remember only two such experiences, in neither of which was any case established that Ministers were behaving improperly or compromising the integrity of public servants, shows how far we have moved in the seven years since the Labour Government took over.
  I should like to give some illustrations of what has happened since Labour took office and embraced a wholly different, rather Americanised approach to controlling the business of Government. The number of special advisers—political appointments accountable to Ministers—has more than doubled since we were in power. It is now more than 80, and more than 20 of those are based in No. 10, acting for the Prime Minister. Many of them combine their policy role with making public or private statements to the media on behalf of the Government. The best estimate on available evidence is that about 40 are often involved in covert briefing of the media on behalf of their Ministers.
  That system was introduced on the back of the almost complete removal of the civil service press officers whom we had always used when we were in office. Within two years, all but two of the Government press officers had vanished from Whitehall. Civil servants had been replaced by people quite a number of whom had worked for the Daily Mirror and many of whom had political backgrounds, and much of the media briefing was taken over by the so-called special advisers—"spin doctors" as the press called them—who became the prime part of the Government's presentations to the public.
  Kevin Brennan rose—
  Shona Mclsaac rose—
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a few moments.
  Two of those people, Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, were actually given Executive authority over civil servants in No. 10. Their positions went far beyond their formal positions, as I shall explain—but I give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford).
  Kali Mountford: After more than a decade in office, was it not possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government covertly to have encouraged the appointment of people whose opinions coincided more happily with theirs? Could that not have happened, and is it not preferable for the public fully to understand the role of special advisers, rather than having the more secret operations that seemed to take place when I was a civil servant?
  Mr. Clarke: I genuinely think that that was one of the problems when the Labour party came into office. It had been in opposition for 18 years, had been seduced by

  1333
  American methods of campaigning and was somewhat attracted by the American style of Government. Some of the new Ministers came into power believing that the civil service had somehow been politicised by their predecessors. There is always the danger that if one is in opposition for too long, one starts believing too much of one's own propaganda. However, I give the hon. Lady an assurance, confident that she will not be able to challenge me on the basis of any source in respect of my experience in the Government—I was there for the whole time—that we did not do that. We were not allowed to do that. The conventions, which we regarded as constitutional conventions, did not allow us to do it. Our permanent secretaries would have been outraged if we had suggested that they should do it; and the Cabinet Secretary would have insisted that we did not.
  In respect of my former Department, Labour Ministers took over a civil service that was rather looking forward to a change of Government and the challenge to their professionalism of being able to deliver public-service Executive tasks to a new set of Ministers. Far too often, however, civil servants found that the new Ministers were deeply suspicious of the civil service and did not take their advice. They were surrounded by a lot of apparatchiks who had enjoyed themselves in opposition and now believed that they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of government. It took six to 12 months for any kind of proper relationship to be established. If things had got better after the first six months, perhaps we would all be moving in the same direction, but I regret to say that, during the past seven years, instead of the Government's learning from experience, things have got worse.
  Kevin Brennan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when Bernard Ingham gave evidence to the Public Administration Committee, he said that he did exercise those sort of powers when working under Mrs. Thatcher. The civil service Bill which the Select Committee has proposed, does, in fact, retain Executive powers for special advisers at No. 10. The evidence that we heard suggested that we should worry not about the politicisation of the civil service, but about the possibility that the politicisation of a civil service Bill would kill it.
  Mr. Clarke: Bernard Ingham was a civil servant. His only political activity before he took the job was as a Labour local government candidate. He took on the duty of advocating the policy of the Government of the day, which is the duty of all Government information officers. Bernard Ingham regarded himself as bound by the convention that he was not to engage in party political advocacy of the policy—though all too often it seemed to his opponents that he did.
  Bernard Ingham's deputy was the late—and, in my opinion, great—press officer, Romola Christopherson. She was one of the most entertaining press officers I worked with during my controversial time at the Department of Health. Romola Christopherson had leftish views. She was—I hate to shock hon. Members—by no means a Blairite: she was undoubtedly old Labour, as I discovered when I got to know her well enough for her to reveal her true political opinions. The stories about the relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Romola Christopherson when she was
  1334
  based in No. 10 were legion—indeed, I could not share them with the House in the time available for a half-day debate. I am digressing already.
  I well knew Romola's left-wing views, but she worked with me to present professionally the case for health service reform, as she was charged with doing. She was still in post as a Government press officer when the Government changed, but she was one of those who fell in the Government's purge of press officers and she was replaced by a political appointee. The rules were that she would advocate professionally the policy laid down by her Ministers and the Government of the day; that she would not do so in a party political fashion or make party political points; and that she would have nothing to do with attacking the Labour alternative. All that has vanished and been destroyed by the activities of the special advisers.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Shona McIsaac rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I have just reminded myself that I have only half a day, so I want to make a little progress. I apologise to the Father of the House, who has just risen, but I do not want to give way for a short while.
  I am trying to make Labour Members understand that it is their parliamentary duty to put some pressure on their Front Benchers to take some action on this matter. Let me help the House, including Labour Members, to judge the ministerial response that we shall hear from the Minister responsible for the civil service. He will ask why we are making such a fuss and say that the Government agree with the motion in principle and are about to consult on the matter. He will tell us that the Government will take into account the necessity to protect the integrity of the civil service. I shall not give the full record, but just touch on it.
  The Labour party first committed itself to introducing new legislation on the civil service before 1997, when it set up a joint commission with the Liberal Democrat party. The commitment was to give
  "legal force to the code which should be tightened up to underline the political neutrality of the civil service…to clarify lines of civil service and ministerial responsibility".
  That was when the Labour party had joint commissions with the Liberal Democrats: alas, poor Paddy, we remember him well. I remember Lord Ashdown's remark to me that the trouble with dealing with the Prime Minister was that Tony always believed something when he said it. However, that was Labour's commitment before 1997.
  When the Labour Government took office, they confirmed their commitment in their July 1998 response to a House of Lords report. By 2000, we had reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was chaired first by Lord Nolan and then by Lord Neill. Nothing had happened by that time, except the steady emergence of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Powell and the other special advisers in Whitehall.
  In its sixth report, the Committee on Standards in Public Life wanted a timetable for the implementation of the Government's commitment to a new civil service Bill. The Committee wanted a target date to be set for

  1335
  the introduction of such a Bill. One would have thought that, to a target-obsessed Government, that should have been attractive.
  The Government responded to that report in July 2000. They confirmed their commitment to proceeding along those lines. The same commitment will be repeated today.
  By November 2001, Sir Richard Wilson, the then Cabinet Secretary, was getting impatient. He told the Select Committee on Public Administration, presumably with the authorisation of Ministers, that consultation on a civil service Bill would start in the new year—that is, in 2002. By the time of his valedictory speech to the public service in 2002, Sir Richard was still repeating that the Government were publicly committed to a public service Bill. Shortly thereafter, an issues paper was promised by the Government.
  The same process has been repeated ever since. In 2001, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who will wind up today's debate, gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Committee by that time was into its third Chairman, Sir Nigel Wicks, who is just about to leave that post. The Minister assured the Committee that the Government remained committed to a civil service Bill. In its ninth Report published in April last year, the Committee recommended that an early process of public consultation on the contents of a draft Bill should begin, and that the Bill should receive pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
  Time and again, the Government have given in-principle commitments to such a Bill but have done nothing about it. I shall not give a full list of examples, but that is the background to the latest step by the Public Administration Committee, which the Opposition are simply commending and adopting. That all-party Committee, in its first report of this Session, published a draft civil service Bill. That draft has been approved by Sir Nigel Wicks and his Committee on Standards in Public Life, and it has been accepted by leading retired public servants outside the House. The Government have responded by saying that their own draft Bill will soon be going out to consultation.
  In my opinion, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will say, when he responds to my remarks, that the Government will of course go out to consult.
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving my speech.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister says from a sedentary position that I am not going to give the speech, and indeed he may alter what he was about to say. However, he has been pretty consistent so far in saying that the principle of this matter was always right and that the Government were about to consent to it.
  I must tell the House that I have reached the stage where I do not believe Ministers. The Government are not acting in good faith. There comes a point where endless hesitation becomes opposition, and when procrastination becomes positive deception. That is
  1336
  what happens when people keep saying that they are in favour of something but do nothing about it. It is plain that the Government want to kick the proposition that is a new civil service Bill into the long grass, and that no grass in the political world is too long for it.
  However, such a Bill will inevitably have its day, and it is possible that some members of the Government support it. Some theories suggest that the Prime Minister is personally in favour but keeps getting talked out of it by his more unscrupulous cronies and more obdurate colleagues. Other theories have it that the Deputy Prime Minister is genuine when he waxes lyrical, in answer to questions, in favour of a new civil service Bill, but that it is the Prime Minister who wants his political entourage at No. 10 to retain control.
  If we are to be told that there will be more consultation, we have been told the same thing for more than seven years. The time has come to move on. No doubt we will eventually get something for consultation, but when this Government consult, they do not legislate. The consultation will proceed, and it will amount to another long period of total indecision. That is why the Opposition motion is commendably precise and to the point, requiring the Government to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament. That is what the Government are resisting.
  Mr. John Bercow: The position adopted by my right hon. and learned Friend has the advantage that he has always practised what he preaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and I worked as political advisers for him, and he told us at our first interviews when we arrived that our duty was to offer political advice to Ministers, but that we must not issue instructions to career civil servants or make public political speeches. If we had forgotten that distinction, I doubt very much that our feet would have touched the ground on our way out.
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree. I am very grateful to both of my hon. Friends for their work as special advisers. We never had any trouble, because it would not have crossed the minds of my special advisers—any more than it would have crossed mine—that their role was to give instruction to Treasury officials, or to give alternative briefings on policy subjects to the media. That did not happen.
  Brian White(Lab): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Shona McIsaac: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I might, if I do not exceed my time too much.
  I have been, I think, statesmanlike throughout my remarks. I have set out the position in a dispassionate way. I have asserted no principle of civil service integrity and impartiality that any Minister would dare to contradict. I have not described constraints on the roles of special advisers that any of them would disavow in public. However, I want to touch on why this matter is becoming urgent. As I have said, the behaviour, practice

  1337
  and style of this Government, and the experience of people interested in the constitution of public affairs over the long period for which this debate has lasted, have made the case in favour of a new civil service Bill over and over again. There is now an urgent need for such legislation.
  I have mentioned Mr. Alastair Campbell and Mr. Jonathan Powell. A mixture of pressure and despair finally caused Mr. Campbell to go and earn his living in some other way. Mr. Jonathan Powell is still there in No. 10 Downing street, with his executive authority over large parts of the civil service intact.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Clarke: No doubt Lord Justice Hutton will next week set out the details of the role of those two gentlemen in certain events. So far as I can judge, the two of them over the past seven years have been more powerful than the vast majority of members of the Cabinet. They have had more executive authority over officials and, through those officials, over Government Departments than any other political appointees ever had previously. I suspect that they know far more about what goes on inside Government than two thirds of the members of the Cabinet.
  The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), is in his seat, looking delphic, as he usually does. He might have had more power than Jonathan Powell and Alistair Campbell, but I suspect that he had some almighty battles with them and that they strongly prefer the present Foreign Secretary, who is more inclined to do what he is told. I would concede that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a more powerful political figure than Mr. Jonathan Powell because, when push comes to shove, he is more powerful than the Prime Minister in quite a lot of important matters. For the rest of them, however, I doubt it. Some might stand up for themselves, but the ability of the minor Secretaries of State down the table even to argue with Alastair Campbell in his pomp, or Jonathan Powell in his present capacity, is very limited. Let us look at the fate of our colleague, the present Secretary of State for Defence, who seems like a man at the end of the plank looking back at the cutlasses, wondering when he is going to be asked to jump. The real problem with his involvement in the issues surrounding Mr. Kelly, whatever Hutton comes up with, is that it is quite plain that the poor old Secretary of State for Defence was not really allowed to know what was going on. He was not crucially at the centre of events, hence his pathetic attempts to explain in his evidence what his personal role was.
  No doubt the Secretary of State for Defence will at last have the final responsibility of carrying the can not just for the Prime Minister but for all those special advisers whose e-mails make such unpleasant reading and who attended those weekend meetings at Chequers that really decided everything. Lord Hutton has already complained, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) —anticipating one finding—that the key meetings that weekend were not minuted. My right hon. Friend was a Cabinet colleague of mine for many years, and we were not allowed to have meetings with no minutes. We could not even make a telephone call without civil servants on
  1338
  the other line making notes on what we were saying. They would say. "It's essential, Minister, that everybody should know what you are committing the Government to, and what is being decided." What was the reason for having meetings of Cabinet Ministers and political appointees with no minutes? We do not have to be conspiracy theorists to work out that they wanted no one to know what they were talking about. We never would have known that, had not a senior permanent secretary had the courage to do what his Secretary of State had not felt able to: go along to the Hutton inquiry and say that the decision to name Mr. Kelly was taken at an unminuted meeting chaired by the Prime Minister. I shall go no further into that, because there have been other records of it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Are we quite certain that Mr. Jonathan Powell, over the selective leaking of a law officer's letter in the Westland affair, behaved absolutely impeccably?
  Hon. Members: Charles Powell.
  Mr. Clarke: I think that the hon. Gentleman means Mr. Charles Powell, pronounced pole, who is the brother of Mr. Jonathan Powell, pronounced Powell—[Laughter.] Who says that every element of class war has gone from British politics? Mr. Charles Powell was a career civil servant, a diplomat. He was subject to the civil service code and civil service discipline. He was not a non-accountable, non-elected, politically appointed freelance like his brother Jonathan Powell who, as chief of staff, has enormous influence and was heavily involved in the affairs on which Lord Hutton is about to report.
  I remind the House of the other great affair that accelerated the application of pressure for the Bill and, I am sure, helped to drive the Select Committee in the direction that it took. It is not so long since our experience with the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) —then Secretary of State for Transport—his special adviser Jo Moore and a press officer called Mr. Martin Sixsmith. The shambles that then occurred was well reported by committees of investigation, and I shall not bore the House with their reports. Jo Moore became notorious because she made a shatteringly tasteless remark on the opportunity to use the events of 11 September to get rid of bad news in and around the Department. She became so obsessed with the political minutiae that the bad news that she wanted to get rid of was not noticed, and it can no longer be remembered by anyone, it was so pathetic. She was so carried away by power that she thought that she directed even the most minute statements going out of the Department.
  My suspicion is that Miss Moore had quite excessive influence on that disastrous Secretary of State, who made so many errors, and that her relationships with half the Department for Transport were absolutely deplorable. It is quite obvious that there was a three-way breakdown in communications, which the relevant Select Committee report described. Not only were the then Secretary of State, Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith at odds with one another; everyone was leaking information against one another to the press. The odour

  1339
  from that experience, the style of that experience and the impression that it gave of new Labour's management of a Department were quite deplorable, and it is no wonder that the Phillis inquiry was set up. Mr. Phillis, who produced his final report just a day or two ago, said in his interim report that there had plainly been a three-way breakdown in communications. Yet again, that urgently underlines the need to codify and entrench the proper relationships between members of Departments, because we have had such disastrous experiences of things going wrong.
  The people involved in that affair are not alone. The dismissal of Derry Irvine, the overnight abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor and the belief that it was acceptable to put in a former flatmate of the Prime Minister to take on that role, and to change the country's constitution without further ado by an overnight press release, were a tragic demonstration of how not to go about the process of government. All the officials and judges involved were so taken by surprise that the Ministers and their cronies who produced the idea did not even realise that the law obliged the new Lord Chancellor—even if he did not want to be called Lord Chancellor—to put on his robes and go along and sit in the House of Lords if the second Chamber of Parliament was to be able to sit. Those Ministers are still, presumably, taking the advice of the civil service on exactly what practical consequences follow from the sad, sad quarrel between the Prime Minister and his former pupil master that led to that momentous, historic move.
  Hon. Members know perfectly well that matters have moved in a very undesirable direction in the past few years. We have heard enough of Ministers' protestations that they understand, that they agree in principle and that they are going to consult. We have an opportunity to legislate and have been invited to do so by one of our Select Committees. We should act on that and not allow the Government to deflect us, because there are those in the Government who are strongly against legislating. I advise hon. Members to read the speech of Lord MacDonald of Tradeston in a House of Lords debate in May 2002 to see the opinion of some of the tougher, more hard-nosed members of the Government. I have great respect for Lord MacDonald, who is more competent than most of his colleagues, and has been brought in to sort out quite a number of messes in his time. However, his background as a trade unionist, a business man and then a Member of the House of Lords has perhaps not made him as sensitive to democratic accountability as some of us think that we should be. [Laughter.] I see that Members on both sides know Lord MacDonald.
  There was no dissembling in Lord MacDonald's case. He told the House of Lords:
  "The Government believe that the existing framework of rules and safeguards works well".—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2002; Vol. 634, c. 726.]
  The Government have also said:
  "Special advisers need to be able, on behalf of their Minister, to convey instructions and commission work from the civil service."
  I think that the MacDonald faction in the Government is prevailing at the moment. The Government's response to the ninth report of the Committee on
  1340
  Standards in Public Life shows that they do not accept the Bill that has been put forward. They accept a Bill in principle, but they do not want to legislate on key matters, particularly the role of special advisers.
  The Government's response explains that they prefer the Order in Council system to legislation for regulating what special advisers can and cannot do. What is the difference in practice, the House may ask, between a code enforced by Order in Council and legislation of the straightforward and simple kind recommended by the Select Committee? There is one crucial difference: there is no parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council. However much we might wish to amend them, they are passed at the discretion of Ministers, whereas legislation would bring the matter to the House and give MPs of all parties a say. The Government also prepare codes of conduct, of which we have plenty—they keep revising them. The Government prefer codes of conduct to enshrining things in legislation? Why is that? Because MPs might otherwise exercise a view in the House.
  The House—MPs of all parties—should indeed take a view and say that Governments, of any party, should accept the constraint of the rules that give the civil service the right to give impartial advice and separate civil servants from the party political process.
  Shona McIsaac rose
  Mr. Clarke: I am sorry not to give way to the hon. Lady—I have not been singling her out in that regard.
  One reason for timely action is that if by chance, and rather to my surprise, the Prime Minister does not survive the next fortnight—although it is not for me to speculate whether he will—he will obviously be replaced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is any chance of that happening and we want to protect the integrity of the civil service, we had better act quickly. Do not get me wrong: the Chancellor is an honourable man but he is the political control freak to end all control freaks. Most of his former Cabinet colleagues say that it is bad enough working with him, but working for him will be impossible. He is the man who made the Red Books incomprehensible. He is the man who has altogether taken over the presentation of policy. His presentation of the public finances exceeds the ambitions of any creative accountant in obfuscating the true position and putting everything off balance sheet as much as possible.
  When the Chancellor first reached the Treasury, his approach to things was probably the worst in the Government. He would scarcely talk to the departmental officials waiting to serve him. For about the first six months, policy was made in the Park lane hotel room of his then colleague, in the company of Ed Balls, and Charlie Whelan. It was difficult enough for the Treasury to discover what the economic policy of the Government was—the Cabinet had no chance whatever, but at least they saw him each day while he was making it.
  If the Chancellor ever got the supreme job, we should not entertain the idea that he would dream of relinquishing the present style of party political control to the absolute degree. He works harder than the Prime

  1341
  Minister. He has more knowledge of detail. No Minister in any part of Whitehall would be safe from his political apparatchiks seeking control, so we had better act first.
  The Bill is straightforward. I do not see how anyone can argue against it in principle. It strengthens the civil service commissioners, gives civil servants who feel aggrieved a right of appeal and gives the civil service commission the power to investigate complaints. It entrenches the principle of selection on merit in the civil service and the duty of civil servants to give fearless and impartial advice.
  The key thing about the Bill is that it will strengthen parliamentary oversight of the whole system, which is what the Government most dislike about the Select Committee's proposals—that Parliament would have a say in what special advisers can and cannot do, and that it would have a say in the protection of the impartiality of the civil service. I am glad to say that the Conservatives are committed to doing that, which is why I am honoured to speak for my party at the Dispatch Box. We shall not do as the Government did—commit ourselves to the measure in opposition and fail to carry it out for our first seven years in government.
  We are prepared to subject ourselves to the constraints at this stage. I have the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would legislate to scrap the Order in Council system, that he would reduce the number of special advisers from its present level and that he would not seek to give special advisers executive authority over civil servants.
  In our case, we are prepared to enact that promise now, because those constraints—proper constitutional behaviour and regard for the standards in public life that our people expect of all parties in government—are ones that we are prepared to vote for now. The only people blocking progress are the Government, who will try to procrastinate and will, I suspect, turn down the offer of every other element in the House that would enable them to endorse standards that they claim to defend but that they have actually done more to damage during their period of office so far than any Government of modern times.
  1.24 pm
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's commitment, in its response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to publish a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation; acknowledges the contribution made to the discussion of these issues in recent days by the Public Administration Select Committee; notes the failure of any previous Conservative Government to legislate for the Civil Service; and welcomes this Government's commitment to reforming and modernising the Civil Service to ensure that it continues to deliver a first class service to the people of this country."
  I am sure that both sides of the House will welcome the return of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to the Dispatch Box for what he described as a guest appearance, after almost seven years when he could not be persuaded back into the shadow Cabinet of the past two leaders of the Conservative party—or, indeed, of its present leader.
  1342
  Instead, along with past leaders of the party—the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon and the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—he has accepted a place on the newly established Conservative party advisory council. So if hon. Members want advice on how to lose their home, their job and an election, they now know to whom to turn.
  On the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate today, I have the impression that he has been enjoying himself on the after-dinner circuit since his departure from government, so how fascinating to see that he was finally tempted back to the Dispatch Box to discuss the case for a civil service Bill. That is fascinating indeed, given that during his time as Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Minister of State for Health, Paymaster General, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Education and Science, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, not once did the Conservative party or the Government of whom he was a member legislate for a civil service Bill.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: No. I will give way in due course.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made some specific points about the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration, and made claims about the politicisation of the role of special advisers. He even upheld the Thatcher Administration as a model of Cabinet government. I shall endeavour to address each of those points during my remarks.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would seek consensus before making more partisan points, so I shall set the context for the debate before following his lead. The Opposition motion's demand for civil service legislation is made against the background that over two centuries we have seen three major reforms of the civil service: the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1853; the Haldane report of 1918 and the Fulton report of 1968.
  By any reckoning, each was a major milestone in the history of the civil service, but there has never before been a civil service Act. Indeed, as the present Cabinet Secretary stated last year,
  "we have lived without one for 150 years".
  The civil service Bill will, I believe, rank alongside those past reforms, so what is in the Bill matters much more than the simple fact of having a Bill.
  Last September, when the Government published our response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we committed ourselves to publishing a draft civil service Bill for consultation once we had received the Public Administration Committee's proposals for legislation. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Committee produced a draft Bill and published it on 5 January. So we have had 16 days: the Opposition had 18 years.
  The Public Administration Committee has wisely and consistently recognised the need to seek to build consensus around such a piece of landmark legislation.

  1343
  That is why its report of 5 January—unlike the express terms of the Opposition motion—recommended that the Government should publish a draft Bill in the current Session of Parliament to allow for appropriate consultation. I am happy to give the Chairman of the Select Committee that undertaking today: the Government will publish a draft Bill in the current Session of Parliament.
  The Government are of course mindful that both Houses will take a close interest in the draft Bill. It is an important constitutional matter and there will be full consultation with both Houses. However, detailed decisions about the form of that consultation have yet to be taken.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Obviously, one of the organisations to be consulted will be the First Division Association. Is the Minister aware that the association has complained constantly about the bullying and harassment of civil servants by the Government? Does he agree that the case of Ms Weleminsky is an example that should be looked at? What are his comments on that case?
  Mr. Alexander: There is a matter before the Standards and Privileges Committee. I shall be delighted to rehearse the views of the First Division Association in relation to special advisers. It will not make comfortable listening for the hon. Gentleman.
  I turn first to special advisers, a question which took up a considerable part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution. He started by making claims with regard to numbers of civil servants. He said that they had doubled under this Government; he failed to mention that they had doubled under the previous, Conservative Government. It is perhaps more interesting to bear in mind the comments of the previous Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, now Lord Wilson of Dinton, in his evidence in July 1999 to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. He said:
  "I do not think the senor civil service of 3,700 people is in danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers. That is not what is happening and I do not see it as creeping politicisation."
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that that self-same Cabinet Secretary, now retired, has just come out in favour of a Civil Service Act?
  Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman, who is himself a former special adviser and so brings some expertise to our deliberations, is right in recognising that the noble Lord is in favour of a civil service Bill. He was in favour of a civil service Bill when he was Cabinet Secretary, so the suggestion that that is a revelation must be taken with a pinch of salt.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman moved on to talk about the role of special advisers in communication, the central charge being that it was somehow inappropriate and illegitimate for special advisers to speak to the media. I return to the words of Lord Wilson, again before the Neill Committee, on 15 July 1999, when he added a valuable perspective. He said:
  1344
  "The fact is that not just under this Government but under previous Governments in my experience political advisers have spoken to and briefed the media. One of their jobs is to help brief the media in ways which permanent civil servants would regard as not appropriate, given their commitment to be politically impartial."
  Shona McIsaac: Twenty-three Tory Members were once special advisers. Does my hon. Friend think that they never gave any briefing of a political nature to the press or civil servants?
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend anticipates my contribution to the debate. I shall be happy to look at the specifics of the Order in Council under which the special advisers under this Administration and those under the Conservative Administration operated in having discussions with civil servants.
  However, the substance of the attack by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was about the nature of the powers under which civil servants now operate, and in specific terms the role of special advisers in relation to those powers. Much was made of the role of Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell and the 1997 Order in Council allowing up to three special advisers in Downing Street to be appointed with executive powers.
  Yet again I turn to Lord Wilson, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman cited, apparently in defence of his own position. The noble Lord described the Order as
  "putting those three posts back to where all special advisers were before 1991."
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman was confident enough to admit, it is important to look at the detail in these matters. The 1997 Order in Council simply removed the restriction confining advisers to giving advice to Ministers, which was not put in place until 1991. Not only was there a politically appointed chief of staff under the Conservatives between 1979 and 1985, but many Conservative special advisers who are now serving as Conservative Members operated under similar, if less clearly defined, arrangements when they were special advisers. In his long discussion of the role of the Powells and the "Poles" in British public life, the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention that point.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With the greatest respect, that is a misquotation. Before 1991 there was not a code of practice. It was introduced in 1991. That, I think, was the point that Richard Wilson was making in the quotation that the Minister gave us. He is not, I trust, asserting that before 1992 any politically appointed special adviser had executive authority over a civil servant. Not only would the then Cabinet Secretaries have been outraged, but no Minister ever suggested it.
  Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for recognising that the rules were indeed changed at that point. It is for the Conservatives to justify the regime under which they—and indeed their special advisers—operated during that time.As I was saying, in his long discussion of the Powells and the "Poles" the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not address those particular facts.
  The point about special advisers' powers has a contemporary relevance for the House, given the terms of the Bill. I was intrigued to examine the contents of the

  1345
  Conservatives' Civil Service Bill, which includes provisions, in clause 5(3), that up to two special advisers with executive powers may be appointed to the Prime Minister's Office.
  The House will be interested to know that the Conservative party's previous spokesman on these matters, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who, regrettably, has left the Chamber, gave evidence on this exact matter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
  "There is the constitutional precedent which if you like has been set by the Order in Council that was granted in 1997, giving a special enhanced status to Jonathan Powell and to Alastair Campbell. And as you will have seen from the documentation that I submitted not only do we object to that, we actually are of the view that if we were to bring in civil service legislation it should prohibit that sort of activity."
  I presume, therefore, on the basis of his own evidence, that the previous Conservative spokesman on this issue will shortly vote against the Bill of the current Conservative spokesman. Clearly, a week is a long time in Conservative policy making, as we discovered at Prime Minister's Questions on the issue of tuition fees.
  As for the more substantive point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised about the role of apparatchiks in our public life, I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is not in the Chamber. because I know that this is a matter of long-standing concern to him. During the Conservative leadership contest of 1993 his campaign team, together with the First Division Association, condemned the way in which the special adviser to the person who was then Home Secretary, but is now the Leader of the Opposition, was working at the campaign headquarters of the then Prime Minister. When the special adviser to the now Leader of the Opposition was asked by a reporter why she was at the Major campaign HQ in the middle of the afternoon, she explained, "I have been getting in to the Home Office early and coming here in my lunch break." As the spokesman of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, Andrew Roberts, declared at the time:
  "These rules were made quite clear, so there is no excuse for the Major campaign so flagrantly abusing them."
  As the Government have introduced both the code of conduct for special advisers and the model contract for special advisers, we will take no lectures from the Opposition on special advisers' probity in public life. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to discuss the need for civil service legislation in terms of ministerial propriety, so be it. He was kind enough to ventilate some of the sexual peccadilloes of his colleagues when he was serving in office. Let him explain more substantive matters. Let him explain the case for legislation with reference to the ministerial resignations of his erstwhile colleagues the former Member for Tatton, forced to resign and then humiliatingly defeated as the embodiment of Tory sleaze. Let him comment on the conduct of the former Member for Beaconsfield, forced to resign over cash for questions, and the former Member for South Thanet, whose special adviser was in the Chamber this afternoon—a Member who resigned to fight his libel action with the trusty shield of fair play.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to discuss the Bill in relation to probity in the direction of civil servants, which formed a central part of the charge
  1346
  he laid before the Government today, let him begin by explaining the conduct of the Conservative Deputy Prime Minister who, when based in the Cabinet Office only months before the 1997 election, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, attempted to order civil servants to work on party political tasks, obliging the then Cabinet Secretary to deliver an unprecedented rebuff.
  Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the wider need for the Scott inquiry, the Downey inquiry and the Nolan inquiry during his 18 years in office. Let him explain why he feels that it fell to the present Government uniquely in their time in office to introduce and publish the ministerial code for the first time, to introduce the model contract for special advisers and to publish the code of conduct for special advisers.
  The Government in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman served for 18 years did irreparable damage to the public life of this country. His speech ignored that. He ignored the fact that he has a past to account for, and that the British people held him to account in 1997.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Leaving aside the right hon. and learned Gentleman's past, he alleged that important decision-making meetings are not being minuted. That charge was also ventilated in the Financial Times last week by the journalist Sue Cameron. In what circumstances are decision-making meetings not minuted by civil servants?
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, there are circumstances in which Ministers meet without a civil servant present—for example, within the precincts of the House, where decisions could well be taken between Divisions, with major matters of policy being determined with colleague Ministers. In that sense there is no iron law that in no circumstances must a decision ever be taken by a Minister without a civil servant being present. However, with the greatest respect for what I understand are his 34 years on the Front Bench, it was rather risible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the period of the Conservative Administration was somehow a model of collegiate Cabinet government.
  Now that we have introduced some of the facts, let us try to deal with the substance of the charges that the right hon. and learned Gentleman laid before the House. In essence, he was arguing that there has been a grotesque abuse of power by the Labour party since it came to power in 1997. His real grievance is the enduring grievance of the entire Conservative party, I would suggest, which is about not the abuse of power but the loss of power by the Conservative party. The speech we heard was not as much a scrutiny of power held as a lament for power lost.
  Conservative Members seem to feel that a massive injustice was perpetrated against the Conservative party on 1 May 1997. They seem to feel that Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell somehow stole the election from the Conservative party. They see two landslide defeats for the Conservatives as some kind of unfortunate temporary aberration, which will soon be undone. They do not even recognise the fact that the British people reached a clear-headed judgment on the

  1347
  basis of policies implemented by the Conservative party, and that they are in danger of losing a third general election on exactly that basis.
  The real reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with so distinguished a career behind him, chose to address the House today on the matter of the Civil Service Bill is that actually, I fear, he may not be able to defend the Conservative party position—on Europe, for example, or indeed on the health service. He made admirable speeches—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister is showing his great adeptness at getting further and further away from the subject on which I was pressing him. May I bring him back to the Bill for a second in the course of his dissertation? Can he explain at this stage why the Government, who say that they are about to consult, reject the idea of legislation that would give the House any supervision over the code of conduct for—
  Lawrie Quinn: Sixteen days.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not only 16 days; the Government have been promising action on this for seven years, and the response has already been given to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government have already said that they reject the case for legislating on the role of special advisers and their code of conduct; they prefer Orders in Council. May we have an argument in defence of that—assuming that it remains the Government's policy? It was stated only a few weeks ago.
  Mr. Alexander: I fear that during his period away from the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to keep up to date with the provisions and positions of the Government. As I told the House today, we are committed to introducing a draft civil service Bill. I myself, in my evidence before the Committee on Standards in Public Life, made it clear that we were looking for a succinct Bill that would place on a statutory footing not just the civil service code of conduct but the special advisers code of conduct—that addresses the specific point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. None the less, he raises an important question whether we are at this stage ready to legislate or whether, working on the explicit direction of the Public Administration Committee, we should recognise the need to build consensus on this matter. In that sense I make no apology whatever for introducing a draft Bill at this stage because I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want the opportunity to contribute to the work that is under way on the Bill.
  Brian White: It was no surprise that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would not take an intervention from me to ask him for a definition of a civil servant, because in the evidence to the Committee no one person could agree on a definition. Does the Minister have a definition of a civil servant on which there would be consensus across the political spectrum?
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend is aware that this matter caused some interest in the Public
  1348
  Administration Committee. I suggest to him that the definition offered by a number of royal commissions in the past—
  "a servant of the Crown, who does not hold political or judicial office, who is employed in a civil capacity and whose remuneration is paid wholly out of money voted by Parliament"—
  would be an interesting starting point not just for the Government but for the discussions that are taking place as part of the consultation.
  However, in response to the substantive point made by my hon. Friend, it is important to recognise that on such matters of detail it is vital that there be a wide degree of consensus not just across the House but in the other place.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister has forgotten a statement of policy that he has already cleared, I suspect, giving a detailed response on special advisers which he just slipped away from. May I refer him to the Government's response to page 10 of the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in September 2003? I suspect that he was the Minister who cleared this statement:
  "The Government's position on legislation for the Civil Service is set out in its response to recommendation 6. It believes that any legislation would need to be short and succinct and that the issue of what special advisers can and cannot do is best dealt with in Codes of Conduct rather than on the face of a Bill."
  That is the Government's policy position. The Minister will not even acknowledge that he is aware of it, let alone defend it—and he claims he is willing to go on and consult about the details.
  Mr. Alexander: I am only too happy to clarify that point. One can of course refer on the face of a Bill to a code of conduct, which then finds expression outside the main piece of legislation. Enabling legislation has a long tradition of being able to do exactly that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dancing on the head of a pin in an attempt to cover the fact that the present Government have moved significantly by introducing not only the model contract for special advisers but the code of conduct for special advisers—two matters that did not trouble him during his 18 years in office.
  As I was saying before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), the real matter of substance which explains the appearance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today is the fact that the Conservatives feel a profound sense of grievance, and the reason why they are addressing themselves to such matters is not solely a concern for the fate of the civil service, but rather a concern for the fate of the Conservative party. In reality, this is part of a premeditated strategy by the Conservative party to encourage cynicism about politicians and public life in this country.
  Mr, Ian Liddell-Grainger rose—
  Mr. Alexander: I will give way in a minute or two.
  That is why Conservative supporters have recently received a communication from the leader of the Conservative party, stating:
  "In a low turn out election (estimated at 35%)if we get all our supporters out to vote then we win the major share of the seats in each region."

  1349
  This debate is just the latest move in a coldly cynical ploy by the Conservative party to grow cynicism, and it does the good reputation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman only harm that he should choose to play a leading role in the strategy being devised, no doubt, by Maurice Saatchi in Conservative central office.
  The principles that underlie the Government's approach to civil service legislation are indeed long established. They are the importance of maintaining the impartiality and objectivity of the civil service; defence of the principle of appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition—the bedrock of our system of public administration for more than 150 years—and recognition that special advisers have a valuable role to play in our system of government. We will therefore introduce a draft civil service Bill in the course of this Parliament that reflects these principles.
  Our civil service is world renowned. The Government uphold an absolute commitment to maintaining the political impartiality and integrity of the civil service. That has been our position since coming to office and it will remain our position in the years to come.
  1.46 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall return to the Minister's speech later. It was a very thin speech, but in contrast the very robust speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was a most exciting occasion and we warmly welcome him back to the Front Bench. We look forward to his contributions from the Front Bench on Iraq, on Europe and on other issues with which we often find ourselves in agreement with him. His performance this afternoon entirely justified the comment that he is a veritable giant amongst pygmies. Let us have more giants and fewer pygmies on the Front Bench in future.
  It is a great occasion when we can welcome yet more repenting sinners in the House. The Conservative Government never admitted the need for legislation clearly defining the role of civil servants, protecting their integrity from party political interference and delineating the clearly different role of political special advisers. It is great to have them on our side, even if it has taken them seven years to reach this position since the Labour party and Liberal Democrats came to that conclusion in spring 1997, as has been said, in the so-called Cook-Maclennan accord.
  Of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and his new leader have what I think in the Home Office would be called previous form in the whole issue of the integrity of the civil service. I refer to the note produced by Sir Robin Mountfield in April 2002, based on his experience in the Cabinet Office, which he headlined, "Politicisation and the Civil Service". He referred specifically to the vital issue of public appointments, which have not yet had sufficient attention in the debate this afternoon. I think we must all agree that it is critical for the integrity of our civil service that the public appointments process is full of the natural independence that we would require for those who take an important role in an independent civil service. Sir Robin said:
  "The second, and only other, route was open to external competition, supervised directly by the Civil Service Commissioners. A Minister could then only accept the
  1350
  recommended candidate, or the first recommendation if more than one were judged acceptable. He could not (since the Commissioners' rules were changed following Ken Clarke's preference for Derek Lewis over other 'acceptable' candidates as head of the Prison Service) choose between 'acceptable' candidates: if he was unwilling to accept the first name, the only course would be to re-run the competition from scratch. These arrangements were re-stated explicitly, and they leave no room (as it was alleged some new Ministers wished to do) for them to parachute their own candidates in."
  The point about that was precisely that the inadequacy of the arrangements before that incident led to that invidious situation. I must again suggest, therefore, that the problem is not new: it was there during the Conservative Government's regime and, by coincidence, it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who found himself in that precise position.
  Indeed, that episode was referred to time and again in the evidence to the Select Committee. For example, on 13 November 2003, Mr. Jonathan Baume, the general secretary of the First Division Association, said:
  "There was one exception made by the Civil Service Commission which was the famous case of Derek Lewis's appointment, which was not—I hasten to add—a political appointment. It was Kenneth Clarke's perception that an individual who came several down the ranking was the person he felt was the right person for the job. When Michael Howard succeeded him within no more than six months, he took an instant dislike to this individual, felt that he did not have the skills he needed in the Prison Service and it ended in an almighty disaster for the Government of the day."
  The appointments issue is critical to the legislation that we are now considering and to the integrity of the civil service. There were more references to that episode and the inadequate situation that arose at that period, during the Conservative Government's administration of this country, at the seminar hosted by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and his Committee in October.
  It is certainly not for me, because I have no ministerial experience, to say whether there was ever a golden age. I doubt it. I suspect that, gradually over the years, this process has inevitably made the position of the civil service more and more difficult. The integrity and independence of the civil service are things to which every Member of Parliament should pay particular attention. However, it is also important to recognise that that slow evolution has been the subject of concern in the civil service as well as among parliamentarians. I refer particularly to the comments of those who have had the honour—if it is an honour—and certainly the very onerous duty of heading the professional civil service. For example, in evidence to the Wicks committee, which has already been referred to, the then Sir Richard Wilson said:
  "I had not realised until recently that the qualification"—
  that special advisers may only advise—
  "was only added in 1991…throughout the 1980s, special advisers had no limits on what they could do in law…What the recent Order in Council actually does is just to remove the restriction on advice—in relation to the three so-called executive posts—that were introduced in 1991, and put those three posts back to where all special advisers were before 1991…we have been improvising over a period of years."
  The tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution this afternoon is an acceptance that improvisation is not enough. The situation in which we find ourselves today, seven years into a new

  1351
  Government, proves the value of the much more sensible approach that was agreed between the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties in 1997—in the light of the experience of the Conservative Government, not in that of the period since this Government came to power. We should therefore consider the Select Committee's proposals on their merits, based on the experience not just since May 1997, but from the period going right back through the 1990s and 1980s to which that very important evidence refers.
  I turn now to the Wicks committee report. A very good case is made throughout the Wicks committee's ninth report for clear delineation and clear designation of the differing roles of career civil servants and political advisers. We need not just watch those wonderful "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" programmes to recognise that the differing role, the delineation between those roles and the extent to which Ministers rely on different advice from those two sources are of extreme importance.
  I particularly want to draw attention to the advice that has been given through the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Wicks committee—as well as the Select Committee, on the need to get some simple definition on paper, so I come to the code of practice. It is true that a number of people have suggested that the code of practice, under Order in Council, is sufficient to deal with the problem. Frankly, I do not think that that stands up to examination. It does not stand up to examination by those who have considered the issue from an independent point of view—whether in giving evidence to the Wicks committee, the Wicks committee itself or our own Select Committee. It is clear from the advice that we are given on all sides that those at the very highest level of the civil service are themselves now persuaded of the need to do what is proposed.
  Again, I turn to the evidence given by the then Sir Richard Wilson. At paragraph 7.28 of the Wicks committee report, he said:
  "Rather than engage in abstruse discussions about what special advisers can do, we should say clearly and firmly what they cannot do and, beyond that, leave each Cabinet Minister to determine how they want to deploy them."
  We need to have something written down in black and white, in statute, agreed by Parliament. Similarly, in evidence to the Wicks committee, Sir Andrew Turnbull—it would be fair to say that he has been converted to this view—said:
  "I do not know that it would make a huge difference. I think it is seeking the reassurance that the long-standing kind of values and structure cannot be changed by stealth. In the actual day-to-day practice, I do not think there would be a great deal changed…But"—
  this is critical
  "an Act would underpin"
  the civil service code. He continued:
  "it would give assurance that, over 10 to 20 years, you will not suddenly wake up and find you have a world that you did not like and you do not quite know how you got there."
  Brian White: Once of the pieces of evidence given to the Public Administration Committee from the civil
  1352
  service unions was that such a civil service Bill should apply to the whole civil service. Most of the talk today has been about the senior civil service, and the hon. Gentleman is continuing that. Does he think that a civil service Bill should apply to the whole civil service? If so, would he address that in the point that he is making?
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I notice that he was in a minority of one on a number of important issues in the Select Committee, and it is an important part of the role of any Member that, if he dissents from his colleagues in a Select Committee or any other Committee, he can express his views. However, the draft Bill that the Select Committee has produced is a very good start; it makes that definition quite clear, and I am happy to abide by that advice. I hope that, in a minute, the Chairman of the Select Committee will be able to address the kind of logic and rationale behind its recommendations.
  Of course the Select Committee is not the only part of this building that has been addressing the issue. My noble Friend Lord Lester has introduced his civil service Bill—the Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill—and I understand that the intention is to consider it on Second Reading in the other place on 5 March. I summarise, but his Bill is designed to
  "place under the authority of Parliament executive powers exercised by Ministers of the Crown by virtue of the royal prerogative; to make provision relating to the appointment and conduct of, and general duties relating to, civil servants and special advisers; to establish a procedure for the making of certain public appointments; and for connected purposes."
  I see no reason why the draft Bill that is effectively before this House and the Bill that my noble Friend hopes will receive a Second Reading in the other place in March should not be considered together before a special joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny as quickly as possible. We could then really make progress—never mind all this business about holding yet more consultation. The Government are always consulting, but they use that as a very neat way to delay decisions. If they really wanted to make progress, they could do so now. I see no reason, after waiting seven years for the commitment in the Cook-Maclennan agreement to become a reality, why we should wait for yet more consultation beyond that which has already taken place.
  On 16 January 2004, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, said of Ministers:
  "My impression is that they believe we are doing something that is rather sensible and they have been very receptive to our plans."
  If that is the impression that the hon. Gentleman received from the Government, he clearly was not given it by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because his speech gave us the impression that parliamentary discussion of what should take place is the last thing in which he wants to be involved. He wants a long conversation—out in a field, no doubt—as far away from Parliament as possible. He wants to take the matter away from all the other controversy here. However, if we, as parliamentarians, do not have the opportunity to discuss the issue, given that a cross-party Select Committee has decided that it is time to move ahead, what is happening, for goodness' sake?

  1353
  I referred earlier to the extremely useful seminar on 29 October that was organised by the Select Committee. My only complaint was that it took place on my birthday, so I was rather busy with other matters and was not able to attend everything. At the seminar, Sir Andrew Turnbull said:
  "The Government does not believe that the contribution of Special Advisers should be treated as a numerical issue. Rather than setting a limit the right response is to be transparent about numbers and about roles and responsibilities."
  Those sound like weasel words, because as today's edition of The Independent faithfully reports, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has discovered by posing parliamentary questions to the Government:
  "The cost of the Government's spin operation has increased five-fold since Labour came to power…The communications budget in Whitehall has jumped from £575,000 in 1997 when Tony Blair entered Downing Street to £2.4 million this year."
  A further fact in the article makes a significant contribution to our discussion:
  "At least half of this year's budget of £2,458,000 will be spent on 'emergency communications', the Cabinet Office minister, Douglas Alexander, said."
  What sort of emergencies do the Government anticipate in the current year to require such an increase?
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the findings of the Phillis report, which says that disbanding the Government's information and communication services should be a priority?
  Mr. Tyler: We will all have to examine that report carefully£the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has already referred to it. It obliquely suggests that there should be more transparency in government, but it does not show that the Government are accountable to Parliament. They are not accountable to a group of journalists—whether or not briefings are online, on-screen or attributable—because they are answerable to us.
  I do not wish to prejudge the Hutton inquiry's conclusion, but it is self-evident from the evidence given to the inquiry that our mechanisms in Parliament to question what goes on in the subterranean intricacies of government and to find out what has been said by civil servants to special advisers and by special advisers to Ministers—and all around that net—are weak and inadequate. It took only a few days after the release of several of the e-mail communications that Lord Hutton was able to extract from the labyrinth of Whitehall to demonstrate that we parliamentarians, through all our various agencies to question Ministers—written and oral parliamentary questions, Select Committees and all the rest—are not doing our job properly.
  The Bill must be all about the Government's accountability to Parliament. The blurred distinctions that have undermined the reputation of political impartiality in the civil service and the independent integrity of individual civil servants are serious. The Minister used the expression "Crown servant", but that is an anachronism. In a parliamentary democracy, we should refer to such people as servants of the Crown in Parliament. We have said for hundreds of years that the constitution of the United Kingdom is based on the
  1354
  concept of the Crown in Parliament, so it is crucial that the matter be brought back into the parliamentary arena.
  We do not want more conversations and consultations. The Select Committee has produced a draft Bill as the basis for a discussion, so we should get on with that. There must be statutory protection for civil servants now. There must be statutory delineation of the differing roles to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred. The Minister's inadequate response did not give me cause for encouragement that the Government will make progress on the issue, and if we hear from the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, I hope that he will give us hard evidence of his optimism that the Government will move forward. We need a draft Bill so that Parliament can get on with the job.
  2.5 pm
  Tony Wright: I am delighted that the House has this opportunity to discuss the draft civil service Bill that was recently produced by the Public Administration Committee, which I have the privilege to Chair. It is the first time, certainly in the modern era, that a House of Commons Committee has produced its own Bill, and the first time that an Opposition have used such a Bill as the basis of an Opposition day debate. I shall assume that they are doing so in the spirit of constructive support and not simply because it offers a convenient opportunity to embarrass the Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) gave a virtuoso performance. Every time that he speaks, he must notice a surge of pleasure and relief among Labour Members because his party was congenitally unable to elect him as its leader. My assumption about that is still just about intact.
  The draft Bill was produced on a cross-party basis after a long process of consultation. It is not a partisan measure, and deserves not to be treated in a partisan manner, but I accept that that is a particular challenge for the House-the Groucho Marx song, "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It", probably provides the most concise summary of how we usually conduct oppositional politics in the House. On this occasion, I hope that both sides of the House will want to try to construct a consensus on the proposal. The subject is not, and should not be, party political, because it is essentially a matter of public interest.
  It is appropriate that we are discussing the proposal now because it is almost exactly 150 years since the great Victorian reformers, Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan, produced their historic report on civil service reform, which was designed to sweep away patronage and install a meritocratic public service in its place. The report is a model of racy radicalism, and their description of the character of the unreformed civil service is still worth recalling. They say:
  "Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought after, but it is for the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable, that it is chiefly desired. Those whose abilities do not warrant an expectation that they will succeed in the open professions, where they must encounter the competition of their contemporaries, and those whom indolence of temperament, or physical infirmities unfit for active exertions, are placed in the Civil Service, where they may obtain an honourable livelihood with little labour, and

  1355
  with no risk; where their success depends upon their simply avoiding any flagrant misconduct, and attending with moderate regularity to routine duties; and in which they are secured against the ordinary consequences of old age, or failing health, by an arrangement which provides them with the means of supporting themselves after they have become incapacitated."
  The institution that the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms created has served this country well. The civil service enshrines a tradition of public service that has been a model of its kind. It embodies principles that we take for granted, but should not. Just this week we had the report of the independent review—again, recommended by the Public Administration Committee—set up to consider the Government Information and Communication Services. It is revealing that in its search for the solid ground on which to build, amid a collapse of trust in Governments, politicians and the media, the review group turned to the tradition of an impartial civil service. Indeed, it said:
  "The tradition of Civil Service impartiality is a key bulwark on which to rebuild trust, and steps need to be taken to preserve and reinforce it".
  The proposal for a civil service Bill also builds on that tradition. It is unfinished business from Northcote-Trevelyan, made more urgent by the many recent changes to the civil service and the machinery of government. Let me answer the charge that the proposed Bill would prevent such changes or that those of us who support it have somehow fallen victim to the mandarin's embrace. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing in what is proposed that prevents change, development and evolution in the civil service, and of a radical kind. That is already happening and it will continue. This is not a civil service protection Bill. Propriety and performance both matter. They were central to Northcote-Trevelyan and they should be central to our discussions on the civil service now.
  Brian White: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the central charges against the civil service is that it has been policy led rather than results led, and that the delivery part of the civil service has lagged behind?
  Tony Wright: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The demands of delivery have posed a challenge for the civil service in modern times. Governments are right to want to make the machine's delivery ever better. My argument is that that imperative for better delivery—what I call performance—is not in any sense in conflict with propriety considerations. Both are important and we should be able to secure both. I would argue that the facts of change make it even more imperative to define the framework of principle within which it takes place, and to do so through Parliament. That is the heart of what is proposed in the Bill.
  It is time for the civil service to cease to be the creature of law that is made by the prerogative and to become the creature of law that is made by Parliament. That constitutional proposition is at the centre of the proposal for civil service legislation. A Government who will be remembered for their constitutional reforms need not be hesitant in embracing this one. The civil service has a duty to serve the duly elected Government of the day, but it is not the property of that Government; it should belong to Parliament on behalf of the people, which is what the Bill proposes.
  1356
  The Bill's approach to particular issues flows from that underlying proposition: a civil service commission should have extended powers of oversight of key principles and practices, and should be set up by Parliament and report to it; codes for civil servants and special advisers should be presented to Parliament and approved by it; the number of special advisers that a Government want should also be approved by Parliament; and the key boundary lines within the Government should be identified and properly patrolled. Having done that, it should be possible to have far more sensible discussion about some matters than has been the case recently.
  Having established a framework, we can discuss what should be contained within it. For example, let us have no more silly attacks on special advisers, who in the Daily Mail lexicon of political abuse have come to rank somewhere between asylum seekers and paedophiles. Let us have no Dutch auction to determine precisely how many there should be. They are not new. Indeed, the other day I came across a reference to special advisers in Barbara Castle's diaries for the 1970s, when she was having one of her constant battles with officials in her Department. She wrote:
  "I thanked God for the allies I have got in the ministerial team, and for the special advisers."
  From all the evidence received by my Committee and the Wicks committee, it is clear that special advisers are thought to contribute to good government.
  There is a serious debate to be had about the extent of political appointees in government in this country. We sit at one end of the international spectrum on that. The other day I was introduced to the Australian Cabinet secretary, who turned out to be a political appointee. In Canada, which the Committee visited recently, it turned out that the people we call permanent secretaries, whom they call deputy ministers, are also political appointments. A mature democracy should be able to have a grown-up discussion about the proper relationship between the elected Government and the permanent Government, without the cry of politicisation always going up to prevent that debate from taking place. The proposed Bill expresses no view on those matters, except to say that Parliament must be involved in the consideration of them.
  I said that what is proposed is unfinished business from the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1853. Let me remind the House of the concluding paragraph of that report in which they say:
  "It remains for us to express our conviction that if any change of the importance of those which we have recommended is to be carried into effect, it can only be successfully done through the medium of an Act of Parliament. The existing system is supported by long usage and powerful interests; and were any Government to introduce material alterations into it, in consequence of their own convictions, without taking the precaution to give those alterations the force of law, it is almost certain that they would be imperceptibly, or perhaps avowedly, abandoned by their successors, if they were not even allowed to fall into disuse by the very Government which had originated them."
  Finally, they say:
  "A few clauses would accomplish all that is proposed in this paper, and it is our firm belief that a candid statement of the grounds of the measure would insure its success and popularity in the country, and would remove many misconceptions which are now prejudicial to the public service."

  1357
  Those few clauses that were argued for 150 years ago are what we now propose—to anchor the civil service in Parliament. An impressive coalition has been assembled around that proposition which now needs to be acted on: the civil service commissioners, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the civil service unions, at least one Committee of this House, distinguished former senior civil servants and an array of informed commentators. Indeed, the Government should be added to the list as they have indicated their support in principle and have undertaken to produce their own draft Bill. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that that will happen "in this Session" after seeing the Bill produced by the Committee.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that in the Minister's peroration, he changed that statement to "in this Parliament"? We shall certainly be pressing him further on that.
  Tony Wright: I did notice that. I thought that that reference was a slip of the tongue. I am sure my hon. Friend will take the earliest opportunity to revert to his original form of words.
  Mr. Alexander: I am more than happy to clarify what I said. I have always understood that this Session of Parliament is within the bounds of this Parliament. In that sense, I can assure my hon. Friend that the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box stands and that the draft Bill will be produced within this parliamentary Session.
  Tony Wright: I am delighted by what the Minister has said, and I am glad that the Bill that we have produced has kick-started the process.
  The Government have the opportunity to be the first to enshrine key governing principles in legislation. That will have huge symbolic and practical importance, and it will make a major contribution to strengthening the public trust in our political system that we all recognise is so important.
  This issue is a huge challenge for Parliament and, indeed, for all the political parties. Those who have supported the proposed Bill have done so on the basis that it could be an agreed measure, free from the normal party dog-fight, and I hope that that is the spirit in which the Opposition support it today and in which the Government will respond. In fact, it is a condition of the measure's success.
  Mr. Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the terms in which he is speaking in support of his Bill. I put on record the fact that my colleagues and I support his aim of making the process non-partisan, which is why we did not table an amendment, but signed the motion tabled by Conservative spokespeople.
  Tony Wright: I am grateful for that. The signs so far are not unpromising, so I hope that we can proceed on that basis.
  As this is an Opposition motion, let me take the Opposition back to when they were in government. I do so not to make a partisan point but to remind the House how important it is to proceed on an agreed basis if we are serious about introducing the measure.
  1358
  In its fifth report of the 1993–94 Session, the then Treasury and Civil Service Committee produced an important report on the civil service. It recommended, among other things, that there should be a civil service Act, for much the same reasons as are being advanced here. The Government at the time were not persuaded; indeed, they gave evidence to the Committee opposing the proposition. They said that such an Act would be "incredibly difficult to draft". However, in a debate in the House on 23 March 1995, following the publication of the Committee's report, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now Lord Hunt, said:
  "The Government would consider the introduction of a Bill only if we were satisfied that the proposed legislation would sustain the existing constitutional position, retain the flexibility of existing arrangements for regulating the terms and conditions of civil servants, and preserve the current position of civil servants under general employment law."
  He went on:
  "I would also want to be satisfied that such legislation would be supported in all parts of the House." [Official Report, 23 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 550.]
  When, just a few weeks later, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, he said, on the same issue:
  "I would not want to start the process without a clear indication from all sectors of the House that in fact we would not see the Civil Service become a party political football in terms of the amendments being proposed and put forward."
  That was sensible then, and it is sensible now.
  That is how we secured the civil service code; it is how we can now secure a civil service Bill. We now have a draft Bill that was not incredibly difficult to produce, although it took some care, and commands wide support. I invite the Government and the Opposition to work together to complete this piece of unfinished constitutional business.
  2.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie(Con): I largely, but of course not entirely, agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). We worked hard together for a while on the Public Administration Committee. If he looks back he will admit that he was not, initially, firmly in favour of a civil service Act; at least he was not as firmly committed to it as I was in those early days.
  Tony Wright: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's tendency always to claim credit for any measure that anyone proposes. Can he give any evidence for his assertion?
  Mr. Tyrie: As I recall, I used to ask in Committee whether we could have an inquiry into special advisers and suggest that a civil service Act was the only way to deal with the issue, and I was invariably given the brush-off. However, I do not want to create an atmosphere of tension between us because we largely agree on this matter.
  I want, none the less, to take issue with a point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end of his speech. This is important because I do not think that he has fully grasped why a civil service Act almost certainly was not required before 1997 and almost certainly is required

  1359
  now. That is because there has been a fundamental shift in the way that the country is being governed, and the relationship between Ministers and civil servants is different from the one that I understood to exist when I was a special adviser in the 1980s.
  That shift can be illustrated in many ways. There has been reference to the doubling of the number of special advisers since 1997. The number has more than quadrupled since my time as an adviser, having risen from 15 or 16 to nearer 80. There has also been a sharp expansion in the role of special advisers. They used to engage largely, but not entirely, in policy work, and now many of them are engaged in spin. They also perform many roles that one would have hoped were performed primarily by Ministers. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, many of them are much more powerful than Ministers. They not only write speeches, but deliver them on their own account; they put articles in the newspapers; and they travel abroad and represent Britain in many meetings where, formerly, Ministers would have been doing that job.
  Most important of all is the fact that there has been a takeover of No. 10, right at the heart of Government, by special advisers, and that is backed by Orders in Council. There has been a lot of dispute today about how big that shift has been. but to realise that, we have only to cast our minds back to a few years ago, when the Prime Minister felt able to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that Alastair Campbell did a very good job of attacking the Conservative party. It would have been inconceivable for a Conservative Prime Minister to make such a remark about any of his advisers.
  Then there is Jonathan Powell. We had a little explanation of the subtleties of pronouncing his name. He is the gatekeeper to the Prime Minister, and we are told in the newspapers that, before 1997, he was running the blind trusts for the Labour party. There is some conflict between those two roles: deciding who has access to the Prime Minister and, at the same time, working out how the party can be funded.
  The whole No. 10 package amounts to a presidential style of government, something that is quite alien, not in wartime but in peacetime, to the way in which Britain is governed. The introduction of that presidential style of government has had many effects, one of which has been to strain the trust between civil servants and Ministers, which is essential for the Government to function effectively.
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase will not like this, but I shall refer briefly to the evidence that I gave to the Neill Committee four or five years ago advocating a civil service Act and arguing for a stronger code of conduct for advisers. Many of my recommendations were subsequently implemented, but the Act remains outstanding. When I made those proposals, the Government's response, in the House and in briefings, was, "This is all just good party political knockabout. Nothing much has changed in the way that the country is run. Everything is pretty much as it used to be." The Minister implied much the same today, but that position is very difficult to sustain after the Jo Moore episode,
  1360
  after what we have already heard as a result of the public hearings of the Hutton inquiry, and after the inquiry that Nigel Wicks conducted.
  If Members care to look at the Phillis report, they will see a most interesting passage. I do not know whether I need to read it; it depends on whether I am challenged. However, his comments on page 7 amount to saying that there has been a serious breach of trust at the heart of government and that the cause is the communications strategy introduced by the Labour Administration on coming to power in 1997. That is a fundamental and important charge for the Phillis inquiry to have made. It reinforces the point that something is fundamentally different in the way that we are now governed.
  The Minister's defence of what I fear will result in Government inaction was pretty thin. He fell back on the refuge that it is important to build consensus, but there is pretty much a consensus on the issue already. We do not need to go around more and more circuits seeking consensus. That very much reminds me of the line on the House of Lords that the Government have been peddling for the past few years.
  A much better argument from the Minister—I have heard it, off the record, from a number of his colleagues—might have been, "Well, the truth is we did have quite a serious problem in 1997. We didn't realise it and perhaps we were a bit too enthusiastic, but it has all settled down now. After all, Charlie Whelan went pretty quickly, Alastair Campbell has now gone and we have toned down the spinning. We've got a code for advisers and a new mod us vivendi with the civil service." There is some truth in that. In a typically British way, there has been some absorption of the fundamental shifts in the way in which we are governed and in how civil servants are expected to relate to Ministers. However, that does not make the case for not having a civil service Act. Things have gone too far; we need to rebuild trust.
  One often hears the argument that it is important not to underestimate the long-term impact of a civil service Act on our political culture. The best way to illustrate that is to consider recent scandals and to ask oneself what would have been different if we had had a civil service Act. I shall cite a few examples.
  Let us take the Jo Moore episode. She bullied and browbeat civil servants over a long period. The episode was not some isolated rush of blood to her head but a sustained attack. What would have been the effect of a civil service Act? It is highly likely that some civil servants would have complained to the civil service commissioners. As a result, there would have been an investigation—although the matter would probably not
  have got that far.
  The real effect of a civil service Act might have been that we still had Richard Mottram—an absolutely first-class civil servant whose career was smashed to pieces as he was caught between a rock and a hard place over the Jo Moore episode. Perhaps Richard Mottram could have gone to the Cabinet Secretary anyway. He did not, and the reason why he did not was explained in another context by Kevin Tebbit: for a permanent secretary to do so is the nuclear option; it is just too big a step. I see the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian

  1361
  White) nodding in agreement. The introduction of some fallback position that civil service commissioners might provide would add to the protection that civil servants could enjoy. The conclusion I draw is that events would have been quite different if we had had a civil service Act.
  Let us take the Hutton inquiry—we do not yet have the report—and consider it on the basis of evidence already in the public domain. Virtually all the evidence given to Hutton is in the public domain; virtually nothing was in camera, so we can form our own judgments on that basis. If we had had a civil service Act, how would the civil service have reacted to demands from Alastair Campbell for the production of material for his dossiers? In particular, what would the civil service have said about the role that it played in putting together the second February dossier? As the House will recall, that was the one that led civil servants to complain that it was being asked to become a propaganda arm of Government. As we know from evidence given to Hutton, the second dossier was not cleared by the intelligence community, and it was not checked by anybody in a position to do that job. Alastair Campbell has since apologised to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the way in which it was produced.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to the excellent argument deployed by my hon. Friend. I support everything that he has said, as I did the overwhelming majority of the comments made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will restore the integrity of the civil service only if we restore the integrity of the House of Commons, which should have more authority and more time to decide what it wants to do rather than what the Government want to do?
  Mr. Tyrie: I absolutely agree. I have in front of me some interesting notes that were produced for the Liaison Committee which relate to that issue. If I have time, I might get on to that, but I do not want to detain the House now.
  Would the history of Hutton have been exactly the same had there been a civil service Act? My best guess is that those who were forced to assist Alastair Campbell in the production of the second dossier would have complained. They would have said, "Thank you very much, we don't want to get engaged in this", and there would never have been that second dossier—certainly not in the form that it was produced. A by-product of that might have been that Alastair Campbell, who we are told complains bitterly that the children go off to school and he has nothing to do but wait for a phone to ring, would still be in post. I shall let pass whether we would have been better or worse off as a result.
  What about the Kelly affair? Would that have been exactly the same had we had a civil service Act? The key question here is what Kevin Tebbit, the permanent secretary, would have done. Would he have accepted that the outing in the press of one of his staff could have been organised by a committee in No. 10, chaired by the Prime Minister? I do not think that he would have done so. He would have worried that civil service commissioners might have investigated the lack of care
  1362
  for a member of staff. Kevin Tebbit has a duty of care to ensure that staff are treated properly. Clearly, he was not looking after them; he was delegating the responsibility to do so. I strongly suspect that he would have complained. What is more, I am absolutely sure that the Prime Minister and Alastair Campbell would have trodden much more cautiously in the Kelly affair had there been a civil service Act.
  I conclude from those episodes that history would have been quite different, and that a civil service Act would have already performed a sensible function. It would have had a non-negligible effect. That is why I said that it would in the long run have a profound effect on our culture.
  I return to a point related to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton): what about the relationship between the civil service and Parliament? Over the past few years, there have been a good number of cases of Select Committees trying to call civil servants before them but finding that their way to such cross-examination was blocked. Some of Lord Hutton's work could have been performed more appropriately by a Select Committee. Of course, Lord Hutton had the power to call anybody, whereas Select Committees have found themselves constantly obstructed. Indeed, there had to be lengthy negotiations in order to obtain even a limited hearing with David Kelly.
  Mr. Tyler: I am closely following the hon. Gentleman's argument and support him in it, but does he agree that it was not only the calling of witnesses, in which the Select Committee did have a reasonable success rate, but getting information in the form of e-mails and other written material out of Whitehall that was the real success of the Hutton exercise?
  Mr. Tyrie: Rather than detain the House, I shall simply commend to the hon. Gentleman the Liaison Committee document, "Scrutiny of Government: Select Committees after Hutton. Note by the Clerks." It is well worth taking a look at. I hope that I have not inadvertently obtained something that is not yet in the public domain—I cannot remember quite how it came my way. The document is replete with interesting points, including one that has a direct bearing on the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is fair to say that if we had a civil service Act, Members of Parliament would feel that the civil service was ultimately accountable to them, and I think that in the long run the relationship between this place and the civil service would change fundamentally. Ultimately, therefore, the question is far deeper than merely whether the rather quaintly titled Osmotherly rules would be swept aside; it ranges into what we as a Parliament should do. I have never believed that Parliament should be able ultimately to block what the Government want. But I have always believed that Parliament's job is to force the Government to explain their actions. I have always believed that the Select Committee process is crucial. Our Parliament is, in that respect, much weaker than most other democratic assemblies in the world.
  We have had a first-rate civil service, loyal and dedicated, for a long time. We still have one. We have a long tradition of political independence, which we

  1363
  should not lightly imperil. If a Government want to introduce another form of relationship with the civil service, they should be permitted to do so. If they want a presidential-style of government, a cabinet system, or whatever, they should be allowed to have it. The Government have been elected and they should be allowed to get on with the job, and if we do not like what they do, we can kick them out at the end of their term. However, here we have a Government who have changed the style of government and that relationship, but who are in denial about the change. While they are in denial, it is essential that we press the case for a civil service Act to protect that independence. We must oppose the backdoor efforts of the past seven years to create a presidential style of government. That is why the whole House should now support the introduction of a civil service act.
  2.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Bearing in mind my earlier intervention, I rise with a degree of reticence to speak about part 2 of the draft Bill. However, as no one else has done so, it is important to say something about it. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that it was the least important part of the draft Bill, but later stated that the civil service should be founded on selection on merit. If part 2 is of no importance, first, why have its provisions been incorporated into the Bill that was presented to Parliament a couple of weeks ago? Secondly, why and how should we achieve selection on merit when there are so many anomalies in the nationality rules, which prevent so many from joining the civil service?
  The Bill advocated by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is based on the Select Committee's draft Bill, part 2 of which is based on the ten-minute Bill that I introduced last year and reintroduced yesterday, with the leave of the House. As I mentioned earlier, 21 Conservative Members voted against my Bill yesterday at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). They included, rather bizarrely, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who voted for the Select Committee report, voted against the provisions of part 2 yesterday, and presumably will vote in favour of the Opposition motion today. It remains to be seen how he will vote when the issue next arises, on 30 January. Perhaps he will switch sides yet again, rivalling Winston Churchill's record for the number of times he changed sides on one issue. Perhaps the real question is whether the 21 Members in question will have the courage of their convictions and vote against the Tory Whip this afternoon, or whether, if they vote with their Whip this afternoon, they will change sides and support my Bill on 30 January.
  In his reply to my intervention, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that if I was of that mind, I should vote with the Opposition today. The obvious answer to that is that I do not need to. Because an actual Bill, not a draft—my ten-minute Bill—is
  1364
  already before the House, I can happily vote against the Tories' motion today, and vote for the proposal that will come before the House on Friday 30 January.
  Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to pledge that on Friday 30 January he will not make a great long speech on one of the two Bills that are ahead of the Civil Service Bill in the business for that day? He has a bit of form in that respect.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps I can make a pact with the hon. Gentleman. If he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to adopt a Trappist vow in relation to my Bill, I shall consider his request in relation to the other Bills listed in that Friday's business. I am not minded to talk out those two Bills, but I make no promise in respect of future Bills. In fact, bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman did yesterday, perhaps I should start speaking against ten-minute Bills of no merit proposed by Opposition Members, so that we do not have to waste time on Fridays debating them. Rather than trying to talk them out on a Friday, I could simply go for the kill right at the beginning of the process when a ten-minute Bill is proposed on the Floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has adopted that tactic, perhaps I should do the same.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: It would be more humane.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps it would, and perhaps it would also allow time on Fridays for consideration of more meritorious Bills.
  Let me take this opportunity to answer some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in yesterday's debate. He betrayed his antipathy towards any form of multiculturalism, even though my Bill is not about multiculturalism, or immigration, or anything else of that nature. It is simply about correcting anomalies, which I outlined yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place today, which is a pity—no doubt as an assiduous reader of Hansard he will read my remarks tomorrow—but yesterday he said that he welcomed people coming from overseas if they have skills and a contribution to make. Despite saying that, he seemed prepared to deny the public services the right to employ such people, in effect denying the British public the services of people who have skills and a contribution to make. It seems to me that if people who have something to offer come here from overseas, we should not put any barriers in the way of their making a contribution to our society in every way they can, which may well involve working in the civil service.
  I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of skilled migrant workers who are here for a short period, or for several years, and who would like both to gain experience of the UK's systems—despite all the criticism that we have heard today, our civil service is among the best in the world—and to use the lessons thus learned to help to improve their own country's civil service on their return home. I mentioned yesterday the communities in my constituency of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan who have been granted refugee status, many of whom are highly skilled

  1365
  professionals. They have not taken British nationality because they want to be able to return to their own country when it is safe for them to do so: they are proud of their heritage and see their ultimate role as one of helping to rebuild their country. What could be less helpful to them than to deny them the right to work in our civil service, because by doing so, they could gain experience and knowledge of how civil servants should operate, so that when they return to their own country, they could help the reconstruction efforts?
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me on a serious point. Is it not important for him to mention that his proposals would still allow us to specify certain positions that are not open to foreign nationals, if that could be justified?
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Under existing arrangements, there are limited procedures to enable foreign nationals to be recruited to the civil service. If I recall correctly, just over 40 certificates have been issued. However, that does not answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The civil service has to show either that no British national has the relevant skills or that the foreign national has exceptional skills to justify the issue of such a certificate. In fact, three quarters of those certificates are issued by the Ministry of Defence, not the civil service.
  That brings me to the question of recruitment to the civil service. Under existing rules, 9 per cent. of Londoners—350,000 people—are excluded entirely from the civil service. In the United Kingdom as whole, 850,000 people are excluded. Nevertheless, the state still has to provide services to those people. The civil service should reflect the society that it serves. The very fact that it cannot recruit those people results in greater costs to the civil service. What about language skills? In my constituency, nearly 200 different languages are spoken. If civil servants were recruited from those backgrounds they would be able to communicate with people in my constituency in their own language, thus making savings on expensive language services. Such people are also aware of those communities' cultural ties and needs, and can respond more effectively when dealing with individuals from such backgrounds.
  If the boot is on the other foot and people have worked as civil servants in their own country, they may be able to use their experience to make a contribution to the development of our own civil service. That is important in relation to state security. For example, we may want to recruit people from overseas to Customs and Excise but we cannot do so. How can we tackle drug or people smuggling effectively if we cannot recruit people from the nations where those offences originate to infiltrate gangs, expose them and help to arrest the individuals responsible for serious crimes? We cannot combat drug or people smuggling effectively because we cannot recruit the people whom we need to Customs and Excise so that they can tackle those activities.
  Similarly, if we genuinely want to promote trade, why cannot we recruit people to the Department of Trade and Industry from an overseas background? Again, they have a great deal to offer the civil service and could help to develop our sales pitch to overseas nations. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had a fetish
  1366
  about the question of nationality, and talked about the transition from work permit status to indefinite leave to remain.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat too much of yesterday's debate, and will look at the motion under discussion.
  Mr. Dismore: I certainly accept the point that you are making, Madam Deputy Speaker, but part 2 of the Bill proposed by the Opposition deals entirely with those issues. I am trying to respond to some of the points that were made yesterday but which I did not deal with in the speech that I made then.
  If someone is given British nationality, that is no guarantee of their commitment to this country and our security. That commitment can best be shown by a willingness to work in our public services. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was concerned about the natural suspicion of foreign nationals that, he felt, was rampant throughout the country.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a Member who participated in the debate yesterday, but has not participated in the debate today.
  Mr. Dismore: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could put it this way. It has been suggested that there is a suspicion of foreign nationals throughout the country. I challenge that, but even if it were the case, it is a reflection of the un-national, irrational xenophobia often displayed by Opposition Members. Some of the people about whom we are concerned, such as Mr. Abu Hamza, are British nationals and could join the civil service. By the same token, the widow of a British victim of 11 September could not, because she is an American national.
  There is discrimination against Commonwealth and Irish citizens under existing arrangements, as they are excluded from applying for 25 per cent. of civil service posts. In fact, only 10 per cent. of posts need to be restricted on grounds of nationality for security reasons, but the definition of public service effectively excludes such people from 25 per cent. of those posts. There are severe illogicalities and anomalies in the system. For example, the wife of a British citizen who is a Chinese, Russian or Japanese national is forbidden from joining the civil service, but the Chinese, Russian or Japanese wife of a French citizen living in the United Kingdom is permitted to join the civil service. Surely, it is not right that the spouse of a foreigner can join the civil service but the spouse of a Briton cannot. As an illustration, I recently received an e-mail from Mr. Martin—
  Mr. Pound: Not Tony.
  Mr. Dismore: No, not Tony Martin.
  Mr. Martin says:
  "My interest involves my wife Nurcan Martin. She is Turkish, with a 2.1 honours degree in the administrative activities of government, but being married to a UK national may not work for the civil service. As I understand it, if her husband were from any of the other EEC countries she would be eligible for employment in the UK civil service. I consider this totally unacceptable."

  1367
  Mr. Martin goes on to say:
  "I dread to think of the number of talented, experienced, educated and highly qualified members of the UK population whose skills have been denied to the offices of government."
  He later told me on the telephone that his wife had applied for a job with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—we should encourage people from overseas to apply for such jobs because they can communicate effectively with individuals in other countries operating ships and aircraft—but was excluded from it on nationality grounds. That is cutting off our nose to spite our face.
  I have tried to show that existing rules cause great distress, not just to people from overseas who would like to work for our civil service but to UK citizens who are their spouses. More importantly, they undermine the ethos of our civil service, which should, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said, be open to appointment on merit with the exception of the 10 per cent. of jobs that have to be reserved to UK nationals for operational reasons. At the same time, those rules do not reflect the society that we serve. Part 2 of the Opposition's Bill is important, so I hope that they will support my ten-minute Bill when it receives its Second Reading. [Interruption.]
  2.57 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the conversation that I was just having with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I also apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for not being present for all of his speech. He had the courtesy to write to me to say that he was going to mention me in his speech. Unfortunately, however, I had to attend a sitting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, as a report is being signed off at the moment.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who steered his Committee through an interesting, frustrating and at times downright difficult process. Having taken evidence from witnesses and undertaken many other tasks, we succeeded in publishing a draft Bill. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) was the single dissenting voice, but his minority report made interesting reading in its own right, because he raised many of the things that the Government will have to face when they introduce their Bill in this Session.
  When I first came to the House, I did not have a view on whether or not there should be a civil service Bill. The Minister may not like this, but I changed my mind after a Select Committee visit to Bristol. We took evidence from hospital staff, teachers and many others in preparation for a report on the ethos of the civil service. We discovered an endemic culture of bullying and targets, and found that an all-pervading top-down ethos was being pumped into the people who were least able to defend themselves. I changed my mind about the need for legislation after meeting people at a certain level who found it almost impossible to get their voice heard. They did not believe that they could go to the top—they did not think that they would be listened to by the Minister or other Government members and they did not believe
  1368
  that the civil service was in a position to do something about their problems. That may not be what they were trying to convey, but I got the intense impression that it is what they were thinking.
  As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, it is vital that the process by which the Bill is brought before the House and becomes law is bipartisan. When I first heard about the debate, I was fairly vociferous in expressing my views to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who said that it would take place in the spirit of teasing out of the Government when the draft Bill was to be produced. The Government have now committed themselves to that, for which I must thank them.
  What is the definition of a civil servant? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, a civil servant should be a person who is paid for by the Crown—in other words, by the Government. I agree. Our report states:
  "The definition of a civil servant, to whom the Act applies, is of fundamental importance in determining the scope and relevance of a Civil Service Act."
  It seems incredible to me that in this day and age we cannot arrive at a definition—it is not beyond the wit of man to do that. One can say that it should cover level 1, 2, 3 or 4 civil servants, or the whole lot. I believe that all civil servants need the right to protection from the Government or anyone else, and that only this place can give it. To me, the fundamental definition of a civil servant is someone who is paid out of the public purse.
  I want, if I may, to go slightly further. When we took witness statements, it became obvious that almost everybody saw the need for legislation of some kind. That is endemic in the Jo Moore-Sixsmith affair that started all this. When I came to this place, I had no experience of special advisers—I had not been one, I had never met one, and I did not know what they did. All I knew was that Tony Benn had two of them, because he said so in his diaries some years ago. According to those diaries, they did exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said—that is, they advised the Minister, and nothing more. They did not, for example, give executive orders. An enormous shift has taken place since then.
  The Committee referred to the Library document, "Whither the Civil Service?", as part of our 2002 investigation into the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions affair. It states:
  "The employment of politically-appointed special advisers has always contained the potential to cause problems. Where special advisers can appeal above the heads of the permanent secretary of the Secretary of State, they are enjoying privileges that are not available to other civil servants. Rightly or wrongly",
  this
  "can be a damaging perception".
  I entirely agree with that. We discussed the Sixsmith-Jo Moore affair at enormous length, but we could not call them when they were employed by the Government. We could have done so afterwards, but things had moved on.
  The role of special advisers has to be reviewed. As they are political, they must come under the control of this place. A special adviser is there to advise, not to administer—if that is required, another Minister should

  1369
  be appointed. The DTLR report—I would commend it to the Minister—examines where the Government and the civil service went wrong. Perhaps it would have made a difference if the permanent secretary had stood up and been a bit more vociferous, or if the Secretary of State had been a little more in tune with what was going on, or if we had pushed the matter a bit further in place. But without legislation, we could not find out what was going on until it was too late. I do not wish harm to any special adviser, but to say that one is going to bury bad news on the day of a catastrophe is not the way to do business in anybody's eyes, as I am sure the Minister would agree.
  I remember Ministers—not this Minister—saying to the Committee, "This was in our manifesto in 1997 and has been in it before—I'm sorry it has taken so long." I would have thought the Government's own civil service would say that legislation is vital. Certainly, when the noble Lords Wilson, Butler and Armstrong came before the Committee there was no doubt that they thought that there had to be some form of protection. They were incredibly capable men—the most impressive witnesses we have had, with the possible exception of Sir Andrew Turnbull—as heads of the civil service. I did not agree with everything that they said, but I fundamentally accepted that they knew better than we did, given their longevity of service. It was interesting to talk to Lord Wilson in a private capacity when I happened to bump into him. He was very keen to get the Bill launched, either in the Lords or here. He felt that unless something happened soon, the frustration of many people, including civil servants, would boil over. That is why today's announcement by the Government is so vital.
  The witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee were of incredibly high quality. When the Government consult on the Bill, I urge them to talk, in an open and frank manner, to those people, because we—another colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), has just come in—gained a phenomenal depth of understanding in a very short time. I do not believe that hon. Members will seriously contest the Bill, although it will be tinkered with through amendments and suggestions, but that does not mean that we should not consult on it beforehand. I suspect that the Minister may find that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and his Committee may look at the matter again—we may even move our own amendments.
  I wonder how such a Bill will be affected by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which comes into force in 2005. Will it mean that Select Committees are able to call for people whom we cannot call at the moment?
  Having started from a point where I did not see the need for a Bill, I am now firmly wedded to it. We need it as a matter of urgent priority. Having listened to hon. Members, it is clear to me that it has the backing of the House. If the Minister wants to try to avoid some of the more ridiculous things that have happened in the past, and will happen in future—an article by Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times gave a clear account of that—one way of doing that is through openness and an Act that will give civil servants the protection that they require from this place, so that they at least know to whom they can turn when all else fails.
  3.8 pm
  Brian White: One of my reasons for producing a minority report has been confirmed by the tenor of the debate. I did not believe that it was possible to achieve consensus on such an important subject in the current climate, and the debate has confirmed my worst fears. Four years ago, I suspect that we could have reached agreement—perhaps even mine—but I am not sure that we can do so in a post-Hutton climate. I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would not take an intervention from me. I would have asked him to define "civil servant", which is the question that I asked my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) has just admitted that the Committee could not agree a consistent and acceptable definition of "civil servant" for the Bill and that we fell back on what everybody accepts was a fudge by referring the matter to the Royal Commission.
  A civil service Bill is often proposed to protect the impartiality of the civil service. We have heard comments about special advisers and references have been made to the Phillis report, which followed the Public Administration Committee's report on the Jo Moore-Martin Sixsmith affair. It would be a mistake to use the Phillis report to justify the civil service Bill. Statute will be important at some point, but we must achieve consensus first. The present draft Bill does not take into account some of the problems with the detail.
  The other issue, which has been articulated by some Conservative Members, is the increased politicisation of the civil service. In taking evidence for the draft Bill and for other reports, the Public Administration Committee and the Wicks committee both concluded that special advisers are good and that they prevent the politicisation of the civil service.
  I was amused that the key point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was abolition of the Order in Council, because the Bill retains the Order in Council for two or three people.
  Mr. Heald: We would have liked to go much further on some of the issues, but we accept that the Committee produced its draft Bill as a basis on which to form a consensus on what we can do now. We are supporting the Bill in the hope that we can garner support from both sides of the House in order to put legislation that does good things on the statute book.
  Brian White: And I thought the Opposition were supporting the Bill to try to embarrass the Government—how silly of me.
  When we took evidence, the civil service unions discussed applying the Bill not only to a few senior civil servants, but to the whole civil service. One of the draft Bill's failings is that it concentrates on top civil servants. The civil service has changed over the past 20 years, with privatisation and outsourcing. Two people can do exactly the same job—for example, one of them works in the Inland Revenue and the other works for EDS—but one of them is a civil servant and the other is not.
  Last Thursday, a case was referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The person referred to was a board member of a non-departmental public body. In

  1371
  the short debate, she was referred to as a civil servant. People who work for the board are civil servants, but what about non-executive board members? Until one month ago, 500 people who worked happily in the Department of Trade and Industry were called civil servants. Today, they do exactly the same jobs but are no longer civil servants because they work for Ofcom. One minute people are civil servants and the next minute they are not, and it may be that the reverse can happen.
  In the Bill, the responsibilities and interests of an immigration official are regarded as somehow exactly the same as those of a permanent secretary. Again, those issues have not been thought through. The draft Bill assumes that all civil servants have somehow got common interests. To widen the point, plenty of other public service employees, whether they work in the NHS or in other non-departmental or next step agencies, are not classified as civil servants. If we cannot reach a definition of "civil servant" or of core values, it will be a real problem. If we were to widen the scope to public sector workers—there is a strong case for doing so—my argument would not hold up.
  I shall take the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) at face value and accept that the Conservatives are pushing for legislation.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one thing that has been achieved today is that the Government have now agreed to introduce a Bill in this Session of Parliament. That is a major step forward.
  Brian White: The Government's position has always been that they would introduce their Bill after the Committee had produced its draft Bill. One of the advantages of the Committee's work is that it has brought forward the Government's response.
  The principal claim made—we heard it again today from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—was that a new Act would somehow respect the impartiality of the civil service, but nobody ever defines impartiality. We also talk about independence. I do not know anybody who is independent, but I know people who have a point of view different from mine. What is impartiality? I remember John Hoskyns complaining in the early 1980s that it appeared that civil servants existed to maintain the balance between extreme policies from left and right, and that officials were given the right to define and defend what they saw as the centre ground. He did not think that that was right then, and I do not think it is right now.
  Civil servants are not meant to be impartial: they are meant to be partial and serve the Government of the day, irrespective of which party formed the Government and their own political views. It is nonsense to have a debate about impartiality instead of a mature debate about the role of civil servants.
  Tony Wright: Perhaps it would assist my hon. Friend if I suggested that civil servants are required to be impartial in their partiality.
  Brian White: A civil servant could not have put it better. My hon. Friend earlier referred to the permanent
  1372
  Government and the elected Government, and that is a real issue. Last year I introduced a private Member's Bill on sustainable energy. It made progress through the House, with some difficulty, and the support of the relevant Minister was critical. Halfway through its progress, there was a reshuffle. The advice of the civil servants was not that the negotiations should continue from the point where the previous Minister left and the new one came in, but that they should go right back to the original advice that the civil servants gave to the Minister at the beginning of the process—and that was to oppose the Bill. Luckily the new Minister understood his brief and my Bill became an Act, but a civil service Bill would entrench the differences between the elected Government and the permanent Government. Such issues can and must be resolved before we legislate.
  The Phillis review made recommendations on ministerial input into the appointment of civil servants. The accusation is that Ministers threaten the impartiality of the civil service by the way in which they appoint their staff. The Phillis review recommended the retention of the status quo. That means that for an external appointment a panel recommends a single candidate to the Minister, who has a veto but no choice, and for an internal appointment Ministers are given a choice between two or three candidates. Is it really suggested that when faced with a choice of candidates, a Minister would suddenly lose all sense, disregard considerations of efficiency and appoint someone who was unfit for the position? Someone earlier mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, and his example destroys that whole argument. It is important to achieve a balance on this issue, and some of the claims that are made do not hold water when one looks at the facts.
  The civil service has changed over the years. We now have devolved Assemblies and much more interaction internationally, because of globalisation. In addition to those complexities, jobs are moved in and out of the civil service, as I have already mentioned, and the advice given to many civil servants is to gain more experience in the private sector. The draft Bill fundamentally tackles none of those issues. Any measure that the Government present on the subject needs to deal with them.
  Let me deal with the commissioners. The Bill that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the Public Administration Committee support aims to put civil service commissioners' powers on a statutory footing. I am worried about the way in which the powers are defined. In her evidence to the Public Administration Committee, Baroness Pashar, the First Civil Service Commissioner, declared that the
  "Act should set out the core values of the Civil Service and the role of the Civil Service Commision to act as custodian of those core values".
  I have no problem with that, but she also argued that legislation
  "should not necessarily prescribe how the Commission should undertake its functions."
  The commissioners were worried that the core values of the service were vulnerable to change
  "at the whim of any Government without prior Parliamentary debate and scrutiny".
  However, the First Civil Service Commissioner believed that there should be no parliamentary debate until she took action. Her view was that parliamentary debate

  1373
  and inquiry should take place after the review of the civil service commissioners' annual report. Baroness Pashar said that
  "how we do it is something that is left to the Commissioners, and we can then be questioned about it which gives the flexibility."
  We cannot have it both ways. Do we genuinely want to shift scrutiny from Parliament to a non-elected commission, without prior parliamentary consideration?
  My fundamental objection was to the commissioners' statement that they would happily intervene to sort out a minor personality clash in a ministerial office when in no circumstances would they get involved when the clerical staff in the Department for Work and Pensions were routinely sacked after 51 weeks to get round employment law. The commissioners referred only to people at the top end and did not care about the majority of civil servants and public sector workers. That is a fundamental flaw in the way in which the commission acts. If we intend to sort out the whole civil service, I hope that Government will consider the commissioners' powers.
  Let me consider the codes of conduct. Existing codes and their merits have not been properly analysed for effectiveness or recognition by civil servants. The civil service commissioners' annual report and the ninth report of the Wicks committee acknowledge that awareness of the civil service code is low and that much needs to be done to promote it as a "living document". If the problem is recognition, it will remain whether the code stays as it is or becomes a statutory beast.
  Much has been said about special advisers so I shall not speak about them in detail. Every committee that has examined the matter recommended that special advisers should remain and emphasised the need for their existence to advise Ministers. However, there is a danger in having a statutory code for special advisers because it will give them rights in employment law. They currently do not have them because they are mere appendages to their Ministers. If people believe that there is a problem with special advisers, giving them more rights is not the best way in which to progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) covered part 2 of the Bill in his excellent speech. Other hon. Members have drawn attention to the Phillis review on recruitment and training. Phillis made several findings, especially that it is
  "vital that the permanent secretary encourages movement between the public and private sectors to facilitate wider skill development."
  Too often, the fear of politicisation, not genuine politicisation, causes the problem. I therefore hope that the Government will take on board the sensible Phillis recommendations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, who chairs the Public Administration Committee, referred to the Committee's visit to Canada where substantial reforms are taking place. They are far more relevant than the narrow, limited Bill that we are considering. They are geared to giving more powers to the Canadian House of Commons and ensuring that Parliament has effective control over the civil service and Ministers. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will probably not wish to know that Canada has a new
  1374
  system for classifying a three-line Whip. It is used merely for votes of confidence and a limited number of matters that are fundamentally important to the Government.
  The way in which civil servants relate to Parliament in Canada is being reformed. Canada is a Westminster-style Parliament, from which we can learn several lessons. The key lessons are transparency and operating much more openly in a way that delivers the public services that people want.
  If we are serious about improving the civil service, we should follow the route that I outlined. To do that, we need a mature debate. That brings me back to my reasons for believing that there is a problem. I do not believe that the current media climate allows for a serious and mature debate about the subject. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that I am right. The Bill does not take account of the current political climate. Any new measure that is introduced will either be so anodyne that it is worthless or used simply for political bunfighting.
  3.26 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I have little time, so I shall be brief. I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debate—I was detained elsewhere. However, I heard much of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I was here in time for the splendid speech, with which I concurred entirely, of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee.
  I strongly support the Committee's conclusions and its recommendations for a civil service Bill. I am a fairly new member and when I first joined, I did not realise that it was a serious issue. As the debates went on and we interviewed more and more people, it become obvious that it was important for our constitution. I have been a student of constitutional matters and politics all my life—indeed, I have also been a teacher of that subject—and I believe that a civil service Bill is fundamental to the future of our democracy.
  The rot set in when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister and wanted people to be "one of us". She—wittingly or unwittingly—politicised our constitution. When she was opposed to matters, she made fundamental reforms, weakening the trade unions, local government and so on because she wanted her way. We have a strong, centralised and secretive system of government and it is important to have strong countervailing forces. I mean that in the sense not of being oppositionist but of being a sounding board and providing a different view from time to time. The independent, professional civil service is important to our constitution in that respect.
  We interviewed many people, including Sir Andrew Turnbull and Sir Nigel Wicks. I agreed entirely with Sir Nigel Wicks but was uncomfortable with some of Sir Andrew Turnbull's comments. The latter appeared to be the Government's representative in the civil service rather than the civil servants' representative to the Government. It is important to retain the independence of the civil service.
  When I speak to my political colleagues, even at Back-Bench level, I like people to tell me the truth and say what is right and what is wrong. I do not want people

  1375
  who just do what I say because they are employed by me. I have 2.2 staff, who are my personal political advisers, and they tell me what they believe. I ask them to check everything I write or say to find out whether I am talking nonsense. It is important that the civil service has a similar role.
  I asked Sir Nigel whether it was right for civil servants sometimes to tell a Minister, "I am sorry, but you have that wrong." If the top layer of the civil service becomes politicised to the extent that the job of those civil servants no longer serves as a force to question Ministers, but to carry out those Ministers' will and, indeed, that of Downing street, and if those Ministers are insulated from any countervailing views, then government becomes very unhealthy. In the end, Governments can make mistakes and there is a danger of ending up with not only undemocratic, but bad government.
  The pluralist nature of British society is of fundamental importance. I spent much of my life working in the trade union movement, and I saw it greatly weakened during my time. That was a retrograde step, because trade unions not only fulfil a democratic role in representing millions of ordinary workers and offering a legitimate collective view, but are necessary for our constitution and help to ensure that questioning and countervailing argument is brought forward from time to time. The same is true of local government, which I believe to be an essential part of our constitution. If we weaken it and make it the lickspittle and lackey of central Government, it will not be healthy for our democracy.
  Independent and strong political parties that finance themselves are also important. I am unhappy with the idea of the state financing them because he who pays the piper calls the tune. I want my party to be told what to do not just by the Government, but by the membership, collectively and individually. That should apply to other parties, too. When we have elections, we hear alternative views from which people can choose. If parties are state financed, one could see them gradually coalescing into the centre, and we could lose the political choice that is so vital for our democracy.
  As I said, our country has a strong central Government and a relatively weak—too weak, I believe—Parliament. I am a member of several Scandinavian all-party groups and the Scandinavians often tell us that our constitution is different from theirs: they have a strong Parliament and a weak Government; we have a strong Government and weak Parliament. I believe that our Parliament should be stronger in relation to the Executive, irrespective of what party controls the Government. It would be healthier to have a stronger Parliament than we currently have and I hope that the civil service Bill will act as another essential component of our pluralistic democracy. Civil servants should have the independence and opportunity to tell Ministers that certain policies are right or wrong.
  I end with a few brief comments on political advisers. Some 25 years ago I was friendly with the private office of Tony Benn. I knew the political advisers well; one of them was his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my lifelong and good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).
  1376
  Francis Cripps and Frances Morrell were two other advisers. The system worked well because they acted as personal advisers to Tony Benn when he was Secretary of State for Energy. They did not act as an insulating layer between the civil servant and the Secretary of State: they spoke in his left ear and the civil servants spoke in his right one. They had different views, which was healthy. In the end the civil servants would say that they disagreed with the political advisers, but Tony Benn did not have political advisers speaking in both ears. I am sure that Tony Benn, a politician with whom I find much agreement, would say that it is healthy to have a strong independent civil service, even if it is made up of the awkward squad of Sir Humphreys. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
  I look forward to the Government introducing strong legislation, which will establish the civil service as a strong independent professional force. It should continue in the traditions of Northcote-Trevelyan, and make our democracy and our Government much healthier for the long-term future.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate. A range of views has been expressed, but the overwhelming sense of the debate has been support for the work of the Public Administration Committee and the Bill that it has produced.
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Select Committee, started by asking for a discussion of the issues on as much of a non-party political basis as possible. Both sides of the House would agree that that is what we have had. The Opposition motion offers none of the abuse and criticism of the Government that such motions often contain. It merely calls on the Government to introduce "a Civil Service Bill". I even remained hopeful after reading the Government amendment, which said that they would introduce a draft Bill and which, in turn, contains very little abuse.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] he will be back—opened the debate in his inimitable style. What a treat it was to see him back on the Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not for long."] He was described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) as a giant. I entirely agree, but it was a bit discourteous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the rest of us were pygmies. The more substantial Front-Bench Members would not go along with that.
  The speech by the Minister for the Cabinet Office was good in parts, and he finally admitted that the draft Bill would be published in this Session rather than in this Parliament, but there was something of the feel of the firm slap of consultation about it. I remembered that he was the Minister who introduced the notion of the big conversation: my hope was that the conversation would not be very long.
  The Minister said that the Government have been in possession of the draft Bill for only 16 days, but that was slightly disingenuous. The Government have promised to maintain the civil service's political impartiality, and to introduce reform to ensure it, since the Labour party agreement with the Liberal Democrat party in 1996. The

  1377
  Labour manifestos of 1997 and 2001 contained that pledge, which was also in the document "Ambitions for Britain?", on which all present Labour Members were elected.
  Mr. Alexander indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heald:If the Minister wants to intervene, I should be only happy to allow him to. As long ago as 2 May 2002, the Deputy Prime Minister made clear his support for a civil service Bill. He said:
  "We have made it absolutely clear that the Government's position is that we will produce a civil service Bill, which will become a civil service Act. We are in agreement with the then conclusions of the Public Administration Committee on these matters … I think that we are the first Government to make it clear that there should be a civil service Act. We will carry out that promise … We will consult before the Bill is introduced. That is our intention; let us make no mistake. The Government are committed to bringing in a new civil service Act—with all in agreement on the matter, we hope."—[Official Report, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 280.]
  Almost everyone here agrees that there should be new civil service legislation, but what have the Government been doing for the past two years? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the Government have had the draft proposals for only 16 days. Surely he and his officials should have been working on their proposals for a draft Bill. We are not talking about a huge number of clauses. The draft Bill produced by the Public Administration Committee is not long. At the very least, the Minister should be able to give us a firm timetable for the introduction of a Bill by the Government, which can be enshrined in law in this Session.
  Tony Wright: For the sake of clarity, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last sentence of the Committee's report asked the Government to produce their draft Bill in this Session of Parliament. The Government have now given that commitment, so I do not understand why, if we are proceeding on the basis of good faith, the hon. Gentleman would want to divide the House on this matter.
  Mr. Heald: We can remember that the Government have given similar pledges for seven years. That is a very long time for a promise to remain unfulfilled, even for this Government. The Opposition want the Government to produce, in this Session, not just a draft Bill, but the final version of a Bill. We want to make progress and to bring in a new law. That is probably one of the few differences between us and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase.
  Why is a new law necessary? The Committee of which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase is Chairman said that it was necessary in order to enshrine the position of civil servants in law. The hon. Gentleman has also said:
  "There are key relationships at the centre of Government between Ministers, civil servants and now special advisers and we think it is important to get those boundary lines properly identified and get the codes that govern them written down in statute and approved by Parliament."
  1378
  That is exactly what the draft Bill would do. The proposals would enshrine in statute the concept of the civil service and its commission, the need for the codes and a civil servant's right to make a complaint to the commission on appeal.
  Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heald: In a moment, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that he can answer when he intervenes. He said that he believed that other matters needed attention and that slight changes were needed here and there in the draft Bill, but does he agree that we could have a Second Reading debate on that draft? We could agree its principle, and sort those other matters out in Standing Committee.
  Brian White:I should be very happy to see a draft Bill go through Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that a civil servant could appeal to a commissioner, but exactly who could do so?
  Mr. Heald: I shall not go into huge detail, but the hon. Gentleman will see that the Bill makes that provision and defines those who could make such an application. Clause 1 defines the civil service, clause 2 defines the civil service commission and clause 6 contains the right to appeal. He can see all that fully set out in the Bill.
  To continue with the theme of why the Bill is needed, it is needed—as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase rightly said-because of the requirement to set the boundaries correctly, and also because of the developing background in recent years during which we have seen the inexorable rise of the cadre of special advisers. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) referred to the big increase in their numbers, pointing out that when he was a special adviser there were 15 but there are now more than 80. We should not ignore the fact that spending on special advisers has increased threefold, or how special advisers are now being used, for example, to brief the press, and leading special advisers or political appointees have been put in control of the Government information service.
  Brian White: The Public Administration Committee looked at special advisers in one of its previous reports, and an interesting finding was the massive increase in Short money going to Opposition parties. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the increase in the number of special advisers to his party has been during the period of this Government?
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Short money, but I have never heard anyone in the Labour party say that they would like it to be reduced, because they realise that they will need it when they are in opposition in 18 months' time.
  Some serious allegations have been made, including in the evidence of the First Division Association to the Public Administration Committee on the Jo Moore affair. The FDA's general secretary, Jonathan Baume, described her behaviour as a
  "classic textbook case of bullying",
  and went on to say:

  1379
  "She had no grasp of political impartiality in the Civil Service, or if she had she ignored it."
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) was right to say that a civil servant has to be partial in that he has to support the Government in its endeavours. However, it is very helpful, and a great strength of our civil service—the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) made this point—that it is independent and will tell Ministers what is wrong with their proposals and why, and who disagrees with them and why. We want to keep a civil service that has that element of independence and impartiality. Our country is lucky to have such a civil service, and it would be very easy for us to lose it.
  The proposed Bill would clarify the boundaries between Ministers, special advisers and civil servants, which we need for the future. We could address that need just by examining recent events that have struck a chord with the media, but it is also worth looking at the other issues developing in the background. Jonathan Baume said in his evidence to the Committee:
  "The Civil Service is going through probably greater change now than at any time in its history in terms of the time frame … you see both structures changing and also the way that civil servants develop their careers".
  He said that "great movement" is
  "being encouraged in and out of post",
  pointing out that current Cabinet Office figures show that 17 per cent. of senior civil service posts are held by people who have come from outside the civil service, but that that figure is expected to climb to 30 per cent. during the next 10 years. He then made the point that it was therefore
  "critical that we have a common understanding of the core values of the Civil Service and that those values are reinforced through legislation".
  We are talking about not just the recent events that have hit the headlines such as the Jo Moore affair, important though they are, but the whole trend by which the civil service is changing. Some of those changes are no doubt for the better.
  The case of David Kelly was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. He pointed out that if Dr. Kelly had been able to use a statutory appeal procedure circumstances might have been different. The case of Judy Weleminsky has also been mentioned. I shall not go into detail about that as it is a matter of privilege, but a serious allegation has been made against the Lord Chancellor.
  Concerns are being expressed not only by politicians and the FDA; Sir Nigel Wicks, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has reflected widely voiced concerns about what has been going on at Downing street. The hon. Member for North Cornwall quoted Sir Nigel extensively and the Phillis report has been referred to by many hon. Members.
  Many years ago, the Government made promises that they have repeated over time but, so far, nothing has happened. This debate is about trading words for delivery. It is about putting the Act in place; let us have some action. It is about helping the Labour party to stick to its manifesto commitments. Both sides of the House agree that we want the Bill—and we want it now.
  3.46 pm
  The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): It is a pleasure to reply to this interesting and well-informed debate, which was opened by the return from the after-dinner speaking circuit of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who gave us an entertaining and informed speech.
  Before I deal with the specific points made by hon. Members, I reiterate that the Government accept in principle the case for legislation. As the House has heard this afternoon, we are committed to bringing forward a draft Bill for consultation in this parliamentary Session.
  Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the ninth report of the Wicks Committee records that Sir Richard Wilson told the Public Administration Committee, in November 2001, that consultation on a civil service Act would start in the new year—that is, in 2002? Two months later, on 26 February 2002, the Cabinet Office again promised that consultation on a civil service Act would start shortly. Why should we attach more credibility to the promises given this afternoon than to those that were given then?
  Mr. Woolas: Because, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will recognise that a statement from a Minister at the Dispatch Box carries the weight of the Government. The comments to which he referred were the views—proper views—of the civil service. The Government welcomed the work of the Public Administration Committee both when we were informed that it was starting and on several occasions since the report was published. It is mischievous of the hon. Gentleman to question our intentions, although I understand the points that he made and will come back to some of them later.
  I record the Government's thanks for the extremely constructive contributions that we have received from several quarters, including the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Sir Nigel Wicks, and the Public Administration Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I emphasise that we welcomed that work while it was taking place and on the production of the reports. I am grateful to all Members who took part in the debate today for their input, which will inform our deliberations on the draft Bill.
  Mr. Heald: Would not one way forward be for the Minister simply to agree to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the House on the Bill that the Public Administration Committee has produced? Indeed, would not that be the best way forward?
  Mr. Woolas: It would be one way forward, although it is interesting that, in calling for a Division on the motion, the hon. Gentleman is rejecting what he has called for in the House on several occasions: the further expansion of pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills. Incidentally, that innovation was introduced and developed by the Government. As he says, that may be one way forward, but if today's debate proves anything it is that there are further points for deliberation and some criticisms, especially the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East

  1381
  (Brian White), which show that there would be virtue in subjecting a Government-produced draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. That process could develop some of the points that have been made and I should have thought that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) would welcome such a commitment.
  Mr. Heald: We want to see an end to the shilly-shallying. If the hon. Gentleman agrees to the Public Administration Committee's Bill being put immediately into pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee, I will withdraw my Bill.
  Mr. Woolas: The House will note that 16 days since the report was published we are accused of shilly-shallying. After 18 years—indeed, 150 years, as the Chairman of the Committee informed us—of debate on this, I do not think that shilly-shallying is an accusation that sticks. "Rug" and "pulled from under" is perhaps a better description in regard to the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
  I turn to some of the points made in the debate, because I have a duty to respond to them. Perhaps I should try to put in context what I believe the debate and the Opposition motion—at times it was difficult to believe that it was an Opposition motion—are really all about.
  The former shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life in July 2002. Members of the Wicks Committee asked him to put his remarks in context, and he said, referring to the allegation of further politicisation of the civil service:
  "I accept entirely that the problems, if there are problems, did not start in 1997. We are talking about a continuation of trends, although I would argue a quite substantial acceleration of them. Secondly, it is important to put this in the context of the civil service, which I think overall remains working extremely well, internationally admired, and has many strengths on which to build."
  I concur with those remarks.
  What the Opposition are doing is political mischief making. When Labour is in power, the Conservative Opposition always accuse us of somehow attacking the impartiality of the civil service and politicising it.For example, there have been accusations about the chief of staff at Downing street; Jonathan Powell has been referred to as somehow being a politicisation of No. 10. Jonathan Powell is widely admired throughout the civil service and throughout the diplomatic service, from where he was recruited as an official for the Government in Washington. He is hardly a party political appointment. If hon. Members could have heard some of the reaction to his appointment from certain quarters of the Labour party, they would hardly have said that it was a matter of politicisation.
  This is Conservative mischief. In his 45-minute speech—which we all admired; we all admire the style and commitment with which he puts his caseߞthe right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said one thing that was particularly wise: that the danger of being so long in opposition is that the Opposition come to believe their own propaganda. That is true and I think that that is what is happening. There have been two or three allegations of politicisation. Yet the statements from
  1382
  Cabinet Secretaries, the Wicks Committee and the First Division Association have shown that they do not accept that there has been undue politicisation. In fact, they do not accept that there has been any politicisation.
  The First Division Association and others have welcomed the existence of special advisers, not because they are fearful of them, but because they recognise, as does anybody who has worked at the interface between the civil service and Government, that they are a desirable protector of the very independence of the civil service about which the Opposition spokesman feigns concern.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that when we reached the point at which Alastair Campbell was chairing meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, to supervise the drafting of what would be presented to the public as the best intelligence available on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, his sole thought was to defend the independence of the civil service? Is that as far as his thinking has gone so far?
  Mr. Woolas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. In his opening remarks he alleged that there had been meetings of officials, advisers and Ministers that had not been minuted. Well, what an improvement that was on the situation under a previous Conservative Government, whereby the then Prime Minister did not even bother to have a meeting, let alone take a minute of it. Information about the fact that Alastair Campbell allegedly chaired a meeting—information was made available on that—has come about because the Government, in setting up the Hutton inquiry, have been open in coming forward with such information. It is this Government who introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is this Government who are proposing to put the codes of conduct on the legislative book. It is this Government who have ensured that ministerial codes of conduct are in force. In my view, these accusations are no more than political mischief-making.
  Mr. Edward Gamier rose
  Mr. Mark Francois rose
  Mr. Woolas: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), but then I must move on because there is very little time left.
  Mr. Gamier: The Minister unwittingly may have made a slightly disingenuous point a moment ago because he levelled an accusation at Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was. The difference between Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Campbell is that Mrs. Thatcher was accountable to the House, whereas Mr. Campbell is not and never has been.
  Mr. Woolas: It was Mrs. Thatcher who, in 1979, appointed her press secretary as chief of staff. The accusation was made at the time by the then Opposition—[Interruption.] Mr. Wolfson was the chief of staff and press secretary, and the accusation was made at the time, by the then Opposition, that that was

  1383
  politicisation. I would suggest to the House that this is good fun, rough-and-tumble politics, but that the accusation has no substance.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Woolas: No, I really must make progress because I have not responded to a number of hon. Members. There is very little time left.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) quoted figures on the Government communications budget. I want to put the facts on the record. He pointed out that there had been an increase in the budget, and there has—a substantial increase in the budget on emergency communications. I want to clarify that that extra resource is not for political work or policy work, but relates to incidents such as flooding, natural disasters or terrorism, and the information on that is publicly available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, made a typically well-informed speech, and reminded the House of why trust in an objective civil service is so necessary. I put it to the House that an objective and impartial civil service is desired by all Governments, especially the present Government, because it is necessary in order to implement and deliver the policies on which we deliberate.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who has changed places, said that he agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that we should not be partisan on this matter, that we should not be party political and that we should proceed by consensus. He then spent 10 minutes launching the most political attack on the Government that the House has heard for some time. I think that I have answered his points about Jonathan Powell. However, I did want to draw to the attention of the House the full quote from the Phillis review of Government communications—or rather, the quote to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer:
  "We believe special advisers to be an integral part of modern government, and their political affiliation is both welcomed by Ministers and an important buttress to the impartiality of the Civil Service"—
  the words of the Phillis review, not of Ministers. That is an important point to put on record. I am sorry that there is not time to respond to all the points—
  David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the motion today is in the name of the official Opposition, we are quite pleased to give the Minister another five minutes or so, to enable him to respond to the points raised.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order I am sure that that point could have been established in other ways.
  Mr. Woolas: And I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are more than capable of making that point, and I thank you for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whom we should congratulate on the reintroduction of his ten-minute Bill, made a very
  1384
  important point of substance in his contribution to the debate, repeating some of the points that were made in yesterday's debate. He highlighted the inconsistencies in respect of who can and cannot be employed by the civil service. That is welcome. Those arguments are a further example of why the House should accept the Government amendment in calling for a draft Bill to be given pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than accepting a politically motivated Opposition motion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East who, as the House will know, issued a minority report on the Select Committee proceedings, should also be congratulated on making cogent arguments. The issues that he has raised further back up the way forward that was outlined today by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) reminded us, if the House needed reminding, that it was the previous Conservative Government who introduced the notion of "one of us", who saw the most blatant politicisation of political and civic institutions in this country and who turned power away from independent, objective analysis to Ministers and their special advisers to implement their policies quite ruthlessly.
  The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a typically polite speech. It was well informed but misguided. The Government place the highest importance on maintaining a strong, politically impartial civil service that is fit for purpose and equipped to deliver. Indeed, as I have said, that is in our interest, as well as the country's. That objective underpins the Government's approach to the future of the civil service. It is essential that the civil service has the right skills and expertise to do the job, and we are taking steps to promote and reform it.
  It is this Government who have given power away, who have devolved power and who have created independence in the Bank of England, the Competition Commission and elsewhere. That work goes hand in hand with maintaining and reinforcing the civil service values of integrity, impartiality and appointment on merit—all of which are integral to the Government's approach—and that will continue to be reflected in the months and years ahead.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 328.

  Division No. 34]

  [4:02 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Allan, Richard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Amess, David

  Surrey)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Bacon, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Norman

  Breed, Colin

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burnett, John

  Bercow, John

  Burns, Simon

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Burnside, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Burstow, Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  1385

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Keetch, Paul

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Fife)

  Inverness)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Barnet)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lamb, Norman

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Collins, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Lidington, David

  Curry, rh David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Loughton, Tim

  Howden)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Maclean, rh David

  Doughty, Sue

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maples, John

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Mates, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Maude, rh Francis

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Westminster)

  Coldfield)

  Flight, Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Flook, Adrian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Foster Don (Bath),

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gidley, Sandra

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Paice, James

  Grayling, Chris,

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Greenway, John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Grieve, Dominic

  Dinefwr)

  Gummer, rh John

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Hague, rh William

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, JohnReid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hancock, Mike

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hawkins, Nick

  M-Kent)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ty)

  Heald, Oliver

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Heath, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Ruffley, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Sanders, Adrian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Selous, Andrew

  Howard, rh Michael

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Simmons, Mark

  Jack, rh Michael

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Kincardine)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  1386

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Steen, Anthony

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Streeter, Gary

  Weir, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Syms, Robert

  Willetts, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  (Macclesfield)

  Teather, Sarah

  Wishart, Pete

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Thurso, John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trimble, rh David

  Gregory Barker and

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Ainger, Nick

  Pentlands)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Chryston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Darwen)

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cranston, Ross

  Best, Harold

  Cruddas, Jon

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Borrow, David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Wallsend)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bryant Chris

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cairns, David

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Campbell, Ronnie,(Blyth V)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caton, Martin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Challen, Colin

  Eagle. Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Chaytor, David

  Efford, Clive

  Clapham, Michael

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  1387

  Farrelly, Paul

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foster, rh Derek

  King, Ms Oona ("Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  & Rye)

  Lammy, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Luton, Bob (Derby N)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lepper, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Linton, Martinx

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hanson, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McDonnell, John

  Rhymney)

  MacDougall, John

  Healey, John

  McFall, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKechin, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Heppell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hesford, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  MacShane, Denis

  Heyes, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Sefton E)

  Shettleston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Urmston)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hutton, rh John

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Miliband, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Mole, Chris

  Highgate)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jamiesons, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Mullin, Chris

  Hatfield)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Organ, Diana

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Owen, Albert

  1388

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Perham, Linda

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Picking, Anne

  Lochaber)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  E)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Raynsford rh Nick

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Trickett, Jon

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Truswell, Paul

  Bellshill)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Turner. Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Anniesland)

  Kemptown)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  NW)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ross Ernie (Dundee W),

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Claire

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Chester)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wills, Michael

  Sheridan, Jim

  Winnick, David

  Short, rh Clare

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Simon, Si&ôn (B'ham Erdington)

  C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Woolas, Phil

  Finsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Speller, rh John

  Gillian Merron and

  Squire, Rachel

  Margaret Moran

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  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.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's commitment, in its response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to publish a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation; acknowledges the contribution made to the discussion of these issues in recent days by the Public Administration Select Committee; notes the failure of any previous Conservative Government to legislate for the Civil Service; and welcomes this Government's commitment to reforming and modernising the Civil Service to ensure that it continues to deliver a first class service to the people of this country.

  Scottish Constituencies (Members' Voting Rights)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the practice of Right honourable and honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies voting on bills concerning issues that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, especially those which introduce in England measures that have been rejected in Scotland; condemns the unfairness that this represents to those in English constituencies and the Government's failure to address the problem; notes that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntarily to abstain from voting on such legislation; calls on other Right honourable and honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies similarly to abstain from such votes; and believes that the fairest long-term solution is for bills on areas of policy which have been devolved to Scotland to be so ratified by the Speaker and for Right honourable and honourable Members from Scottish constituencies to abstain from voting on such bills.
  The Scotland Act was passed on 19 November 1998, and it was greeted with a general welcome north of the border. Scotland would have its first Parliament for 300 years, and a new political landscape unfolded in Scotland. No longer would we Scots be able to put our failings entirely down to the failings of Westminster; we could deal adequately with our unique political and social issues. No longer could the carping continue. Within the powers of the new Scottish Parliament lay the ability radically to influence our own nation. Rightly, the Scottish nation wanted, and received, the ability to direct its own course on a whole raft of policy issues.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Duncan: The motion is about ensuring that devolution works. The Scottish Parliament is here to stay—all £400 million-worth of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The only other option for Scotland is to follow the policies of separatism and independence, so often rejected by the Scots electorate. We wish to give no further oxygen to the separatists and nationalists, and that is why we want to draw the attention of the House to the Government's continued failure to address the West Lothian question.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I welcome his wish to give no extra oxygen to the forces of separatism. Does he therefore agree with the comments of his boss, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)? A couple of years ago, in opposing a ten-minute Bill moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "If we exclude Scottish MPs from our deliberations on purely English affairs—assuming that those can be isolated and defined, which I doubt—we could let loose forces which, if ruthlessly exploited, could make us strangers to ourselves."—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 925.]
  1390
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the motion would achieve precisely that?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will find out shortly whether I agree.
  Put simply, it does nothing for the cause of stable devolution and good government across the United Kingdom for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies such as my own to continue to seek to vote on legislation in this House for which the equivalent power has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
  It is somehow appropriate that we are bringing the matter to the attention of the House today in the week following the announcement by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he will not seek re-election. The fact that we face the prospect of the architect of the West Lothian question leaving the House before his constitutional dilemma is properly addressed is an indictment that we must try to avoid. The outside world recognised long ago that this constitutional outrage would have to be addressed. Indeed, in 1998 The Herald interviewed the hon. Gentleman, who is now Father of the House, and he said:
  "It was in 1997, and I kept asking how can I vote on education in Accrington but not Armadale, local government in Birmingham but not Bathgate, health in Liverpool but not Linlithgow."
  When responding to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, Enoch Powell christened that "the West Lothian question". Twenty-seven years later, it is high time the hon. Gentleman had an answer.
  Of course the Government have their own solution. The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in the Daily Mail on 17 July 1999:
  "now that we have devolution up and running, I think the best thing to do about the West Lothian Question is to stop asking it."
  Mr. Alex SalmondWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: As the Scottish Parliament enters its sixth year, it is legitimate to ask why the Government have completely failed to address that question. It is really not that difficult. The Scottish people themselves realise that the issue must be addressed before it further undermines the new constitutional settlement.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Duncan: I was interested to read in a recent newspaper poll that a clear majority of Scots back our view that hon. Members with seats in Scotland should abstain on devolved matters. It is unusual for this Government to be so dismissive of opinion polls. We are well used to them being dismissive of their own manifesto commitments, but suddenly public opinion in Scotland does not seem to matter either.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman visited my constituency recently, he will have been aware of the presence of St. Andrews university. Is he seriously suggesting that, if it is my considered judgment that the passing into law of the

  1391
  Higher Education Bill would have long-term implications for that university and its students, I should abstain next Tuesday evening?
  Mr. Duncan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will learn shortly why I feel that he should abstain. The Scottish Parliament has made its decision on tuition fees, and I will come to that shortly.
  Devolution, as Scots know, has reached a fork in the road. We can do as the Government would hope, and keep our hands firmly buried in the sand—failing to accept the natural consequences of devolution and putting the stability of the settlement at risk—or recognise that devolution has moved Scotland on.[Interruption.] Government Members might do well to listen. Devolution has moved both Scotland and the United Kingdom on—
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: We must accept the consequences—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the House has had a demonstration that the hon. Member at the Dispatch Box will indicate when he is giving way. If he does not wish to give way, that has to be respected. In addition, it would be better if we had less sedentary barracking.
  Mr. Duncan: Do we recognise that devolution has moved Scotland and the United Kingdom on, accept its consequences and thus build it on a stronger foundation?
  Let us review why we have reached this fork in the road at this time. The point is that the Government have so lamentably lost control of their own Back Benchers that rebellions are regular and their huge majority faces constant threat. The last occasion on which the fork in the road was clearly in focus was in November last year, when the House faced a choice on whether to introduce foundation hospitals in England and Wales. Despite the fact that that part of health policy is clearly a devolved power, the Government survived the vote only with the assistance of their Scottish Lobby fodder on their Back Benches. Even though the decision on whether to introduce that policy for their constituents was clearly within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Members saw fit to troop lamely through the Lobby and save the day for their beleaguered Prime Minister.
  Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He referred to the vote on foundation hospitals. Does he remember that, when the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was shadow Health Secretary, he said that after devolution he could not fill the role of an English Health Secretary dealing with English health matters? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not alone in making that argument.
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The irony continued: not only did Scottish Members vote on
  1392
  foundation hospitals, but they followed through the Lobby a Secretary of State for Health who represents a constituency to which he did have to answer for that policy.
  That travesty was made even worse by the knowledge that the Scottish Labour party, of which those hon. Members are such loyal servants, had explicitly ruled out a similar policy in Scotland. In the Scottish Parliament, David McLetchie MSP asked the First Minister:
  "Will the First Minister … follow the lead of the Prime Minister by setting up foundation hospitals?"
  The First Minister replied:
  "We share the objectives and the end result, but the processes in Scotland and in England are, quite rightly, different. There are different education systems in Scotland than there are in England and there are different health structures. We are a smaller country. We can do it even better. We can be bold and radical and we can ensure that we make a difference."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 3 October 2002; c. 14411.]
  That is as near as the First Minister gets to a straight answer, but it shows how entirely duplicitous the Scottish Labour party has become.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman has been talking for almost 10 minutes, but he has not mentioned Northern Ireland. It is strange that he attacks Scottish Members of Parliament but not Northern Ireland Members. Why is that?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is currently no devolution in Northern Ireland. I shall address that point in due course.
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Duncan: Here we learn the extent of Labour's undermining of the Union—a policy that Scottish Members are not willing to countenance for their own constituencies, but which they are willing to impose on England and Wales. Is it any wonder that resentment is now building against Tony's tartan army?
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman at the back.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  David Burnside: Is the hon. Gentleman in any way concerned that his historical and traditional allies, the Ulster Unionists, who were once part of the Conservative and Unionist party, feel unable to support the motion for fundamental constitutional reasons, and will go into the Lobby with Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Duncan: I am genuinely sorry to hear that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that devolution is now settled and stable in Scotland, but regrettably the situation is different in Northern Ireland.

  1393
  I abstained in the Division on foundation hospitals, and am happy to accept that, as a consequence of devolution, the decision on foundation hospitals in Scotland should be made by the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that I have asked him many times before and to which he has never responded. People who live at the eastern end of my constituency do not depend on Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary for hospital care; they depend on the Cumberland infirmary at Carlisle. Was I wrong to vote for foundation hospitals, bearing in mind the fact that my constituents depend on an English health authority for health service provision?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman, like many of his colleagues, is seeking to deny devolution and the fact that it created that situation. It is extraordinary that the Labour party in Scotland sought to gain political advantage from devolution, but now that it is in place it is seeking to avoid the logical consequence of its decision. The foundation hospitals vote exposed another U-turn by the Scottish National party. Strangely for the nationalists, they had adopted a principled stance and decided not to vote on devolved issues. However, when they smelt blood on the issue of foundation hospitals they adopted an opportunistic stance, and voted with the aim of defeating the Government.
  The House should be aware that the actions of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues then and now are designed to destabilise the constitutional settlement. However, a brief analysis of the separatist position exposes their ridiculous hypocrisy and opportunism. If Scotland were an independent country as the nationalists wish, they would not even be represented in the House and would have no say whatever in what England decided to do with its university system. If England introduced top-up fees, the effect on an independent Scotland would be the same as it would be if the Government won Tuesday's vote. Are we to assume that for the purposes of this issue SNP Members are happy to be part of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Salmond: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has realised that a consequence of independence is that there would be no Scottish MPs at Westminster. However, to pursue a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has voted 37 times in this Parliament on English legislation, some of which, such as the Mersey Tunnels Bill, would have no financial consequences for Scotland whatever. Yet, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has pointed out, the Higher Education Bill has direct consequences for Scotland. How can the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale abstain on things that are of vital interest to Scotland yet vote on things in which Scotland has no interest?
  Mr. Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that later in my argument. There is a simple resolution to the problem. The Speaker should certificate which Bills are, or are not, devolved, and Members of Parliament from Scotland should vote accordingly.
  1394
  The rationale of the nationalists' position is that they would only ever vote when higher public expenditure in England and Wales was possible, provided that that would result in greater funds for the Scottish Executive. That is unsustainable and will not work. It is designed with one objective in mind—the undermining of the United Kingdom. On that basis, I am happy to oppose the nationalists' view.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On the classification of Bills, does the hon. Gentleman remember how he voted on the Second Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? How will he vote on Report, as all but three clauses apply to England and Wales, three clauses apply to Scotland and three to the whole United Kingdom? If we adopt the procedure that he suggests on Report we will have a legislative hokey-cokey—"I'll vote on this but not on that"—which is ridiculous and unworkable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one is going to start a hokey-cokey while I am in the Chair.
  Mr. Duncan: The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is getting excited on his birthday, and has forgotten that that Bill has already completed its Report stage. It is obvious that a Member of Parliament from Scotland should vote on clauses with an element that is applicable to Scotland, but otherwise should not. The simple issue is whether Mr. Speaker should be given the ability to certificate Bills—could he do so, much of the confusion would end.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) complained that he would not be able to vote on an issue affecting patients in his constituency who attend hospitals in England. The same applies to me, because I cannot vote on issues involving patients in my constituency who travel to Borders general hospital at Melrose.
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend makes entirely the right point. That is called devolution—or that is what the Government led us to believe. We pointed out such difficulties at the time, but they now seek to deny them.
  The next test of double standards in Scottish politics will come next Tuesday, when the House makes its long-awaited decision on the Higher Education Bill. Much of the comment over the past few days has centred on the belief that there will be a cross-border effect in the top-up fees vote. It is suggested that Scottish universities will be substantially affected and that Scots students will pay the fees when attending higher education institutions south of the border. I agree. I speak as a Scot who graduated with some pride from the University of Birmingham, where some of the most active student groups were those of the Scots.
  I entirely accept that whatever the result in the House, universities in Scotland will have to respond and compete. The Scottish Executive will have to review their policies to ensure that Scottish institutions of tertiary education are not disadvantaged—indeed, that they can be made to flourish in an increasingly competitive market. But that is for the Scottish

  1395
  Executive to decide—that was the result of the passing of the Scotland Act 1998. There are inevitably cross-border effects: the only way of preventing them is to ensure that all policies are the same across the UK. Devolution was—and is—about allowing things to be different. There was a cross-border effect when the Scottish Parliament took its decision on tuition fees in 2001. The stage 3 vote was taken on 29 March that year. Students from outside Scotland, within the UK, found that their own Member of Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) must be one such—was unable to influence the new financial arrangements. I am sure that many hon. Members south of the border received correspondence from constituents on that point, but were unable to participate in the vote. It is called devolution, and it needs to work.
  One can imagine the constitutional crisis that would have ensued if English and Welsh Members had sought to change that decision. They would have been accused of denying Scotland its rightful post-devolution say in higher education. The same Scots MPs who will make up the lobby fodder for the Government next Tuesday would have hounded them. I restate the call made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on Sunday: in the interests of students across the UK, and of stable and successful devolution, hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies should abstain from the vote next Tuesday.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us whether the Leader of the Opposition is advising Tory Members in the House of Lords to abstain on such votes?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that Members of the House of Lords do not have constituencies—that is the difference.
  We have never pretended that these are easy issues. They are as difficult now as they were in 1977, and they will not get any easier if the House postpones addressing them. I point particularly to the fact that it is not always clear whether an equivalent power is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. How much more straightforward it would be if Mr. Speaker were to certificate on each Bill whether it exclusively concerned matters of policy devolved to the Scottish Parliament: that would make the position entirely clear and transparent.
  I commend that suggestion to the Government. Not least, it might assist them in making an accurate analysis of my voting record. We certificate each piece of legislation as being, for example, compliant with the European convention on human rights. Some Labour Members suggest that it would be too complicated for the Speaker to certificate in that way. I reject that suggestion, and I suspect that you do, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once Mr. Speaker had certificated legislation, we would expect hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies to abstain on Divisions by voluntary convention. I urge Members on both sides of the House to recognise the advantages of such a move.
  Mr. Frank Roy: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  1396
  He is proposing a part-time Member of Parliament who would not take part in all the work of the House. If he does not want to participate in work on English legislation, will he take a pay cut?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman raises a particular issue. I have said that salaries for Members of Parliament are not an issue for Members of Parliament. I am content for the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider that matter, and no doubt it will comment in due course.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Duncan: I will give way, for the final time, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
  Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. If I have understood his argument, he wants to see devolution work in a sustained and stable way. Will he therefore confirm that he would like to see the fulfilment of the devolution settlement in Wales by further devolution? Will he also confirm that Conservative policy is that any future Conservative MP sent here from Wales will not be permitted to vote on issues that do not apply to Wales?
  Mr. Duncan: As far as Wales is concerned, obviously we are awaiting the Richards report, which we will consider in due course. As for MPs from Wales, the hon. Gentleman knows that there is currently a significant difference between devolution in Scotland and devolution in Wales. The key issue is that the Scottish Parliament has the ability to legislate.
  This morning, President Bush delivered his state of the union address. Like the UK, the United States of America is a union founded on mutual consent and respect among its constituent parts, so it seems an appropriate time to reflect on the state of our Union.
  Too many hon. Members have not accepted that the rules of the game have changed since devolution. It is unacceptable and unsustainable for hon. Members from Scotland to continue to force through legislation that is unwanted by the majority of hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by it. Such constitutionally cavalier behaviour merely breeds resentment, which one must concede is perfectly understandable.
  Devolution will never be deemed a success until that constitutional imbalance is addressed though a Bill certification system. Until that happens, it is incumbent on hon. Members with Scottish constituencies to examine the potential consequences of their actions. We know that the nationalists have their own agenda, but I urge Unionist Members from Scotland to stop playing into the hands of those who wish to see our Union brought to its knees. Devolution is about answering the difficult questions as well as the easy ones; the West Lothian question must be answered before very much longer.
  4.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end and add

  1397
  "believes that Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that all Right honourable and honourable Members are equal in status and have a right to speak and vote on all matters brought before Parliament; and opposes any step that would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom.".
  It is not often that I have this affliction, but what we have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has almost left me speechless. I want to be generous to him, but there has never been a better example of an hon. Member bumbling into a situation that he cannot get out of.
  I am faced with the dilemma of how seriously to take the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. For reasons that I shall outline, it is hard to debate the motion, which was advanced by the Conservative and Unionist party. The hon. Gentleman's principled position is not really principled, because—as hon. Members have already identified—his voting record shows how often he has breached that principle.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman's mother is a constituent of mine, so I would be afraid to return to my constituency if I did not take an intervention from him. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I do it in my time, not his.
  Labour Members firmly believe in the importance of constitutional principles, not the fly-by-night principles that the Conservative party outlined. We believe in the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster and that all hon. Members should have equal rights and equal responsibilities. Those responsibilities are exercised on behalf of the United Kingdom, not simply on a constituency basis.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: I shall take an intervention from the former shadow spokesperson for Scotland, who did the job from Beckenham.
  Mrs. Lait: I am most grateful. Although much of my family lives in Scotland, the Under-Secretary will be pleased to know that no members live in her constituency.
  What is the point of principle in reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland in Westminster and maintaining the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? The purpose is merely to continue to dominate the Scottish economy.
  Mrs. McGuire: That is a debate for another day.
  We believe that there is a delicate balance in our constitution between the Executive and the legislature and between the centre and the nations and regions of our country. The constitution should be flexible enough to accommodate change while maintaining that internal balance. The Conservative party should consider that seriously, especially in view of the advice that it is getting from the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale One.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale claims that he will not vote on so-called English issues. He and the Leader of the Opposition have paraded that
  1398
  so-called principle around the country's newsrooms. It fair put me off my breakfast on Sunday morning. However, as many other hon. Members have said, closer inspection sees that principled position unravelling before our eyes. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, we all know about the Mersey tunnel. Which part of the Mersey did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale believe to be in Scotland when he voted on that measure? How does he explain the principle behind his vote on top-up fees on 23 June 2003?
  Mr. Gray: On behalf of my mother and the good people of Dunblane, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Why is she, as Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office, wherever that may be, replying to the debate, which is entirely about English votes on English matters? She mentioned the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland. How can he come to England and pontificate on motorways and Mersey tunnels when he claims to be a Scot?
  Mrs. McGuire: Every boy is a mother's son, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that since the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale opened for the Opposition, it is perfectly logical for me to make a contribution.
  Mr. Duncan: The Under-Secretary cited a vote on top-up fees. Will she be more generous and concede that that was not on legislation? It is perfectly legitimate for a Scottish Member to sign an early-day motion, but not to vote on legislation. That is the key point.
  Mrs. McGuire: Let us consider deliberations on the Criminal Justice Bill last year. I have all the Divisions on English issues flagged. I say in a spirit of generosity that the hon. Gentleman has painted himself into a corner. On 23 June 2003, in a debate on English education, he said:
  "I am not a regular participant in education debates in this Chamber for the obvious reason that Scottish education is largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This issue does affect me, however, as I have children in education in Scotland who may well attend a higher education institution in England".—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 755.]
  I am a generous woman and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that to err is human, but I have to say that to err on more than 30 occasions—the most recent being on 18 November 2003—is neither divine nor human, but a blatant example of Conservative cynicism.
  We have a feeling of déjà vu, given that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) debated this very subject in Westminster Hall just a few days ago. That debate was fully answered by the Deputy Leader of the House. Two debates on the same constitutional issue have taken place within a matter of days. Why? Not because the Opposition care about the constitution. Indeed, the fact that we are having a second debate in such a short time proves exactly the opposite.
  Mr. Peter Pike rose—
  Mr. George Osborne rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  1399
  The Opposition are willing to take any course and ride roughshod over some of our most cherished and fundamental matters of principle, which underpin our constitution. That is the dangerous conundrum that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has got himself into today.
  Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend believe that the Conservative party is so committed to devolution that Conservative Members would admit that it was totally wrong to allow Tory MPs to vote in strength to introduce the poll tax in Scotland during the 1983–87 Parliament?
  Mrs. McGuire: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the poll tax unfairness was pre-devolution. However, the lesson of the poll tax is linked to what my hon. Friend says, because, by introducing general taxation in one part of the UK without introducing it universally, the Conservative Government upset the delicate balance between the regions of the United Kingdom—that is what they did.
  Mr. George Osborne rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: Let me make some progress.
  The Opposition must answer several fundamental questions in the debate. Why are they attempting to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster? How do they believe that an Executive can carry on when a Government party of any colour is able to command a majority only on some issues, not on others? What alternative form of constitution do they propose? Are they asking us to choose between federalism, which may well be supported by the Liberal Democrats, and breaking up the Union? Is that what they want?
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister referred earlier to what she described as opportunism. Is she aware that I, in common with all my hon. Friends, stood for Parliament at the last election on a manifesto that spoke of English votes for English matters—and that was before the Prime Minister had broken the promises that he made in the same election?[Interruption.]
  Mrs. McGuire: The chorus says it all, and the hon. Gentleman's party lost.
  I am rapidly coming to a conclusion: that the Conservative party sits in the Scottish Parliament, which it claims not to believe in; that Conservative Members' colleagues sit in the European Parliament, which they do not believe in; and I am now beginning to suspect that Conservative Members sit in this Parliament without believing in it.
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Ann McKechin: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Opposition
  1400
  appear to have forgotten the terms of the code of conduct for Members of the House, which state that they have
  "a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents"?
  Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for putting that appropriate comment on the record. I would hope that some Conservative Members—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I want to make some progress.
  The Opposition's argument today ignores constitutional principles. In view of the "principled" flim-flam that we heard from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I hate to tell him that his argument was constructed for short-term gain based on parliamentary arithmetic. He made that particularly clear towards the end of his speech.
  Quite simply, the Opposition's argument is designed to remove the voting rights from a core group of MPs. The constitution should not be used in that way.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I shall not give way, as I want to make some progress. I am aware that lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I should like to leave them some time, so that we can get as many arguments on the record as possible.
  The constitution of this country limits political power and balances the relationship between our institutions. We cannot, and should not, change it by adopting stupid procedural alterations that would have fundamental consequences. Have the Opposition really considered what their so-called simple suggestion would mean? It is bizarre for a Conservative and Unionist party to advocate proposals whose consequences could signal the end of the partnership that is the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Clearly, this is not a short-term issue, as it has been bubbling away for the best part of 30 years. Will the Minister deal with the central problem—the lack of parity between Members of this House with Scottish constituencies and those with English constituencies? At the moment, Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, but English ones cannot vote on Scottish matters. Furthermore, that lack of parity is compounded by the fact that Scottish Members of this Parliament cannot vote on most Scottish issues. Does the Minister accept that some rebalancing of our procedures is needed, given that lack of parity?
  Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a very civilised manner, but he ignores the central aspect of the Opposition's argument—that there should be two classes of Members of Parliament in this House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: We are getting into difficult territory, so I shall refer the House to the comments of one of our colleagues, who set out the consequences of the Opposition's position most effectively. He said:

  1401
  "Let us imagine a situation … where the withdrawal of Scottish MPs left a majority on English matters in the House different from that of the UK Government. One would then, necessarily, end up with a Government elected on a manifesto significant parts of which they could not deliver, and a competing Administration, unable to deliver their manifesto because they could not command the business of the House, and would therefore depend on the opportunistic hijacking of the Government's proposals."— [Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 924.]
  That is very well put. That observation was made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—the shadow Secretary of State for local and devolved government.
  David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made his remarks when opposing a Bill brought in under the ten-minute rule? Most of the Labour Members who voted on that Bill voted for the position advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, as he made a brilliant case for retaining this Parliament as a UK Parliament. It is unfortunate that his should be the second name on today's motion.
  Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend encapsulates the views of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. The motion under debate undermines the arguments that he put forward then.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: No. I have said that I want to allow plenty of time for Back Benchers to make contributions.
  This Parliament is a UK Parliament. It is a sovereign Parliament. It was sovereign before devolution, and remains so today. The Scotland Act 1998 states that explicitly. It is entirely alien to this Parliament that there should be two classes of Member.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: No, I want to—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we need a little less excitement.
  Mrs. McGuire: I remind the Opposition that the rights of the member nations of the UK have been debated in this House since the 18th century. The same conclusion has been reached time after time—that it is unacceptable to have different classes of Members in a UK Parliament.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mrs. McGuire: I think I have made it perfectly clear that I am going to take any more interventions at the moment.
  1402
  We have before us an Opposition motion that has not been drafted in some treatise by Burke, by Gladstone or by some eminent royal commission, or as a result of considered cross-party discussion. It is a tawdry exercise by a party that, for potential short-term gain, wishes to ransom an arrangement that has stood the test of time in this House.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: No.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is leading his party down the road of supporting the nationalists, and he cannot get away from that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) asked the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale about one of the comments of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, whom I shall embarrass one more time. He said:
  "I do fear that we shall be providing the weapon for an assault on the integrity of the Union … If we exclude Scottish MPs from our deliberations on purely English affairs—assuming that those can be isolated and defined, which I doubt".—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 325, c. 925.]
  Those are not my words, but the words of a leading member of the shadow Cabinet.
  I suggest to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that the Government, by contrast with his party, have taken a principled position on how the electorate in Scotland are to be represented in this House. We have acknowledged the argument that Scotland is over-represented here, and although it is for the boundary commission to make final decisions, that representation will be reduced by 13 seats. That is a sensible, magnanimous and principled change, brought about because some Members have been asked to put aside their personal interests to implement it.
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I am not taking any more interventions at the moment.
  We have a flexible constitution that recognises that we have an asymmetric country and that we need to meet its changing demands. In other words, our constitution works.
  Mr. Turner: Given that an elector in my constituency has one 100,000th of a say in the election of its Member of Parliament, how can the Minister defend a position in which electors in parts of Scotland have one 25,000th of a say?
  Mrs. McGuire: The argument against having two classes of Member of Parliament has been made by the hon. Gentleman's own Front-Bench spokesman on devolved government. That argument has already been made, not by the Government but by the Opposition.
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Mrs. McGuire: I just want to deal with one final point that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper

  1403
  Nithsdale raised. He said that he wanted the Speaker to have a power to tag some Bills geographically. The hon. Gentleman assumes that that would be a neat solution, but like so many of the Tories' neat solutions, from the poll tax to the botched privatisation of the railways, it is not simple at all. At best, it would be extremely complex to administer and, moreover, we would be in danger of prejudicing the impartiality of the Chair. How would the Speaker tag the Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill, for example, which contains issues that undoubtedly impact on Scotland? And what if the majority of the House thought that the Speaker was wrong?
  Anyway, why stop at Hadrian's wall? Why not follow the logic of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and say that a Manchester MP cannot speak on the future of airports in the south-east of England, or that only London MPs should vote on the future of Heathrow, or perhaps that all naval decisions should be made by MPs who represent Portsmouth?
  Mr. Salmond: The position of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale on top-up fees is totally absurd, as is his voting record. However, may I point out that the Speaker already has the power to certify Bills as exclusively Scottish and send them to the Scottish Grand Committee? Why would it therefore be such a problem to give him a similar power for English matters?
  Mrs. McGuire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, by convention the Grand Committee has not legislated, so that would be a difficult move to make. I am interested, however, in his and his party's very positive contribution to the debate.
  One final point should be addressed. Why do the Opposition talk only about the voting rights of Scottish MPs? Why is there no mention of colleagues from Wales who vote on matters that are devolved to Wales? Why not question the voting rights of hon. Members from Northern Ireland who vote on Great Britain matters that will not extend to Northern Ireland? The reason, of course, is not the fact that Members with Scottish constituencies vote; it is how the majority of them vote that really irritates the Opposition.
  The motion is not constitutional. It is an attempt by the Tories to gerrymander votes in the House to their own political ends. Members on the Labour Benches believe that we remain a United Kingdom Parliament and that, as such, We shall not move into a realm where there are first and second-class Members of the House.
  I have spent all my political life endeavouring to minimise participation in the House of Commons by Opposition Members and their parties, but I have done so in the proper fashion: I have taken my arguments to the electorate. Since 1997, the Scottish electorate have agreed with me in almost every case—the exception is that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Since 1997, Scottish electors have had the opportunity to choose a Conservative on 144 occasions, yet on 143 they have refused.
  The hon. Gentleman is a Member, however. May I suggest to him that that is a privilege and a solemn responsibility? In all sincerity, I ask him not to shirk that
  1404
  responsibility, not to treat it lightly, not to parley it for short-term political opportunity. I ask him to participate with us, as a full member of the United Kingdom. That is the principled position. I ask the House to reject this foolish motion and to vote for the amendment.
  5.7 pm
  John Thurso: I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on his Damascene conversion to the cause of devolution, but may I invite him to think that through to its logical conclusion?
  At the heart of the debate is the West Lothian question. It is a real and serious issue that merits careful consideration; we need to look at the principles behind it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and his hon. Friends introduced their motion in such a self-congratulatory and self-seeking way; the subject deserves better than that.
  The West Lothian question was first put about 27 years ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the present Father of the House. That was well before the current devolution settlement, and well before its implications had been experienced. We must consider the issue in the light of that settlement and its success in the devolved nations. From that perspective, it is clear that the West Lothian question needs to be rephrased. Instead of asking, "Why should the Member for West Lothian—or Linlithgow as it is now—vote on English matters, when his English counterpart cannot vote on West Lothian matters?", we should ask, "Why does the English citizen not enjoy the same representation and democratic accessibility as his or her counterpart in West Lothian?"
  Which end of the telescope do we want to look through? That is at the heart of the debate. For those who, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, are of the opinion that devolution for the nations of the United Kingdom brings positive results and improves contact between the governed and those who govern, it is clear that England is suffering from a democratic deficit, which needs to be remedied.
  On the other hand, those who have never believed in devolution and would dearly like to see it fail will naturally ignore these facts and seek to unpick the settlement. The Conservative motion is clearly in that vein. Not for the first time, the Conservative party is simply looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
  We should take as our start point for the debate and for the serious issues within it the fact that the devolution settlements for London, Wales and Scotland—and indeed Northern Ireland, which we all hope will go to its full conclusion in due course—are all here to stay and are by and large successful. The answer to the West Lothian question, therefore, must lie in the remedy for England.
  Mr. Eric Forth: While I go along to a surprising extent with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, in that I am a long-standing advocate of an English Parliament, must he not acknowledge that to lump together, as he has done, the Scottish Parliament and the arrangements for London, Wales and Northern Ireland is not the right direction to

  1405
  take, as they are all completely and inherently different? Our focus on Scotland is valid to the extent that Scotland is the only fully legislative Parliament with a degree of taxing powers, which is why we are focusing on that.
  John Thurso: I believe that my later remarks will fully answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. But I would say that it is the principle of devolution that counts, and that is what I am looking at.
  My party has always believed that the natural end result of devolution is a federal United Kingdom, where each of the nations enjoys domestic devolution within one United Kingdom state, with this Parliament as the United Kingdom federal Parliament. It is a position we have held for a long time. It is clear, and it unquestionably answers the West Lothian question. Indeed, it is the only answer.
  Mr. Foulkes: If it is not too patronising, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he agree that we are going through a process of phased federalism? Scotland has legislative as well as Executive powers. We hope that the Assembly for Northern Ireland will soon come back, and it also has legislative as well as Executive powers. Wales is looking at the possibility of legislative powers.
  Mr. Forth: What about England?
  Mr. Foulkes: Absolutely. The real difficulty, which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is highlighting, is England. What we need is devolution for England or for its regions, or a combination of both.
  John Thurso: I concur entirely. But I have always believed that all devolution in the area of the constitution is iterative. That is why I voted as I did on the arrangements for another place; I believe that it will be fully elected one day and that every little step on the path helps.
  I turn to the proposals in the motion. Leaving aside the rather narcissistic comments therein of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, it could be said that his proposals might offer an interim solution. But any detailed examination reveals them to be both simplistic and impractical. I shall give three examples.
  First, however, it is important to understand what devolution actually did. Here, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself to the Scotland Act 1998, although some of what I say will apply to other devolved areas.
  In the Scotland Act devolution was delegated by this Parliament. What we did here was to delegate responsibility for certain legislative and Executive action. We delegated power; we did not cede it. Power delegated is power retained. This Parliament remains sovereign and may at any time use that retained authority to pass legislation for devolved matters if it so chooses, notwithstanding the devolution settlement.
  That is clear in several sections of the Scotland Act. Section 30, for example, enables the Government by Order in Council to make any amendments or any change they wish to schedules 4 and 5, the schedules that set out both the reserved and the devolved matters.
  1406
  Therefore, by the simple expedient of an Order in Council, what is or is not devolved may be changed. Thus, any piece of primary legislation passed in the House could become Scottish legislation at a future date without any consideration in Scotland.
  I fully accept that that has not happened to date and that it may even be unlikely. I would certainly like to think that with the current Government it would be unlikely. But let us foresee a different situation, with two different parties in power in Scotland and in the United Kingdom Parliament, when we may find that the temptation becomes overpowering. In section 28(7), it is made absolutely clear that the powers given to the Scottish Parliament do
  "not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
  Taken together, this means that any piece of primary legislation agreed to in this place by the simple expedient of an Order in Council may be imposed on Scotland, devolution or no. How do I answer my constituents if that occurs and I have neither taken part nor voted?
  Secondly, we must look at the Sewel motion—the device by which matters of legislation considered in the House that have devolved competence may be put into effect in Scotland without a Scottish Act. It was originally intended, when the Scotland Bill was being considered, that this device should be something of a back-stop. but I believe that, since the inception of the Scottish Parliament, there have been 46 Sewel motions, covering 41 Bills. If I am not allowed to take part in the proceedings in the House, on what has now become a fairly regular occurrence, my constituents are deprived of any voice in the matter.
  The third point that I raise is perhaps one of the most important, because it relates to one of the most important reserved functions—the Treasury. Given that virtually every Bill brought before the House has financial implications or requires a money order, it is unthinkable that any hon. Member should be deprived of the right to express an opinion or to vote.
  Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that almost every Bill brought before the Scottish Parliament has consequences for the Treasury. and yet I, as an English MP, have no say whatever in that?
  John Thurso: By a remarkable coincidence, I was just coming to that. The point is that the funding of the Scottish Parliament is undertaken by a block vote, which is voted—
  Mr. Forth: From English taxpayers.
  John Thurso: From British taxpayers. It is voted by the United Kingdom Parliament and paid for by the British taxpayer. That block grant and how it is spent is then decided by the Scottish Parliament. There is no such arrangement for England. There is no English block grant. All the grants that are given to the devolved nations are awarded under the Barnett formula—which is a pretty unwieldy formula, and worth considering on another occasion. At the moment, the United Kingdom Treasury and, if you like, the English Treasury, are inextricably intertwined.
  David Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the delicate

  1407
  balance that exists between the countries of the United Kingdom in relation to taxation, but is there not also a delicate balance between the levels of public expenditure that are financed by that taxation throughout the United Kingdom? When referring to the Barnett formula, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if there was further devolution of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to and an English regional assembly was in place, the formula's 25-year reign would have to be ended and the present unsustainable, over-generous formula would have to be replaced by a needs-based formula?
  John Thurso: I am particularly happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the Barnett formula is outdated and that we need a much more needs-based formula, so that any area of the United Kingdom that is deprived may be given the support to which it is entitled. But the principle that I am aiming at—and it must remain—is that UK Members vote on UK Treasury matters, which means voting on virtually every Bill.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logical consequence of what he is saying is that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, which are subject to devolved policy, will elect to vote for ever-higher public expenditure in England and Wales simply to provide, through the Barnett formula, a knock-on benefit for the Scottish Executive?
  John Thurso: No, I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman because that ascribes to Scottish Members a degree of cynicism that simply does not exist.
  Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a more practical difficulty for the Conservatives if the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) insists on saying that the Opposition motion outlines their policy? If he persists with that policy, no future Conservative Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Wales could possibly be allowed to vote, by his own party's conventions, on matters that do not relate to Wales, and no Conservative Member of Parliament representing an English constituency would vote on matters relating specifically to Wales. I therefore assume that he will advocate abstention on the Public Audit (Wales) Bill, which has no bearing whatever on English Members of Parliament.
  John Thurso: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
  As I hope that I have made clear, any detailed consideration of the proposals in the motion shows them to be fundamentally flawed and unworkable, but there is ultimately a more important principle at stake: for so long as this is the United Kingdom Parliament, its Members must be equal in the Chamber and in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The concept of part-membership has been considered by academics and many contributors to the debate and almost universally rejected as impractical, unworkable and undesirable. Just as in another place all peers are equal irrespective of
  1408
  rank, office or attendance, so it must be that in the Chamber all Members must be equal. That is not to say that there is nothing the House can do about current arrangements. Indeed, an English Grand Committee to mirror the current Scottish Grand Committee should certainly be considered, as might other devices; but, in the Chamber, we must remain equal before the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman says that, in the other place, all lords are equal; but, in fact, in that place, to reflect the specific status of certain lords, various conventions have arisen that govern their conduct—for instance, the Law Lords do not vote on any item of legislation—and it is exactly that kind of distinction on which the debate is designed to concentrate.
  John Thurso: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, with a small degree of experience, that it is a very strongly held principle of convention in the other place that all peers are equal, despite the fact that there are obvious inequalities between them. If my memory serves me correctly, that understanding arose when an early Earl Spencer was accused of doing something nefarious by another peer; the doctrine of equality, despite whatever each peer was up to, was entered into. That is an interesting parallel, and one that we can adopt.
  So long as we are equal in the Chamber, I see absolutely no reason why Members should not serve in the Government for whatever Department they are chosen to do so by the Prime Minister. I well remember a notable English Member who fulfilled the role of Secretary of State for Wales. I never carped about that, and I do not carp the other way round.
  The Conservative party for most of its distinguished history has operated on the principle of the preservation of the status quo interspersed, when change is inevitable, with benign opportunism. It is that which gave us Disraeli's "one nation", Salisbury's "villa conservatism" and Macmillan's "You've never had it so good." It is sad today to see that once-great party so far from its principles and so far from a positive Unionist stance and to have descended, with this self-congratulating and self-serving motion, into the malign opportunism of a perceived short-term gain—to see a party of former British stature descend into the gutter of English nationalism. The Union deserves better, and I hope that the House rejects the motion overwhelmingly.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is now a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.24 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I will not delay the House long because it is very clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House how unacceptable the Opposition motion is. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) for actually managing to get through that speech with a straight face. If we look in detail at the wording of the motion, we see that it
  "notes that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntary to abstain from voting on such legislation."

  1409
  Let us be absolutely frank: the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that he has repeatedly voted on legislation that affects England. I tried to do some research into his election address at the past election, and I found no reference to the fact that it was his intention to come here as a part-time Member of Parliament—nice work if one can get it. My constituents certainly did not send me to the House as a part-time Member.
  Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I shall make some progress, and then happily give way.
  As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale made what was fundamentally an English nationalist speech. However, I should point out to Conservative Members that of the 529 hon. Members who represent English constituencies, only 164 are Conservatives. I had always believed that throughout the history of the Conservative party it had been viewed as the Conservative and Unionist party.
  Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: Let me make some progress, and then I shall happily give way.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is selling the history of his party down the river, as, indeed, is his parliamentary leader. For almost a century we had devolution in Northern Ireland, yet Northern Ireland Members voted on legislation with the Conservatives. There are those of us in the House who are aware that Northern Ireland Unionists kept Conservative Governments in office by voting with them. If such voting is so heinous now, why was it not heinous then? The hon. Gentleman has not answered that point.
  Mr. Forth: Can the right hon. Lady explain how Scottish nationalism can be paraded with such pride and yet English nationalism can be referred to with such apparent contempt? If she is not careful and if she does not listen to the arguments that emerge in debates such as this, we are in danger of a serious English backlash—I will be part of it.
  Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman addresses the House in a Scottish accent, but he is a Member of the House only because he represents an English constituency—Scottish constituencies would have nothing to do with him.
  I am a Unionist. Many Labour Members believe that the United Kingdom is what stands best for our constituents, and that a devolved Scottish Parliament, a devolved Welsh Assembly, the continuation—I hope—of devolution for Northern Ireland and devolution for the English regions that want it strengthens the United Kingdom. Conservative Members are the separatists in
  1410
  the argument, and seeking to have two different standards of Members of Parliament is a dangerous road to go down.
  John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when there is only one Unionist party in the House—the Labour party.
  Mrs. Liddell: I would be tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, but I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross because he made and good and powerful Unionist speech.
  Let us be absolutely clear. The debate is not about the West Lothian question. It is a piece of cynical opportunism and an attempt to defeat a Labour Government. It is interesting that a Conservative Member is making a separatist point because the Conservatives and the real separatists defeated the Labour Government in 1979.
  The debate is about next week's consideration of the Higher Education Bill. It is important to put on record that although it is assumed that the Bill will not apply to Scotland, a third of its clauses relate to Scotland. One of the most critical aspects of the Bill is the fact that it will increase the cut-off point—the salary at which graduates must start to pay back money—from £10,000 a year to £15,000 a year. That will affect my constituents and I want the measure put in place because it is important to them. I have constituents who attend English universities. They study everything from ballet to business management and have an interest in that legislation.
  The prosperity of all the United Kingdom is important to my constituents as well. The Higher Education Bill attempts to bring English university entrants up to the same level as Scottish university entrants. It tries to correct an imbalance that affects the performance of our economy.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I do not want to argue with the right hon. Lady about the purpose of the Higher Education Bill, but surely she accepts that English students attend Scottish universities and French students attend English universities. Neither of those examples is an argument for the Parliament of those countries to intervene in the running of Scottish universities.
  Mrs. Liddell: I was not aware that France was part of the United Kingdom. I thought we got that sorted out about 1,000 years ago. The fact that French students come to Scottish and English universities makes me proud to be Scottish, British and European.
  It is no surprise that the people of this country are cynical about politicians because this motion is one of the most cynical moves I have ever seen. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is trapped in this argument. I would be very interested to know—although we never will know the answer—whether he was aware that his party leader was going to tar him with the responsibility of not voting on English legislation. It will be interesting to see at the next general

  1411
  election what his constituents think of a Member who has stood up in the House and said that he is determined to be just a part-time Member.
  Mr. Salmond: For the sake of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm that if she agrees with her Scottish Labour colleagues on the Enterprise and Culture Committee that the Bill will have an "adverse impact" on Scottish universities, she will vote against it?
  Mrs. Liddell: That is not what they said. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman. The changes that the Bill introduces will go a long way to improving the lot of my constituents. He has to be mature enough about devolution to acknowledge that just because something does not have "made in Scotland" stamped right through it does not mean that there is something wrong with it. He is changing his position on whether or not he votes on such matters. Were the model that we want to introduce for England replicated in Scotland, it would be a considerable improvement on the lot of Scottish students.
  We need to expose the opportunism of the motion. I think that the House will overwhelmingly show up the cynicism and opportunism of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. I am sorry that a party that has a proud tradition of Unionism should have been so easily swayed into the separatist camp.
  5.33 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to be the first English Member to participate in the debate. I listened with respect to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). I hope that she will not find my speech cynical or opportunistic. It is certainly not meant to be a separatist speech or an argument for English nationalism or an English Parliament. I am interested in rebalancing the constitution to take account of the reality of devolution. That is a responsible thing for the House to do.
  Constitutional reform has not been the Government's strongest point. Having promised the country at the last general election that we would have a more democratic House of Lords, we are now moving towards a wholly appointed House of Lords without even waiting for the next Parliament to break that election commitment. Regional assemblies have yet to fire the public's imagination. We recently saw a bungled attempt to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor. We heard earlier today of the inexplicable delay in the introduction of a civil service Bill.
  The debate shows that Labour Members are oblivious to the imbalance in our constitution post-devolution. When we recently debated the matter in Westminster Hall, at the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), nearly all the Labour Back Benchers who participated were from Scottish constituencies. The only English Labour MPs present were the Minister and, briefly, his Parliamentary Private Secretary—an indication of a lack of concern by Labour Members about the constitutional imbalance as seen from the English perspective. As we move towards
  1412
  the next election, and as discipline within the Government begins to break down, so the so-called West Lothian question once again raises its head.
  The present constitutional settlement is unfair, unstable and indefensible, and Labour Members seek to portray it through the eyes of Members, but I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that that is the wrong lens. We should look at the issue through the eyes of our constituents and ask whether they are equal. The injustice is simply explained. Until 1998, the people of North-West Hampshire could influence, through their MP, policy in Scotland, for example, on care in the community, and of course the converse was the case. After devolution, my constituents lost that ability, but although they can no longer have a say in whether their Scottish friends pay for personal care in a nursing home, their Scottish friends can influence whether they have to pay for such care. I have to say to Labour Members that it is frankly impossible to defend or explain the current position to my constituents.
  Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: In a moment. The position is compounded by the West Lothian question, whereby Scottish Members can impose foundation hospitals on my constituents, but not on their own. As an English MP with English constituents, I find it impossible to defend the status quo.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No, I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).
  Angus Robertson: On defending the indefensible, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the participation of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) in the proceedings on the Mersey Tunnels Bill and the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill? What impact do those matters have on Scotland?
  Sir George Young: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) defended himself remarkably well in the face of a sustained onslaught from Members on both sides of the House. The proposition that we are debating today is whether Scottish MPs should vote on matters that exclusively concern England and Wales. We want the position to change, and I hope that when it does hon. Members will observe the convention that I am about to promote.
  We got an insight into the Government's response in the debate a fortnight ago. The Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who replied to the debate, said:
  "We are not here just as representatives of our constituencies on some sort of delegative or representative basis, but to make judgments and take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK."
  We are manifestly not; I can no longer take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK. He went on to say:

  1413
  "The arguments are new and opportunistic, and they were not heard when the Conservatives were in government".
  Of course they were not—we did not then have devolution and the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point, but does he agree that the answer is not to introduce the dog's breakfast suggested by his Front-Bench spokesman—to try to classify Bills as applying to England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or some combination of the three—but to do as we did when we got furious because the right hon. Gentleman imposed the poll tax on Scotland? We got devolution; surely he should be campaigning for devolution for England.
  Sir George Young: I am delighted that I have carried the right hon. Gentleman with me so far, and I hope to carry him for the rest of my argument—a substantial burden.
  In the debate a fortnight ago, the Minister said:
  "The Government will not listen to what we consider to be a bogus argument".
  They will not listen to an argument legitimately put forward by Conservative Members and our constituents. Describing the remedy that I favour, which had been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the Minister then said:
  "The consequence of his argument would be a breakdown of the power of this Parliament's sovereignty."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 58–60WH.]
  That is a bit rich from a member of this Government, who have done more to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament than any other.
  In fairness to Ministers, I have to point out that they have now abandoned one argument—regional assemblies. Throughout the last Parliament we were told that they were the right answer to this issue. The Under-Secretary did not use that argument this afternoon, and it was not used a fortnight ago, because it is not a legitimate argument.
  I make no apologies for bringing to the attention of the House once again the fourth report of the Procedure Committee in the 1998–99 Session, which contains a section on legislation. The proposition that the Under-Secretary suggested we dismiss as impractical was specifically examined by a Committee of this House. Those who are interested in the subject will find support from the Procedure Committee for an argument that, in the light of devolution, different procedures might be necessary.
  That Committee had a majority of Labour MPs. It anticipated conflict post-devolution and wisely suggested procedures to minimise it. It suggested that we change our rules by convention. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report are worth reading in full. The latter states:
  "The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as currently apply to bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance we believe it is. There may soon be governments of different parties in different parts of the United Kingdom; party balances already differ in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
  1414
  That is an important conclusion because it concedes the principle, post-devolution, of new procedures for legislation affecting England. Once that point has been conceded, English votes for English Bills is the logical conclusion.
  That is not to bring an end to parliamentary sovereignty. On the contrary, it is to keep parliamentary sovereignty alive by making changes to reflect the fact of devolution. Paragraph 28 argues that representation on Bills dealing with English legislation should be in accordance with party balance in England, not the House.
  The Procedure Committee, which approved that unanimously, included nine Government Members. It also included the Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The principle that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I are putting forward is not just ours. A Committee of the House adopted it. The Committee also dealt with the argument that identifying such Bills would be impossible for the Speaker by dismissing the point in paragraph 27. So, this is not a cynical and opportunistic argument from the Conservative party. It is taking forward a unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee.
  David Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that, even given his long parliamentary experience, knowledge of constitutional affairs and service on the Procedure Committee, it will always be possible accurately and unambiguously to classify Bills as so-called English legislation? Does he not recognise that some very complex issues are involved and that such a proposition would be a dog's breakfast in its own right?
  Sir George Young: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks not just at the Report but at the evidence given to the Committee. It took evidence from Clerks of the House and Chairmen of Standing Committees, and came to the conclusion to which I have referred:
  "We recommend that the provision allowing the Speaker to certify Bills"
  should apply to England. After listening to the evidence—presumably from those who thought that such a solution was difficult and from those who thought it was practical—the Committee reached that unanimous conclusion.
  What did the Government do when they received the report? They just dismissed it. They said:
  "If…it were possible to identify some bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit this would have for the House."
  The whole debate about the West Lothian question simply did not appear on the Government's radar. They did not so much disagree with the solution; they did not think that there was a problem.
  There is support in my constituency for the sort of solution that the House is debating. I remember seeing an opinion poll showing a majority in Scotland for the proposition that Scottish MPs should not vote on English domestic legislation. So, the proposal that only English and Welsh MPs should vote on Bills covering England and Wales could work perfectly well within the conventions and traditions of Parliament. It is based on

  1415
  precedents, would be accepted as fair in Scotland as well as in England and represents common sense. It would deal with the English question; it would make the Union stronger. The Government are making a serious mistake in their response, and I hope that quite soon it will fall to a different Administration to put right this constitutional injustice.
  5.44 pm
  Rosemary McKenna: I am delighted to take part in this debate, although it is probably the most irrelevant waste of time in this Chamber for a long while. I must ask why and why now? The debate is nothing to do with the subject of the motion. That has been said time and again but bears repeating. This is purely an attempt to highlight the fact that next week my Labour colleagues from Scotland and I will vote on the Higher Education Bill. Of course we will vote on it, and on any other issue that is required to put through our Government's programme, because we are elected as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, with the same rights, the same duties and the same responsibilities as every other Member.
  Pete Wishart: The focus of our concern is not the fact that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will vote next Tuesday, but the way they will vote. Why does she not protect and defend the Scottish interest? Everyone in Scottish higher education is of the opinion that tuition fees will be bad for Scotland. Why is she voting against the Scottish interest next week?
  Rosemary McKenna: I thought that we were discussing people's right to vote, not higher education. Of course, SNP Members' position is totally unprincipled. We vote on any issue; you pick and choose.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Rosemary McKenna: Not now. Allow me to make some progress.
  When in 1997 the Labour party promised the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, that we would deliver devolution, we did not say, "Ah, but this will mean that your Member of Parliament will be of lesser value than those representing English constituencies." When in 2001 the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth re-elected me, they did not say to me, "Ah, but you'll only go down there and vote on certain issues—you'll not vote on health or on education or on that sort of issue." With my colleagues, I stood for election as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, and I had every intention of voting on all issues. That is the constitutional position, and it is opportunism in the extreme for the Conservatives to suggest otherwise.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Lady be a bit more forthcoming about the existing disparity between the responsibilities each of us holds, which she says are equal? I can vote on hospitals in my constituency, whereas she cannot vote on hospitals in hers. In fact,
  1416
  although there is a rational explanation for the difference, there is a disparity in the responsibilities, influence and power that we are able to exercise in legislative matters.
  Rosemary McKenna: It was a decision of the House. It was your choice and it is your choice—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.
  Rosemary McKenna: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was part of the Opposition party that made a choice, and he chooses not to support the Government's attempts to deliver regional government to the rest of the country.
  In the 1980s and 1990s, I played a role in Scottish local government. I was spending a lot of time visiting this place to represent those interests by 1992, when the then Government imposed a reorganisation of Scottish local government that was unwanted and uncalled for. They did so because we had opposed the poll tax. The previous Government had imposed the poll tax in Scotland despite the fact that they had no majority in Scotland, and the fact that everyone in Scotland opposed it. In addition it was imposed in Scotland a year before the rest of country.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Rosemary McKenna: No, I will not give way on this matter.
  The following Government detested Scottish local government, which had managed to protect the people of Scotland from the ravages of Thatcherism, an example of which is the miners' strike.
  Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party was also opportunistic in respect of local government reorganisation in Scotland, as shown by its decision to have three local authorities in Ayrshire rather than one all-Ayrshire authority because of its—mistaken—belief that the party could keep control of South Ayrshire council?
  Rosemary McKenna: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The then Secretary of State drew a map showing several small blue areas, which the Conservatives thought would deliver some Conservative councils in Scotland.
  I was in this Chamber as a visitor on 17 January 1994—almost 10 years ago—when the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the recently retired Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, made the following statement:
  "On 5 May this year, there will be ballot boxes all across Scotland and people will have the choice: they will give their verdict on this shoddy, politically corrupt, anti-democratic, wasteful and irrelevant piece of legislation, which they will assuredly reject".—[Official Report, 17 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 548.]
  They certainly did. There was not a single Tory council left in Scotland.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady appears to be arguing persuasively that the people of Scotland did not like

  1417
  having decisions imposed on them by a national Conservative majority. Does she not therefore agree that it would be entirely obnoxious for the people of England to have a decision imposed on us by a Labour majority in the House produced by Scottish votes?
  Rosemary McKenna: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I am about to make. A huge majority voted against the Conservatives in Scotland, but the Government have a majority in every part of this country and in all its nations, with the exception of our friends in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Gray Mr. Gray rose—
  Rosemary McKenna: I shall not take any more interventions, as I want to allow my hon. Friends the opportunity to contribute to our debate.
  Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I watched "Frost on Sunday", on which the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "I would rather lose the vote than ask Peter Duncan to abandon his principles and vote on top-up fees when they do not have them in Scotland!"
  Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to the same hon. Member who managed to find a principled reason to vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill? Perhaps we have a Mersey tunnel in Scotland—I would be happy to have one, as I desperately need something to break the bottleneck on the A80 in my constituency. The Leader of the Opposition was not only cynical, but was seen to be cynical. His criticism and pretend outrage, which he does so well, make an increasingly disillusioned electorate even more cynical. However, that may be his intention.
  I shall briefly reiterate a point made by many hon. Members. If it is an anomaly for us to vote on certain legislation, we should remember that Westminster has been riddled with anomalies for years. We should remind ourselves of the position of hereditary peers, mostly Tory, who voted without a mandate on legislation affecting everyone. That point was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).
  Kevin Brennan: Is not the key point the fact that the governing party put the proposition of devolution for the countries of the United Kingdom to the people of Scotland and Wales in a referendum? Bills then proceeded through both Houses of Parliament and were enacted—that is how devolutionary measures became law. If the Opposition oppose devolution, should they not put their propositions to the country in an election and hold referendums for the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to see what they say? The Opposition are wrong to try to fetter the rights of every hon. Member through the cynical procedure proposed in the motion.
  Rosemary McKenna: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
  It will be time to look at voting rights in Parliament when we have devolution for the English regions; a settled and fully operational Northern Ireland
  1418
  Assembly, which we all hope will soon be restored; and a reformed House of Lords. Let us have no more nonsense and time wasting in the Chamber on pointless Opposition debates such as this one. If the House ever decides to look at the reform of Members' voting rights it is likely to command support only if there is thoughtful deliberation on the issue and a constitutional convention or something similar that works through consensus and agreement. Even so, we may decide just to leave things as they are.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on the courage with which he advanced his argument—I just hope that that does not become self-sacrificing at the time of the next election.
  The West Lothian question is so called because of the exchanges that took place in 1977, but of course the issue is much older than that—it dates back to 1886 and the original Irish home rule Bills. It is worth reflecting on their provisions. Gladstone's first Bill was quite simple: it was designed to remove all the Irish Members from this House. Because of the obvious inequity of that, his second Bill reversed that and all the Irish Members were to be retained. That experiment reached the end of the road with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. A compromise was adopted, and under the new arrangements Northern Ireland's representation was significantly reduced. Conservative Members may like to bear that in mind. They would perhaps be better pursuing the issue of ensuring that the over-representation of Scotland, which was difficult to justify before devolution, and is impossible to justify now, is addressed more rapidly. The Government are slowly moving in that direction, but it is legitimate to argue about the figures.
  Mrs. Liddell: Progress is already being made on that matter. Very shortly, new boundaries that will lead to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members from 72 to 59 will be in place.
  Mr. Trimble: I appreciate that progress is being made—I merely make the point that Conservative Members would do better to pursue that issue than one that is not valid.
  Mr. Gray: The Scots are moving towards parity with England, but why should they have that when they have their own Parliament? There should be far fewer than 59 Members here in Westminster.
  Mr. Trimble: That is precisely my point. It is a valid issue, unlike the issue that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are pursuing.
  We have heard good arguments, which I will not repeat, about the equality of Members, problems regarding differential majorities on different issues, and the difficulty of distinguishing such issues. With all due respect to the Procedure Committee, I doubt whether it is possible to make such distinctions, given that issues

  1419
  that appear to be exclusively Scottish or English will have consequential effects elsewhere, even if only economic and financial.
  Shona McIsaac: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the debate pack produced by the Library, which confirms his remarks when it states:
  "In practice there is almost no "English-only" legislation at all—bills apply either to the UK, Great Britain or England and Wales together."
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Lady for reinforcing the point that I am trying to make. It is probably impossible to make such distinctions.
  The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said that power devolved is power retained, as did the Minister when he emphasised sovereignty. In the present devolution set-up, it is a mistake to overemphasise the extent to which the devolved Administrations have freedom in the choices that they make. Yes, devolution makes them more accessible and gives them the power to make adjustments, but the extent to which they can do so is significantly limited, because the key decisions—those on taxation and expenditure—are still made here. In that context, we cannot allow parts of the country to be deprived of equal representation. That is a simple, basic point. There may be anomalies elsewhere, but expenditure of taxation is so fundamental to government that there must be equal representation for all parts of the country.
  One must also bear in mind the operation of the block grant. Some of the earlier comments about the Barnett formula missed the point that financial arrangements for the devolved regions are based on public expenditure for England and Wales. Government policy in England and Wales determines the total block grant, which reflects those expenditure decisions. Government policies are therefore crucial for Members from Scotland, Wales and—if devolution occurs again—Northern Ireland, because they determine the total block grant, and that point has certain consequences.
  As I have said, there is scope for local discretion, but it is limited. The Scottish Parliament has said that it will not follow Government policy on tuition fees. That choice is open to it, but it will have to compensate the Scottish universities. How long will that be possible? I know that the Scottish Parliament is better endowed financially than we were in the Northern Ireland Administration. We examined student finance in 2001 and I am happy to say that we decided to reintroduce grants. The Higher Education Bill, which comes before the House next week, will do for England and Wales what we did for Northern Ireland, and I am glad to see that the Government are following our example.
  The Northern Ireland Administration could not go as far as the Scottish Parliament because we could not finance the policy, and the extent to which we could vary our block grant was limited. The Scottish Parliament has a bit more elbow room, but I am not sure how long it can maintain that position. The fact that the Scottish Parliament has taken that decision and is likely to
  1420
  sustain it for the next few weeks or months—or perhaps even for a year or two—cannot be used to justify depriving people of the opportunity to participate in something that is likely to affect them.
  While economic powers on taxation and public expenditure are concentrated in Westminster, the West Lothian question is essentially illusory. The essential power to determine financing rests here and is reinforced by the joint ministerial committees, which are not mentioned very much but which are significant tools used by Whitehall to ensure close co-ordination of policy across the United Kingdom.
  The point is further reinforced by the fact that people's expectations in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are determined by Government policies. Public opinion generated significant pressure in Northern Ireland, although things may be different in Scotland. Public opinion was generated by policy that was originally introduced in England and Wales, and much of the pressure on us was to read across policies as quickly as possible. The distinctions that have been drawn about those matters are quite wrong.
  Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Trimble: I am sorry, but I shall not take any more interventions because I no longer get extra minutes for them and my time is running down.
  A further, simple point is that we are all elected to this Parliament, which has particular powers. We are elected not to be regional or parochial, but to use our judgment as best we can on all the issues that come before us. Even if a matter relates exclusively to part of England, I sometimes feel that I can make a contribution and improve the quality of decision making both for the whole of the United Kingdom and for particular parts of it.
  The Conservative motion is completely misconceived. It is not even in the interests of the Conservative party to pursue the issue, because the way in which it is being addressed will simply reinforce the common view of Conservatism in Scotland, which is unhealthy for the Union and the United Kingdom.
  It would be difficult for Ulster Unionist Members not to support a Government amendment that
  "opposes any step that would undermine the Union".
  I began by congratulating the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and I shall end by congratulating the Government on being firmly Unionist today. I hope that they will repeat the experience tomorrow, and in the days that follow.
  6.5 pm
  John Robertson: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
  The Opposition have recently worked themselves up into a self-righteous frenzy about the voting rights of hon. Members north of the border. First, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) secured an Adjournment debate in which he condemned as outrageous my decision to go through the Lobby, and today, his leader is not using the valuable tool of an Opposition day to discuss an issue of great national importance.

  1421
  The choice of subject constitutes another example of English nationalism, to which other hon. Members have drawn attention. The Tories are aided and abetted by some of their friends north of the border. Inconsistencies are revealed when we consider the different standards that the Tories apply to different parts of the United Kingdom. They have mentioned foundation hospitals and tuition fees, neither of which applies to Scotland. However, they do not apply in Northern Ireland either, yet Ulster Members have not been subjected to the same criticism as Scottish Members.
  If hon. Members are to vote only on subjects that affect their constituencies, the logical conclusion is that no London Member should vote on transport issues, which are now the responsibility of the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly. Why did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill and twice on foundation hospitals? The Tories are hypocritical and opportunistic.
  It is disappointing that Conservative Members take such a simplistic approach to the constitution. Some parts of Bills apply to the United Kingdom and others only to England and Wales.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  John Robertson: I shall—although in his Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman did not.
  Mr. Gray: The record will show that my speech was excessively long because I gave way so often. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read Hansard. However, I am grateful to him for giving way to me.
  Why should Scottish Members of Parliament come to England to vote against foxhunting in England when English Members of Parliament have no say on foxhunting in Scotland?
  John Robertson: I know that foxhunting is very important to the hon. Gentleman, but I have the same voting rights as him. I vote on the same legislation as he does. [Interruption.] I can and will vote on foxhunting.
  Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  John Robertson: I am sorry, but I want to move on. I shall give way later.
  Parts of the Higher Education Bill apply to Scotland. The introduction of variable fees will affect Scotland. I doubt whether I shall be able to get in during the debate next week, so I want to put it on the record that Scottish universities are better funded now. The rate of the increase in funding in future will mean that they are 15 to 16 per cent. better funded. They will still be given extra moneys under the current system until 2009–10, when the position will be re-examined. That will be roughly on a par with what the variable fees will do in England, so there will not be such a disparity between Scotland and England as some hon. Members have implied. My great concern is the perception that Scottish students may be put at a slight disadvantage in that the wages in English universities might be higher
  1422
  than in Scotland. That problem must be looked at, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to do such things. That is what devolution was all about: Scotland should examine matters that pertain to Scotland, and we examine matters that pertain to the United Kingdom.
  Hon. Members have mentioned how important are the finances of the UK—
  Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman asked how many measures he could no longer vote on. Well, he cannot vote on hospitals, schools or most of the domestic agenda in his own constituency, but he can vote on hospitals, schools and most of the domestic agenda in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Surely that is absurd.
  John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his input, but he is backing up exactly what I said. I cannot vote on those things and neither can he, so we are in exactly the same boat when it comes to voting on legislation. I realise that that is a slightly negative way of looking at it, but we all vote on the same legislation. The hon. Gentleman tells me that I cannot vote on some things—but that is because those matters are taken care of in Scotland.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Fair point—but does the hon. Gentleman not find it slightly offensive to the basic principles of democratic conduct that when he exercises his right to vote as a UK Member of Parliament, he may be doing so on matters that do not in any way affect his constituents, but do affect mine?
  John Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, he has not listened to the contributions of others—particularly that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats—about the finances of the country. Every Bill that passes through the House has a financial effect on the UK. In an excellent contribution, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reiterated that point. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) can fail to grasp that UK finances have an effect on Scotland and the Scottish people.
  Mr. Gray Mr. Gray rose—
  John Robertson: I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman, which is more generous than he was in Westminster Hall.
  Sir George Young Sir George Young rose—
  John Robertson: I want to move on a bit.
  The Opposition parties have one thing in common: they want to become the Government, which is perfectly fair. However, they should do that through politics and the ballot box, not by trying to move the goalposts sideways and reinvent what politics is all about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said in Westminster Hall:
  "I wonder whether we would be having this debate today if we had a Conservative Government with a large number of Conservative Members in Scotland. I suspect not."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416. c. 44WH.]

  1423
  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We definitely would not have had today's debate if the Conservative party had maintained the sort of support that it had in the past. It is up to Conservative Members to ask themselves why they do not receive support north of the border.
  I greatly admire the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale: he and I agree on many things, but not on this. I also have to tell him that I hope he loses his seat in the next general election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Because of the boundary changes, I know that it will become a Labour seat. We shall have another Labour MP in Scotland. I noticed a wonderful Freudian slip in the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which summed up the Conservative party well. He said that his hands were buried in the sand. I know that he meant to say "heads", but "hands" was what he said. It is a Freudian slip, because that is exactly where they were when he was writing his speech—buried in the sand.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) told me—he is away now, putting on his monkey suit for a dinner tonight—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale was being made a patsy. I can tell hon. Members that that term means the same as "fall guy". The Leader of the Opposition set the hon. Gentleman up with this debate, which has no purpose other than to allow Scots to have a go at each other, and Labour Members to have a go at the Opposition. It has been fun, and I have enjoyed it, but the debate has been a misuse of parliamentary time.
  My hon. Friend the Minister made the important point that this is a constitutional issue. If Conservative Front-Bench Members had their way, the Union would be split up. I think of the Conservative party these days as the English national party, and its members will be eagerly abetted by the Scottish National party—whom we call the Tartan Tories. They are the same, and I am sure that we will see that when the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) makes his contribution. His conservative tendencies will be evident as he sets out his own form of nationalism. There is no doubt that we will have some fun with that.
  The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that Conservative Members were looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I can tell him that they have not even taken off the lens cap. They are not even looking into the abyss: they have no clue what they are looking at. That is another problem, because we are talking about what is good for Scotland and for the British people. The Opposition want to get rid of Scottish MPs, who they think have nothing to contribute. However, I believe that the Scots have contributed more than a little to the history of the House, and I like to think that some of us will do a lot more in the years to come.
  In all seriousness, the debate has a sad aspect—the increase in nationalism in this country. We all know what nationalism has done throughout the world. It does nothing to enhance politics. We know the effects of bigotry, and this country would be in a worse state if we were to give in to it. I urge Opposition Members to join me in supporting the Union in the Lobby tonight.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: First and foremost, I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, I also represent an English constituency. It is vital that all hon. Members remember that our duty is to govern the country in an equal and fair manner. As a Conservative and Unionist, I will not support any proposal that would undermine the nation's unity in any way.
  I urge all hon. Members, especially those who have complained about so-called English nationalism, to accept that the constitutional mess sadly created by this Government's policies assists those who want to create the divisions in our country that the vast majority of hon. Members oppose. Hon. Members of all parties must ensure that our policies and ideas are formed in the knowledge that our responsibility is to govern all British people, in the whole of the country. It is wrong that any legislation should benefit one part of the UK preferentially.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am confused: is he supporting the motion or not? I hope that he will clarify that. He believes that our constitution is in a mess, but Opposition Front-Bench Members have said—today, at any rate—that they support the devolution settlement. Does the hon. Gentleman support it?
  Mr. Rosindell: I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That Union must be based on fair and equal constitutional government across the kingdom. The present system is not fair to the whole of the UK. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was correct to say that, if a Scottish Parliament has devolved powers, the only logical conclusion is that England should have a Parliament as well. Let me make it clear to all hon. Members, however, that I do not support the idea of an English Parliament like the Scottish Parliament that has been created. I should like to see one electoral system and one general election held on the same day for the whole United Kingdom. The issue would then be about which matters we, as English, Scottish or Welsh MPs, thought should be devolved, so that we could separate to decide on them. It is completely wrong that Romford has one Member of Parliament but that a Scottish or Welsh constituency has a Member of Parliament here at Westminster plus a Member of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. That is the complete mess brought about by the current constitutional arrangement.
  I honestly believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I have had many discussions on a number of issues, is committed to the Union, as I am. Many of the personalised attacks that have been made this afternoon on my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) are unfair, because he has simply tried to raise a constitutional anomaly which, if we are not careful, will end up dividing our country far more than at present.
  Rosemary McKenna: If the hon. Gentleman believes that his constituents are disadvantaged because we have

  1425
  Members of the Scottish Parliament, what steps is he taking to support the Government's attempt to provide regional government in England, which would give his constituents exactly the same privileges as we have?
  Mr. Rosindell: When the hon. Lady talks of regional government, she insults everyone in England. England, no less than Scotland, is a nation. To condemn English nationalism, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) did earlier, is divisive. I detest any policy that is likely to divide our country further. I entered Parliament, and joined the Conservative and Unionist party, first and foremost because I believe in this country—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are in a constitutional mess, and we must return to the real issue of how to resolve that problem.
  I reiterate that we must have a fair and equal system across the country. We do not need to create more politicians, as we have done with the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We need only one MP per constituency, and we could then divide up on devolved issues. I would have no problem if the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sat in an Edinburgh Parliament as the hon. Member for Stirling to deal with education, health or local government, as long as I could also sit in an English Parliament to do the same. What is wrong is that we have two MPs for Stirling, one called an MSP and one, the hon. Lady present today, sitting in Westminster. We must have one Parliament, one electoral system and one general election—a simple system that is fair and equal for all people throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mrs. McGuire: I know from our discussions how committed the hon. Gentleman is to the Union, and I remember that he tried to become a Scottish Member of this Parliament when he stood as the candidate for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party in Glasgow, Provan. As he will remember, he indulged in a fairly interesting election campaign.
  Will the hon. Gentleman consider the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to leave it there?
  Mr. Rosindell: I am delighted that the Minister remembered that I was first a candidate in Glasgow, Provan. I was proud to stand for that constituency, which was a long way from home. I admit that it was a place that I knew little about, but it was none the less part of my country. I stood as a Conservative and Unionist candidate at a time when many members of my party were willing to ditch the word "Unionist". I shall never do that.
  I urge the Minister: please, let us not bury our heads in the sand. Many people in England are increasingly angry and hurt by the current situation. We need to find a permanent resolution to this constitutional anomaly.
  Mr. David Marshall: The hon. Gentleman said that he entered Parliament to support the unity of the United Kingdom. He became a Member only two and a half years ago, in 2001, so can
  1426
  he understand that those of us who entered the House in 1979, and suffered 18 years of opposition and opposed the policies of the Conservative Government, which caused tremendous harm and hardship to Scots and Scotland, do not have great sympathy for the situation of the hon. Gentleman and his party? Can he also understand that those policies and that Conservative Government presented a far bigger threat to the Union—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting longer and longer and time is running out.
  Mr. Rosindell: I accept the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was making. As a United Kingdom MP, I believe that my constituents and people in England must accept the decision of the United Kingdom Parliament. Sometimes things work out the other way around.
  First and foremost, I am a United Kingdom MP and although, in my view, the present situation does not benefit my constituents, I accept that we are one nation. Several countries make up the United Kingdom but we are one people and one nation, and any Member of Parliament or any individual who undermines the Union damages the future of our nation.
  The West Lothian question is not new. There are many other anomalies. We govern the British overseas territories, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, yet their people have no vote in the House. I should like this place to be truly the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all British people should be represented here, while deciding for themselves on locally devolved issues—whether in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the House of Assembly of Gibraltar. We must always be a United Kingdom Parliament, however, governing all British people equally throughout the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and the territories that remain British and for which we are responsible.
  I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, who is tackling a very difficult situation for our country. I hope that hon. Members will stop personalising the issue and realise that there is a serious constitutional anomaly. We should work as a United Kingdom Parliament to solve the problem in the long term. If we politicise it—as has happened to a great extent in the debate—we shall be further divided and we shall further undermine the unity of our country. We shall be doing the greatest disservice that Members of Parliament could ever do to the United Kingdom.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I want to bring the debate back from the somewhat intriguing vision of an imperial Parliament, covering all the parts of the globe that are still coloured red, to the practicalities of the Conservative proposals.
  Mr. Savidge Mr. Savidge rose—
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a little while.

  1427
  The practical difficulties cannot simply be laughed off as the Conservatives have tried to do today. Members on both sides of the Chamber have given examples that show how the proposals would not work in a practical sense. I want to dwell on two of those in more detail and take some of the lessons that need to be drawn from them.
  First, the Higher Education Bill, which comes to the House next week, has been mentioned. Clauses on tuition fees will not be applicable to Scotland, but they have implications for Scotland. Large parts of the Bill will be directly applicable to Scotland as well. Therefore, clearly, that cannot be regarded as an English-only measure.
  Last year's legislation on foundation hospitals was applicable only to England, although it clearly had UK-wide implications, including many sections that applied to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. A couple of years ago a number of hon. Members who are present in the Chamber served with me on the Standing Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill. That contained provisions some of which applied to the UK as a whole, some of which applied only to England and Wales, some of which applied only to Scotland and some of which applied only to Northern Ireland.
  The consequence of the Conservatives' proposals would be to have what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) so graphically described as a hokey-kokey, with Members from different parts of the UK having to run into the Chamber, vote on those provisions affecting only their areas, then leave again as the English Members came in for their bits and went out again to be replaced by the Northern Ireland Members. There would be no way to have any serious debate of broad issues of principle.
  At what stages in the process would the voting ban on Scottish Members, and perhaps in due course Northern Irish and Welsh Members, apply? Would it just be on Report, when we deal with specific amendments and clauses? Or would it apply to Standing Committees as well? Would it apply to Second and Third Readings, when we are voting on proposals as a whole? Would it apply just to those measures that are exclusively English, of which there are hardly any? Or would it apply to those measures where the bulk of a Bill applies to England only, but where there are certain important Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish consequences as well? How would that new system work?
  Would we have two-, three-, or four-stemmed Second Reading debates, in which we voted for the Scottish bits, the Northern Irish bits, the Welsh bits and the English or UK bits? What should we do if a measure received Second Reading approval for the English bits, but not the Scottish or Welsh bits? How should we resolve the differences? Clearly, it is a recipe for constitutional chaos and could not be managed meaningfully within this Chamber.
  The only arrangement that would be even more unworkable is that which I understand is favoured by the Scottish National party. The present proposal at least has some clarity, in that measures that were
  1428
  applicable only to England would not be ones on which Scottish Members could vote. The Scottish National party would replace that with a pick-and-mix system under which a Scottish Member could choose the issues on which he or she wanted to vote. The reality is that there is hardly any issue that one could not, if one wished, suggest had some implications for Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies.
  Mr. Savidge: The Mersey tunnel.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: In that case it might be hard to see a Scottish connection. However, for example, the London underground might be thought of as a matter for debate simply by London Members, but London is the capital of the UK, and what happens to transport in my constituents' capital city is of interest to them. Hardly any measure could be seen to have no implications for Scotland.
  Mr. Gray: What possible relevance does fox hunting in England have to people in Edinburgh, North and Leith?
  Mr. Foulkes: The foxes go over the border.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I am happy to accept that there is a theoretical anomaly in the position that the hon. Gentleman describes, but the question is this: what is the price of trying to work out a system to resolve that anomaly? The result of the solution to the dilemma that the hon. Gentleman highlights would be to undermine the entire way in which the Executive relates to the legislature in this Chamber. As a consequence of the Conservatives' proposals, there would be occasions when the Executive chosen by the majority in the House could not command a majority for its legislation. In the long run, we would end up in a situation in which we had the official Government, the Executive, and on some measures a shadow Cabinet, the shadow Government, acting as if it were a semi-detached Government with some status in this Chamber. Obviously, that would be unsustainable.
  In the long run, the only outcome would be that there would be pressure to set up an English Parliament with powers relating to many matters that are relevant to England only. Like many of my hon. Friends, I do not necessarily oppose that proposition, but I suspect that many hon. Members with English constituencies would much prefer to have a federal system within England instead of an English Parliament that would inevitably be much more dominated by the south-east and London. We could discuss that subject in due course, but it seems to me that if we were to set up an English Parliament, that should be done by choice and as a result of debate on that issue, as opposed to being brought in through the back door by a constitutional mechanism that would bring chaos to the workings of the House if it were ever put into effect.
  We should ask ourselves, why are we being invited to go down that road today? Is there really great public or parliamentary demand for such a change? I am not aware of any public tumult in England demanding such

  1429
  a change, although there may well be if the Tories keep trying to whip up anti-Scottish feelings, as some of them want to do.
  Mr. Peter Duncan Mr. Peter Duncan rose—
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I will give way in a second.
  If there had been a great deal of concern within Parliament, we might have seen slightly more Conservative MPs from England in the Chamber today. There certainly does not seem to be any major concern about the issue on their side, even though it is their debate.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman asks how widespread this concern is. He knows that there is majority support for our proposals among the wider electorate in Scotland. They know that devolution, to be stable, needs to work properly, and to work properly needs to be stable. Why is he refusing to accept that?
  Mr. Lazarowicz: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I have not had a vast influx of constituents demanding such a change. In fact, not one has expressed that view, and I should be interested to know how many hon. Members have been contacted by anyone demanding such a change.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House well know, the Conservatives are suggesting this measure today purely because it is seen as a good piece of political opportunism to take advantage of one or two slight difficulties with the majority on the Government side. [Interruption.] Everyone knows that. It is for Oppositions to cause embarrassment to Governments from time to time and to take advantage of the opportunities that arise, but the Conservatives really should consider the forces that they are in danger of unleashing in political debate in this country. It is fair for them to ask the questions that they are asking today, and it would be fair to develop a debate on them over a period, but to put it bluntly, the way in which these issues are being raised today and have been raised previously, even though they have been raised by a Member from a Scottish constituency, is designed to start whipping up anti-Scottish feeling and resentment among the electorate in England. That is what it is about.
  I have always been one of those who thought that separation of Scotland from England would only be likely to come about not because a majority in Scotland wanted it. but if politicians in England started playing an anti-Scottish card for short-term popularity. That is what the Conservatives are in danger of doing by pursuing the line they are taking today, and which they took in a recent Westminster Hall debate.
  It is precisely because I want the Union between Scotland and England to survive and prosper, strengthened by devolution, that I hope that the House will reject the Conservative motion today. I urge all those in the House, on whichever side of it they sit, who do not want to see separation between England and Scotland, who do not want to see border guards at Berwick and customs examinations at Carlisle—[Interruption.] I do not expect support from Scottish National party Members today. I urge all those who do
  1430
  not want to see that separation, including those Conservative Members who realise the danger of the road on which they are treading—there must surely be some—to support the Government amendment tonight.
  6.39 pm
  Pete Wishart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very surprised to be called so late in the debate, and I will be brief.
  Like the Conservatives, I want to find a solution to the West Lothian question, but I want a solution that is fair to England and fair to Scotland, too. What the Conservatives are suggesting—that Scottish Members stay away from the vote next week—will, indeed, be fair to England, but it mostly definitely will not be fair to Scotland because, if the Bill goes ahead, it will lose out quite significantly: up to £100 million of funding. We would experience a decrease in staff and resources over the year, and our effective advantage would then be compromised.
  The Conservatives believe that the devolution settlement is some sort of perfect arrangement, whereby the Scottish Parliament takes its decisions, determines its own agenda and policies and is then locked in some sort of vacuum, impervious to any decision that is taken down here in the larger, Big Brother House—but the devolution settlement is far from perfect. As the settlement currently stands, the Scottish Parliament is very much only a pocket-money Parliament. We are still very vulnerable to decisions taken down here.
  It is in every Scottish Member's interests to ensure that Scotland's interests are protected and defended. That should be the sole priority of Scottish Members in the House. Those in Scottish Labour know that, and they have a solution to the West Lothian question. It is quite simply that the Scottish Parliament should do as the Big Brother UK Parliament should do, too. Even if tuition fees are bad for Scotland, their solution is quite simple: the Scottish Parliament should simply adopt tuition fees as a policy too—so much for internal democracy, so much decision making, so much for separate solutions for separate legislatures and so much for their commitment to devolution.
  Labour Members say that there is a problem with jumping in and out of legislation. Well, that is not a big deal; it is what we have been doing for the past 10 years. If the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) does not want to do the hokey-cokey, we will provide the information for him and let him know which measures will be voted on. If that is too much of a big deal for him, why does he not get the underemployed Scotland Office to give him a brief on the exceptions that are confined to Scotland? In that way, he would no longer have to play that game and do the hokey-cokey.
  There is a solution: give Scotland financial responsibility and fiscal autonomy, and the Barnett formula immediately goes. Better still—give Scotland independence and England, too. In that way, the Lobby fodder of Scottish MPs will not be needed to get English legislation through.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: This has been a good-natured debate, which has generated some excited interest. That is down to my hon. Friend

  1431
  the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) —he is so often mistaken for my brother—who initiated the debate and who in what he bravely said wants to define a procedure for the House that embraces equity, fairness and consistency.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me a minor diversion, just to pay tribute to the originator of the entire issue: the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—or for West Lothian, as he will perhaps be better remembered. He and I first encountered each other on this very issue 25 years ago. Indeed, when devolution referendums took place at the end of the Callaghan Government, the hon. Gentleman was a champion of the issue. As the president of the Oxford union, I oversaw a televised debate, and the hon. Gentleman pulled out at the very last minute. He said that the BBC was behaving badly and that, because there was a 40 per cent. threshold, staying away was equivalent to voting no. In his normal, logical way he became very angry, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) replaced him—in a pretty ghastly brown suit, but that is by the by.
  The hon. Gentleman will not mind if I tell the House that, 25 years later, he had the good grace to confess that the real reason that he pulled out was that those in the vote no campaign decided, at the very last minute, that they did not want to parade before the cameras someone who might be thought to be an Etonian toff. Well, I can assure him that we see him not as a toff, but as the Father of the House and the originating and enduring champion of the issue that we are debating today.
  All new constitutional arrangements create new problems. As Lord Lawson said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is bit like simplifying taxation—it always makes it more complicated. What devolution has done is to create some new complications. It is all about who has power over what, and by what right. Scotland wanted power over its own affairs in some areas separate from the House, and it has now got it. But we now have the classic and almost insoluble overlap and inconsistency of the legislative power that has followed.
  There are two sides to the West Lothian question—perhaps doubly galling for Scottish MPs. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, but English MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters. The situation is doubly irritating because in addition to English MPs being unable to vote on Scottish matters, Scottish MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters. They can no longer vote on many matters that affect their constituents because they are devolved matters.
  Mr. Savidge Mr. Savidge rose—
  Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? We are short of time and I know that the Minister wants a good 10 minutes to speak, so I hope that he will accept my apologies.
  Let me address several worries that have arisen during the debate, one of which is very odd. The first concern is that addressing the conundrum would somehow create two-tier MPs. However, we have that situation at present to a large extent. There is already an imbalance,
  1432
  and our proposal is designed to rectify that in several respects. Scottish MPs have more authority over English affairs than English MPs—and Scottish MPs, to some extent—have over Scottish affairs. That inconsistency requires rebalancing. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was in the Chamber a few moments ago, spotted the problem 25 years ago. He said:
  "it would be wrong for those of us from Scotland to…interfere in English domestic affairs after"—
  devolution—
  "has been reached."—[Official Report, 1 February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 457.]
  Devolution has been reached and the inconsistency has now arisen.
  In response to a further objection that was raised, I argue that the proposal before us today would not jeopardise the integrity of the United Kingdom—it might do the opposite. It would establish a practice that would be more likely to secure that integrity and that would stabilise, rather than complicate, our procedures.
  We live with having Scottish Members in the Cabinet, such as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Chancellor is Scottish and we had a Scottish Foreign Secretary for some time. They have occupied their posts for the whole United Kingdom—indeed, the Chancellor's ever-growing taxes affect Scotland as much as England and Wales. We can live with that, but if we consider the way in which hon. Members vote on specific measures, there is inconsistency. If it is not addressed, there will be renewed pressure for an English Parliament and, thus, perhaps further fragmentation of the United Kingdom.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) persuasively argued, recent events have sown the seeds of English and Welsh discontent more deeply. Measures for England have been enacted that could not have been enacted without the support of Scottish Members. However, as if to add insult to injury, the very same measures have been rejected in Scotland. Indeed, the same Scottish Members would have rejected the measures for Scotland if they had possessed a vote. The situation rubs our noses in it. It is as if Scottish Members are saying, "We're not going to have it ourselves, but we're going to force it on you", and, worse, demanding the right to do the opposite in England to that which they would choose to do in Scotland.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
  Hon. Members mentioned the poll tax, but there was no devolution at the time. Although devolution occurred later, we had the poll tax in England, too.
  Let me canter through the alternatives. The Liberal Democrats propose a federal United Kingdom, but Conservative Members do not support that. Equally, we do not support the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. Complete Scottish independence has been suggested. We could have what might be called the "Rifkind option" of a double majority. Under that option, the

  1433
  support of the majority of English Members and the majority of the whole House—Scottish Members would thus be allowed to vote—would be required before any measure could pass.
  We could establish an English Grand Committee or have English-only days. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suggested during a Westminster Hall debate that Scottish Members could also make up the Scottish Parliament, which would give them a dual mandate and introduce a measure of consistency to parliamentary conduct. We could have a voluntary convention, but as the Government have trampled over many such conventions, I doubt that that would last. The proposal in the motion is that the Speaker should certify the category into which Bills should fall. That might help my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale with any vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, especially if such a Division took place after dinner.
  The situation could be serious if we fail to address the problem. [Interruption.] Perhaps even the Scottish nationalists would listen to this point because it is important and I want to admit it to the Minister. It would be really serious if the UK Government commanded an overall majority only with the help of Scottish Members of Parliament. Without the practice we advocate, and without it being established now as the way to conduct our business, a future Government in such a challenging arithmetical predicament could find its entire legitimacy questioned.
  Our proposal would remove the indignation of being told what to do by a minority of MPs who are unaffected by their actions. It is designed to introduce greater stability to procedures that are rubbing along unhappily and causing growing indignation. It would draw the sting of those complaints and build a practice that addresses the West Lothian question and introduces a new force for stability and fairness in the way in which we conduct our affairs.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Although the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) conducted his contribution in a calm manner, the Conservative motion is another example of the brazen opportunism that guides the tunnel vision—perhaps through the Mersey tunnel as my hon. Friends have suggested—of Tory policy under their latest leader.
  Let us be clear about the principle on which this Parliament is based and should be based in future. In the House, every Member of Parliament is equal. All Members can speak on all subjects. The suggestion to the contrary is divisive and dangerous, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Having equality for Members of Parliament at the centre is symbolic of our aspiration for all corners of the United Kingdom to be treated equally. It is an essential unifying part of our country. To say that one class of Member of Parliament must only vote
  1434
  on one class of issue is the slippery slope down which I doubt the Opposition truly want to go in the unlikely event that they ever get into government again.
  David Burnside: In promoting the most pro-Union of policies that has ever been heard from a party that traditionally is not regarded as a pro-Union party, does the Minister agree that it is time he put up candidates in all parts of the United Kingdom, won more pro-Union Labour seats in Northern Ireland and separated himself from the separatist nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party?
  Mr. Leslie: Clearly a political party can choose to stand wherever it wishes. The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed with his historic allies, the Conservative party, whom he feels unable to support tonight. I understand that he will side with Her Majesty's Government. In that, he is most welcome. Although some hon. Members mentioned their worries about the constitutional symmetry across the country, it is not simply a matter for Scotland, but is relevant to other parts of the country as well. The West Lothian question is just as much a west Belfast question. If we need to correct something for Scotland, which we do not, we also need to address it in Northern Ireland. Northern Irish Members of Parliament frequently voted on non-Northern Ireland business when the Assembly was up and functioning. Curiously, there was no objection from the Conservatives at the time. I suspect that their constitutional outrage is convenient and flexible, appearing only when they want it to.
  Let us be honest about what we are discussing. The debate is little more than a cynical tactic aimed at the Higher Education Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith explained. It does not matter to the Conservatives that it affects Scotland, in both policy and financial terms. It is irrelevant to the Tories that Scottish Members of Parliament have a legitimate Scottish interest. If it affects UK revenue and UK expenditure, of course it is a UK concern. In trying to drive a wedge into the Bill, the Opposition have raised the red herring of the West Lothian question.
  Let us consider the simple answer to the West Lothian question. English Members of Parliament backed devolution to Scotland. The UK Parliament chose to devolve some of its powers. Parliament is content, and English Members of Parliament are content, to live with devolution. We opted, of our own free will, to create the current devolution settlement. There is no question of any unwanted imposition from Scotland on the rest of the country, as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) seemed to suggest. That is the answer to the West Lothian question. English Members of Parliament, by an overwhelming majority, voted for, and continue to support, devolution to Scotland and the present constitutional settlement. The English people, too, supported Labour's manifesto at the last two general elections and are content with the constitutional settlement.
  As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the West Lothian question is essentially illusory and the Conservatives have completely misconceived the matter. He spoke about the issue of whether devolution removes the need for special

  1435
  representation by Scotland here at Westminster. The boundary commission for Scotland is reviewing the number of constituencies in Scotland to achieve parity throughout the United Kingdom.
  The UK Parliament retains the right to legislate on devolved matters and it retains overall sovereignty, so the West Lothian question is a red herring. In arguing their case, Conservative Members have stumbled into a terrible tangle of double standards, and there is an awful lot of Tory inconsistency. One almost has to admire the sheer effrontery and confected outrage in the arguments of Conservative Members. The Leader of the Opposition now says with unblinking gravitas that, as a point of high principle, he has instructed that not a single one of his Scottish MPs will be allowed to take part in the proceedings on the Higher Education Bill. He is withdrawing the massed ranks of his Scottish forces, all one of them—what a sweeping but completely transparent gesture.
  Rather inconveniently, however, it appears that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has voted 37 times on non-Scottish-specific business, including, I reiterate, the Mersey Tunnels Bill. Yet the Conservatives have the cheek to say in their motion that
  "it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntarily to abstain from voting on such legislation".
  I suspect that it is not his practice, but perhaps he means that it will now be his practice.
  There is a lot of Tory inconsistency here. What about the poll tax? It was imposed on Scotland when the vast majority of MPs there objected. The Tories had no qualms then. Where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) said, was the West Lothian question when the Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister responsible for local government, was the begetter of, and driving force behind, the poll tax? When recently asked about the poll tax, the Leader of the Opposition said that
  "it was a bold and brave experiment".
  That was clearly not the view of people in Scotland.
  When we look at the list of English Conservative Front Benchers, we see that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, represents an English, not a Welsh, constituency. To be fair, on a clear day, from the top of a hill, with a pair of binoculars, one can probably just about see into Wales from his constituency, so that is all right. The Tories are completely inconsistent.
  Let us look at the array of alternatives suggested by the Conservatives. Some Members have said that we have a constitutional mess, and others that they support devolution. I suspect that the Conservatives' gut instinct is to scrap devolution altogether, and if that is the case, why do they not just come out and say so? They also want to force the Speaker to rip apart Bills—
  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 proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 142, Noes 377.

  Division No. 35]

  [6:58 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Howard, rh Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bacon, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Bercow, John

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Loughton, Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maclean, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clappison, James

  Mates, Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Collins, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Conway, Derek

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Pickles, Eric

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Flook, Adrian

  Randall, John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Redwood, rh John

  Francois, Mark

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Goodman, Paul

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Ruffley, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Selous, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Greenway, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hague, rh William

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spring, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  1437

  Swayne, Desmond

  Watkinson, Angela

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Whittingdale, John

  Syms, Robert

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and Gregory Barker

  Walter, Robert

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allan, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cohen, Harry

  Baker, Norman

  Coleman, Iain

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cotter, Brian

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cruddas, Jon

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Best, Harold

  Cummings, John

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blair, rh Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Borrow, David

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Davidson, Ian

  Breed, Colin

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Denham, rh John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Burnside, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Burstow, Paul

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Cairns, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Caplin, Ivor

  Farrelly, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Challen, Colin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  1438

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foster, rh Derek

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lamb, Norman

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lammy, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lepper, David

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gilroy, Linda

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hancock, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harvey, Nick

  McDonnell, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacDougall, John

  McFall, John

  Healey, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Heath, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heppell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  MacShane, Denis

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McWilliam, John

  Heyes, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Marsden. Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Mole, Chris

  Hutton, rh John

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Moran, Margaret

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Morgan, Julie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Olner, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Organ, Diana

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Owen, Albert

  1439

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Plaskitt, James

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Stringer, Graham

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pound, Stephen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor. Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Teather, Sarah

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thurso, John

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Trickett, Jon

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

  Trimble, rh David

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Ward, Claire

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell Bob (Colchester)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Weir, Michael

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Short, rh Clare

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Willis, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wishart, Pete

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

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

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Helen

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Speller, rh John

  Squire, Rachel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Vernon Coaker and Paul Clark

  Steinberg, Gerry

  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 364, Noes 141.

  Division No. 36]

  [7:16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cotter, Brian

  Allan, Richard

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Baker, Norman

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Banks, Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davidson, Ian

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, rh John

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Blackman, Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doughty, Sue

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Breed, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brennan, Kevin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Fisher, Mark

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Burnside, David

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Cairns, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Foulkes, rh George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Goggins, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  1441

  Heath, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heyes, David

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Miliband, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mole, Chris

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hutton, rh John

  Moore, Michael

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Julie

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Organ, Diana

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Owen, Albert

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Perham, Linda

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Lamb, Norman

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Lammy, David

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pound, Stephen

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prescott, rh John

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell. rh Mrs Helen

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Linton, Martin

  Purchase, Ken

  Love, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McCabe, Stephen

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

  McCafferty, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  MacDougall, John

  McFall, John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooney, Terry

  McKechin, Ann

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  1442

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Teather, Sarah

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Thurso, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd. Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Salter, Martin

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trimble, rh David

  Sawford, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Short, rh Clare

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth Helen

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Spellar, rh John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Willis, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Wills, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Vernon Coaker and Paul Clark

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Collins, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Conway, Derek

  Bacon, Richard

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Barker, Gregory

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Brady, Graham

  Flook, Adrian

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodman, Paul

  Butterfill. Sir John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Cash, William

  Grayling, Chris

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Greenway, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, rh John

  1443

  Hague, rh William

  Randall, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Redwood, rh John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hendry, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Ruffley, David

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Selous, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Jack, rh Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Simmonds, Mark

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lensley, Andrew

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Streeter, Gary

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Maclean, rh David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Mercer, Patrick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Weir, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wiggin, Bill

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Wilkinson, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Wishart, Pete

  Paterson, Owen

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, rh Sir George

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Francois

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That this House believes that Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that all Right honourable and honourable Members are equal in status and have a right to speak and vote on all matters brought before Parliament; and opposes any step that would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NATIONAL LOTTERY
    That the draft New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.

  Honours System
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate after a third attempt. In fact, when I first applied for the debate prior to the Christmas recess, I was informed by the Table Office that any questions on the honours system were answered by the Prime Minister and that, because my right hon. Friend does not reply to Adjournment debates, it would be impossible for me to secure such a debate. However, I raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions and was relieved to hear that he was of a similar frame of mind to myself and that a Cabinet Office Minister could reply. I am more than delighted to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) in his place this evening to do just that.
  For some considerable time I have been extremely anxious about an apparent lack of transparency and openness in our honours system, and I am sure that other hon. Members and the public as a whole are concerned when some people receive honours for one reason or another, but many others in our communities appear to miss out—despite having as good as, if not a stronger, case for recognition of their achievements.
  During December The Sunday Times ran an article about the leaking of a secret document by a Whitehall whistleblower. Apparently, according to the article, the minutes of the main honours committee revealed
  "the government's obsession with spin and rewarding Labour sympathisers".
  Does not the secrecy of the system lend itself to such an accusation, irrespective of which Government are in power?
  Honours for purely party-political services were discontinued in 1966, but that policy was reversed under the premierships of Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, and John Major continued the policy of awarding political honours. However, it would be wrong to say that no attempts have been made in the past to address problems within the system. In fact, as long ago as the premiership of Lloyd George, and following scandals about honours being "bought", we saw the establishment of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in 1923. Following the setting up of a royal commission a year earlier to examine the procedures for the award of honours, its report eventually led to the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Strangely, there have been no prosecutions under that Act.
  There have also been some recent and welcome improvements. In 1998, the Committee on Standards in Public Life under Lord Neill recommended that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee should be renamed the Honours Scrutiny Committee and that the committee should be asked to scrutinise every case where a nominee for an honour of CBE or above had directly or indirectly donated £5,000 or more to a political party during the preceding five years. The committee should be satisfied that the donation had made no contribution to the nomination for an honour.

  1445
  A further review in 2001, commissioned by Sir Richard Wilson, looked at how the nominations system had developed over the 1990s. The dedicated nominations unit was established and a standard nomination form was produced.
  It is the apparent lack of transparency in the honours system and the continuing under-recognition of the unsung heroes in our local communities on which I wish to concentrate my brief comments. Evidence suggests that about 30,000 "live" nominations are currently within the system. An average of 6,000 new nominations come in annually, and about the same number of unsuccessful nominations are taken off the list in order to keep it manageable.
  My first point is that anyone making a nomination has no idea whether it is still being considered—unless, of course, the individual that they nominated receives an honour. To the best of my knowledge, no notification is given to those who have taken the time and the effort to submit a nomination. Bearing in mind that for the majority of applications it can take in excess of 18 months before an outcome is determined, I believe that notification of an unsuccessful application should be given. I suggest that, when the decision is made to remove a person's name from the list, all the people who supported the nomination should be informed of the decision not to progress it further. Leaving people in ignorance is no longer an option.
  Much media attention was centred on the refusal by the poet Benjamin Zepheniah to accept an OBE. However, it has become clear that refusals are not uncommon. The figures show that, over the past eight or nine years, refusals have averaged about 2 per cent. a year. Undoubtedly, the reasons for that decision vary. If people refuse an honour, that is their choice, but those who have made nominations are entitled to know the outcome.
  In recent years, there has been a fairly significant shift in the percentage of awards to people who dedicate so much of their time to voluntary work. I very much welcome that. In the 1994 birthday honours list, only one award in three was given for voluntary service. That figure rose to much nearer 50 per cent. over the next 10 years. In the 1999 new year's honours list, 57 per cent. of awards went to people who did voluntary work. However, I think that a greater percentage—of the order of 75 per cent. or even 80 per cent. of the awards—should go to those unsung heroes who dedicate so much of their time to voluntary service.
  A huge number of nominations have been submitted from my constituency. Some of them have my endorsement, as I am aware of the quality of the community work that the people involved have carried out locally. My frustration at the lack of progress being made with the nominations is matched only by that of the people who made the submissions.
  As might be expected, local people try—rightly or wrongly—to draw comparisons between the nominations that they have submitted and the awards that are made. Often, they become exasperated when a person who has received one honour then receives a second. That exasperation is even more intense when such recipients are seen to be doing no more than the jobs that they are employed to do.
  1446
  Inevitably, honours will continue to be bestowed on people who excel in their career or profession. Indeed, it could be argued that too few awards are made to people in professions such as teaching, nursing and social work. However, it is the ordinary men and women who sacrifice their time and effort in the voluntary sector who remain unrepresented.
  I mentioned that a number of submissions from my area are still live in the system. They include nominations for those who work with young people in leisure and competitive pursuits, in uniformed youth organisations, and in the arts. There are also nominations for those who work with disabled people of all ages, and for those who work with carers. Many of those people have anywhere between 25 and 45 years' experience of voluntary work, and derive great pleasure from their work with specific groups. However, it is not only their time that they dedicate: all too often, they use their own finances to ensure that the work can continue.
  I know that the talent that works on a voluntary basis in Dumfries and Galloway is evident right across our country. None of the people involved began their volunteering with the aim of being rewarded. Seeing young people develop skills and talents, or watching disabled youngsters smile and enjoy themselves, or providing help and support for those who care for loved ones on a daily basis, is reward enough. However, more recognition for their efforts, in the form of an honour, can only boost the morale of the army of volunteers who work so tirelessly. That, surely, is what our honours system should be about.
  I understand that individual views about an application are subjective, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that there is concern about the current system. It needs to be either replaced, or significantly overhauled. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr. Wright), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, has launched an inquiry into the honours system. I expect that the Committee, under his leadership, will look very closely indeed at what needs to be done if the system is to be improved. I hope that the Committee will undertake a close examination of how awards are given, and to whom, in different parts of the country, and of the variations that arise. From speaking to colleagues in the House, there seem to be significant discrepancies in our communities. Not enough people in the voluntary sector receive awards. In Dumfries and Galloway over the past four years, around 40 people have done so, and only 20 per cent. of those awards went to people in the voluntary sector, even though, as I know only too well, good work is done in my community.
  I do not believe that there is enough local involvement in the honours selection process. Local panels should be established to assist with the process of considering applications and to recommend them to a committee of more senior standing that will deal with such matters.
  Around three years ago, a television programme was transmitted on the honours system. I did not see it, but I am reliably informed that there was heavy emphasis on the role played by lords lieutenant. Sir Richard Wilson's review of the system in 2001 showed that around 1,200 public nominations a year do not fit into neat departmental categories. That results in their being

  1447
  handled by the ceremonial branch, which appears to obtain views from lords lieutenant. I fully appreciate that lords lieutenant are recognised as Her Majesty's local representatives, but I am not convinced that they necessarily possess full knowledge of an individual's involvement in whatever activity that individual is associated with. Nor do I believe that the average lord lieutenant is necessarily representative of our local communities. I would appreciate it if the Minister could detail the extent to which lords lieutenant are involved in determining whether an application should be taken forward and whether they actually have a say in the final decisions on honours.
  As the system stands, in order to bring about fairness, accountability and openness in the selection process, I urge the Public Administration Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase to consider the secretive nature of the nine honours selection committees. If we are to create public confidence in the system, the committees should begin by naming, and possibly changing, the 54 people who sit on them. In 2001, that Whitehall group was described as a predominantly white, male, elderly elite. In spite of the system's secretive nature, I gather that the average age is 60, that only eight members are women and only two are from ethnic minorities. Two of the committees are still all male.
  In the 2003 birthday honours list, only around 37 per cent. of recipients were women, and only 20 per cent. of those who received a CBE or higher were women. Black and ethnic minorities received less than 7 per cent. of the honours awarded, and just 3.5 per cent. of the CBEs or higher. If the honours list is to be as representative as possible of outstanding service and achievement across the whole country, whether in the public, private or voluntary fields, the people involved in the selection process must be representative of the population as a whole.
  Finally, I want to mention the titles of the honours. The British empire was an important part of our history, and we should never be allowed to forget its significance. History books show, however, that as well as the positive side of our colonial past, there were many dark sides that should never be forgotten. I question the need to continue to link the empire to our honours system. Today's recipients of an honour are being recognised for their achievements in today's modern world, which brings with it the difficulties of today's modern society. For that reason, I hope that in continuing with an honours system, we can look for a modern system and discontinue the use of the phrase "British empire" in the awards.
  I want to make it clear that I congratulate all recipients of honours over the years, and, as a Scot, to say that nothing gave me greater pleasure than seeing England's team winning the rugby world cup. I am delighted that all those who took part were rewarded well. I only ask why the 1966 football team were not rewarded so quickly. I can see that the Minister, as a fellow Scot, wonders why I mention all this. I do it to show that the system can be fast-tracked if necessary. I have no doubt that the awards in the new year's honours list were right.
  1448
  If we are to retain the awards system and if we are to overcome the growing cynicism towards it, it is time that a modern society in the UK begins to develop an honours system that meets our needs and that is, above all else, open and accountable. I hope, therefore, that my suggestions—proper feedback to those making nominations, more involvement of local communities with local panels considering nominations, an increase in the number of awards to the voluntary sector, a change in the membership of the honours selection committees and an end to references to "British Empire" in the title of awards—will be considered by the Minister. We are embarking on a debate that will inevitably bring the honours system very much to the fore in the months and years ahead.
  7.46 pm
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I have listened with interest to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown). Time is pressing this evening, as I understand that he has a Burns supper to attend, and as a fellow Scot, I would not want to come between my hon. Friend and a plate of haggis and neeps. Also as a fellow Scot, it is hard to resist pointing out that the 1966 England football team was defeated by the Scottish team in 1967.
  My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points, and I have noted his concerns about the current honours system. I will respond to some of his specific points in a few moments and I will also give a brief overview of the current honours process, but I would like to begin by recognising the fact that, as he pointed out, my hon. Friend experienced difficulty in securing tonight's debate.
  The Prime Minister is responsible for the honours system. However, it has been a long-standing convention under successive Administrations that the Prime Minister does not take part in Adjournment debates such as this, and thus it has not in the past been possible to hold a debate on the issue in these circumstances. After my hon. Friend raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions on 18 December 2003, I was asked to represent the Prime Minister on this occasion so that my hon. Friend could secure his debate.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged in his introductory remarks, responsibility for the honours system clearly rests with the Prime Minister. To give an example to show how the system works in practice, during my time at the Cabinet Office, on no occasion have I ever had sight of any honours lists before they are published in the London Gazette and the national newspapers, and on the No. 10 website. No other Minister, with the exception of the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence—I shall come to that point in a moment—has direct responsibility, except in so far as they may be asked by the permanent secretary of their Department for views on the names that the Department has it in mind to put forward for the next new year or birthday honours list, whether those be the Department's civil servants or individuals who work in its field of expertise.
  Advice to the Prime Minister on honours matters comes from the Cabinet Secretary, and the Prime Minister himself makes recommendations to Her

  1449
  Majesty the Queen. The Cabinet Secretary has devolved his involvement in the honours process to Sir Hayden Phillips, permanent secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Cabinet Office has managerial responsibility for the ceremonial branch, which co-ordinates the honours system. There is also an honours secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, who gives advice directly to the Prime Minister.
  I shall give the House a brief account of the way in which the current honours system operates in the United Kingdom, and I shall then say a little about the review of the system that is currently being carried out under the leadership of Sir Hayden Phillips. As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister's honours lists are published twice a year, on new year's eve and on the Queen's official birthday in June. Each list includes up to 1,000 names. There are also separate lists for the diplomatic and military services, which the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary respectively oversee, and those are published at the same time.
  The selection process is independent of Ministers and is based on merit. A series of specialist assessment committees consider all the candidates put forward in a particular field, such as the arts, sport, industry and medicine, and each makes a series of recommendations. These recommendations go forward to a final moderating committee, which looks to achieve a balance of representation and standards across the proposed list. The revised list goes forward to the Prime Minister via the Cabinet Secretary. The Prime Minister may, of course, make changes to the list, but any new names that he adds will be scrutinised for propriety by the honours scrutiny committee before the final list goes forward to Her Majesty the Queen for approval.
  Achievement and service at many levels, over a wide variety of fields, have been recognised in a way which has given a great deal of pleasure not only to those honoured, but also to those who have been associated with or benefited from their work.
  The honours system has been criticised for being unduly opaque. My hon. Friend has raised concern about the lack of openness and clarity in the current system. That is why I am glad to be able to tell the House that Sir Hayden Phillips is leading a review of the honours system which will look, in particular, at ways in which it can be made more open and transparent, without sacrificing the confidentiality of candidates, recipients and assessors, which is intended to protect them against undue interference or intervention. I wish Sir Hayden Phillips well with his review and look forward to seeing the outcome, probably within the next few months.
  I note that the Public Administration Committee is also currently conducting an inquiry into the honours system, and my hon. Friend may wish to feed into that inquiry his observations on the need to notify those making nominations of their progress, or indeed on the
  1450
  names of specific honours, and any other observations that he may have on the honours system in general. I—and no doubt many other hon. Members—look forward to seeing the Committee's report on this matter in due course.
  My hon. Friend raised the specific issue of tracking where applications are in the honours process, and of notification of unsuccessful applications. It is true that under the current system people who have nominations are not routinely informed of progress. However, I would encourage any hon. Members concerned about progress to contact directly the ceremonial secretariat, which will be able to provide an update on the progress of a particular application.
  In answer to my hon. Friend's question about the extent of the involvement of the lords lieutenant in the honours process, I have been informed that they are consulted about candidates nominated for services at a very local level, to obtain a local assessment of the merit of the nominations. I have also been informed that the views of lords lieutenant are taken into account by the assessment committees, but that they play no part in the final decision-making process.
  I now turn to the important matter of the people who actually receive the awards. On each Prime Minister's list there will be some 30 to 35 awards at the level of knight or dame and 120 at companion or commander level, for people who have made important and inspirational contributions at a national or regional level. The remainder of the awards will be at OBE and, for more than half the list, at MBE level, on occasion reflecting the very local contribution made not just by the traditional lollipop lady, but by people such as scout leaders, ward nurses, parish councillors, lifeboat men and many, many more.
  I am informed that nearly half of all the awards in any one list go to people who are involved in one way or another in voluntary work, and half the people on the list will have been nominated by, or supported by, members of the public. Contrary to recent press speculation, these are not people who have been selected on political lines. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating all his constituents, and indeed those of other hon. Members, who have been rightly recognised for their exceptional achievement or service by the award of an honour.
  I have listened to the concerns and frustrations with the current honours system so clearly set out by my hon. Friend. I conclude with my own hope that the review led by Sir Hayden Phillips and the inquiry being carried out by the Public Administration Committee will at least go some way to meet the expectations of all those, including my hon. Friend, who have expressed views, both positive and negative, on the way in which the honours system currently operates.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Stamp Duty Land Tax
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
9.30 am
Angela Watkinson(Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of stamp duty land tax. It is an important issue because, in the short time since implementation, it has had a significant impact on buyers of residential and commercial properties and on conveyancing solicitors.
In April 2002, the Government decided that the existing stamp duty regime for United Kingdom land and properties, which had been in place for some 300 years, should be modernised. If ever a word were open to interpretation, "modernisation" is it. If it were synonymous with improvement, it might inspire some confidence, but unfortunately it is not.
One of the main objectives of the change was to introduce electronic conveyancing, which would make the house-buying process simpler, quicker and more efficient, surely a desirable aim in view of the emotional and financial stress attached to the process of buying and selling property.
Stamp duty land tax replaced stamp duty on 1 December 2003, replacing the old stamp duty on documents with a tax on property transactions. It was also extended to include business leases, and the Government expect to raise an additional £170 million from lease duty in its first year, rising to £450 million every year thereafter. It is, quite simply, a stealth tax on business leases.
Longer business leases of 15 to 35 years will be hardest hit, because the new tax is based on the full lease term. Shops, pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants and hotels all take out such leases to recoup their fitting-out and setting-up costs. Many cannot switch to shorter leases and face tax hikes of four and 10 times the present level. Marks & Spencer faces an eightfold tax rise and B&Q a rise of £250,000 for each new store. A typical pub with a rent of £30,000 and a lease of 20 years will see the old stamp duty charge of £600 become a new tax liability of £6,000, a draconian tenfold increase.
The Government plan a 24 per cent. increase in stamp duty land tax revenues over this year, a £1.8 billion increase from £7.5 billion to £9.3 billion. Given that the predicted increase in the property market and securities is only 10 per cent., many wonder where the extra money will come from.
The new procedure is far from being simpler. The old one-page form has been replaced by a six-page land transaction return—SDLT1—plus eight further pages of forms and 43 pages of guidance notes. Is this an example of Government modernisation? Far from being suitable for electronic conveyancing, as promised, the new forms must be completed by hand in black ink,
446WH
handwriting must be neat and a capital letter must appear in each box. As on, solicitor put it, will we be expected to return to quill pens next? The change has caused unnecessary expense and inconvenience to many larger firms that had installed software in preparation, but had to revert to writing the forms by hand. The forms also require information beyond that needed to fulfil the transaction—for example, the national insurance number of the purchaser and the gazetteer number of the property. Why on earth should buyers suffer the additional inconvenience of providing this information?
As a result of these longer forms, the Law Society has advised its member firms to charge a minimum of £40 extra on residential transactions and £70 extra on commercial transactions. In practice, the costs are even greater. With about 1.1 nation transactions in the residential market every year, that represents £44 million in additional costs from Government bureaucracy to the home-buying public every year.
The Government were warned during the passage of the Finance Bill that the implementation of this new tax would need more time. For example, in the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on 10 June, and also in a letter written in June by the then shadow Chancellor to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Conservatives even offered to support the Government if they listened to outside advice and delayed implementation so that the detailed rules and regulations could be agreed, documentation made ready, training for solicitors organised and computer systems tested.
Mr. Mark Simmonds(Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; she is making a powerful and articulate case about the problems of implementing stamp duty land tax. Is she aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in a response and in correspondence, admitted that it would take at least two years for the implementation of stamp duty land tax to work its way through the system?
Angela Watkinson: I will be referring to that point shortly.
The Government rejected all of our proposals because, according to a letter from the Chief Secretary to the then shadow Chancellor dated 30 June, they
"would lead to the loss of yield of about £250 million".
In other words, the reformed tax was no longer to do with simplifying the system, or enabling e-conveyancing, but was driven by a desperate need to reduce the £37 billion black hole in borrowing. Even the Chief Secretary, in that letter, admitted that the tax was unfinished and would need a couple of years for refining. How can it be right to introduce a major new tax when the details remain unclear? How are taxpayers meant to plan when the rules could be altered immediately after introduction?
This muddling-through approach was confirmed by the slipshod way the detailed rules were presented to the House in the statutory instruments on how commercial leases were to be taxed, affecting seven out of 10 business leases and producing £170 million extra tax in the first year alone. First of all, the debate was scheduled just two weeks before implementation, leaving businesses

447WH
little time to get organised. Secondly, the statutory instruments contained drafting errors and had to be reprinted and re-issued, leaving just five days for scrutiny. The Financial Secretary then failed to give answers to 12 key questions during the debate. With implementation looming, she promised to write with the answers straight away, but nothing was forthcoming, so on 28 November the shadow Paymaster General again wrote to the Financial Secretary asking for replies before the tax was due to come into force on 1 December. Nothing was heard, not a word. After further pressure from the shadow Paymaster General the Financial Secretary's office finally provided an answer to the 12 questions 10 days after the tax was enforced.
The introduction was shambolic and left businesses and their advisers in the dark. Key definitions were overlooked. The delegated legislation passed by the House on 12 November appears to have failed to provide the definition of the start to the lease term. "Start" could mean many things—for example the date of the grant or the commencement date. Would the Minister confirm that this definition is indeed absent, and say what this means for the statutory authority of those documents already processed?
The introduction of the new tax was badly organised. Insufficient forms were printed for 1 December and some firms reported three-week delays in obtaining these forms, delaying house purchases and business deals. What went wrong? Why was the demand not accurately estimated and a sufficient supply of forms made available? Some forms were wrong. For example. SDLT4 was completely wrong when dealing with more than one sub-lease. Some Inland Revenue officers have admitted that the document needs correcting and reprinting. The education and information provision for solicitors and conveyancers was late and inadequate. Many seminars took place just days before implementation, leaving insufficient time for professionals to prepare. Specimen documents shown were wrong—for example, the wrong codes were shown on SDLT1 forms—and many solicitors have complained that their questions were left unanswered. Why did this process start so late given that the main legislation was enacted in July 2003, giving a six-month lead-in time?
Delays with certificates of payment occurred. The promised five-day turnaround period is, in reality, nearly two weeks, and without a certificate the Land Registry can reject an application to register the buyer's title to the property. Are sufficient staff dealing with this now, how many and what training have they received? The helpline collapsed in I he first week, leaving many solicitors having to make repeated calls, only to be left without any information at all. What resources have gone into rectifying this, and how many calls to the helpline were expected during that first month? The electronic calculator for business leases, which the Chief Secretary told us would be ready in time, failed to be put online in time. May we be told why? The Law Society and its members are very unhappy about the implementation. The shadow Paymaster General has received dozens of letters citing complaints about these points. Has the Minister had an opportunity to meet with the society, to discuss such complaints?
448WH
I have one particular example in front of me, from a solicitor in Leicestershire, who says that at the beginning of November his firm wrote to the Stationery Office of the Inland Revenue to obtain the appropriate SDLT1 forms, together with associated documentation. No documents arrived at their office in time for when the stamp duty legislation came into force. Indeed, in the intervening period, which was approximately three weeks, his firm made 12 telephone calls and wrote again requesting the appropriate documentation. The Inland Revenue helpline was unable to contact St. Austell to find out why there was a delay and said that St. Austell had taken the phones off the hook and were not responding to the e-mails that the supervisor at the helpline sent them. The solicitor's office made two calls to the Inland Revenue helpline and, during the course of one conversation, the telephone was slammed down, while they were in the course of indicating the nature of the problems that they were encountering. I would like to have been a fly on that wall.
Problems were encountered and compounded by the news that early in December the Inland Revenue computer, which was designed to scan the handwritten forms and input the data, had broken down. Several professional firms were told that the forms are being bundled up, driven to a different office and inputted manually. Would the Minister tell us whether that is the case, what went wrong with the computer and what steps she is taking to rectify the problem?
This issue of stamp duty is also causing concern among mortgage lenders. The economics of house purchase are compelling. Mortgage payments tend, broadly, to be equivalent to rental payments. The possibility of making a capital gain when house prices rise means that owning your own home makes financial sense to most people. There are other distinct advantages to home ownership, such as the discretion to make improvements and to decorate according to personal taste, and location, which is not available to some people who are in rented accommodation. It is hardly surprising that most people aspire to home ownership by the time they settle down and start a family. Of course, this is also a time of life that incurs other great financial pressures, such as having children, paying off student debts and starting to make provision for pensions. Stamp duty comes as a significant extra hurdle for first-time buyers already faced with raising a sizeable deposit and rising house prices.
Four years ago, just 40 per cent. of first-time buyers paid stamp duty, and of those who did nearly all paid at the lowest 1 per cent. levy. Now only 25 per cent. of first-time buyers purchase property below the £60,000 threshold. Strikingly, in London and the south-east the figure is only 2 per cent. of first-time buyers, and in my own constituency a first-time buyer would be hard pressed to find any property under £150,000, and that would be a flat over a shop.
The typical amount of stamp duty paid by first-time buyers is £1,040, equating to 5.6 per cent. of annual take-home pay. It would take a year to save this amount at £85 per month. This typical duty of £1,040 also represents 8.6 per cent. of the typical deposit raised by a first-time buyer. It would not be surprising to see a downward trend in deposits in the future, given the difficulty in funding stamp duty, and this would be a worrying development as borrowers would be reducing

449WH
their equity butler in the unlikely event that house prices fall in their area. In extreme circumstances some borrowers may he enticed to put down no deposit at all. The proportion of first-time buyers paying no deposit has increased from 1.5 per cent. to 3 per cent. in the last four years. At a time when levels of personal debt in this country, excluding mortgages, are at record levels, this would be a very undesirable trend.
The number of first-time buyers is at its lowest point since the early 1980s, a clear indication that affordability is stretched to the limit. Wide-scale home ownership is one of the cornerstones of the British economy, and is one of the factors that make our economy different from the rest of Europe. For most people, buying a house is their major lifetime purchase, or at least an aspiration that offers independence and freedom from the feudal ties of a landlord. Stamp duty land tax has turned homeowners and mortgage borrowers into a milch cow for the Treasury, rivalling even the beleaguered motorist. I hope that the Government will see that it is not working and reconsider, and that they will consult all interested parties including businesses, mortgage lenders, conveyancing solicit ors and estate agents.
9.47 am
Mr. Mark Simmonds(Con): I draw Members attention to the declaration in the Register of Members' Interests of my chairmanship of two chartered surveying companies, which is relevant to this particular debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing this important debate and on the way in which she has assimilated an enormous amount of detail and made the relevant points so articulately.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on his particular tenacity on this issue, throughout consideration of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee, because the measure is having such a detrimental impact, both on residential house conveyancing, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, and on the commercial property market. He and others are absolutely right to continue to raise this particular issue.
It is no surprise to me that implementation of the stamp duty as set out in the Finance Act 2003 has turned out as it has. The Government and the various Treasury Ministers who took part in the debate were warned, not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and myself and others who spoke from the Conservative Back Benches, but by hon. Members from all political parties. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) put some very salient and pertinent points that were never answered in the Chamber or in Committee. I am not surprised that the Government, in trying to implement this new tax, are in this mess.
Mr. Mark Prisk(Con): Is my hon. Friend also aware that as well as discussions and concerns within this House, the Economic Affairs Committee of the other place also urged caution and suggested that the Ministers should delay implementation?
Mr. Simmonds: I was aware of that fact. Caution was urged not only in this House and in the other place, but,
450WH
almost unanimously, by outside bodies such as the CBI, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Retail Consortium. Those bodies got together in an unprecedented way to write to the Treasury suggesting that the implementation of this new taxation should be delayed so that the detail could be worked through properly, and to suggest how the proposals could be changed to make implementation easier and perhaps fairer.
The word "modernisation" gives rise to the suspicion that the Government are trying to force through Parliament something that will be detrimental to one or another section of society, and this measure is no exception. It has nothing to do with modernisation; it is a new tax. As far as the Government are concerned, it must be put into place as quickly as possible to try to close the enormous funding, gap that has resulted from the disparity between public expenditure and the drop in revenue coming into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pot.
There are many specifics that I do not have time to go into this morning with regard to why the measure is becoming problematic. My Iron. Friend the Member for Upminster said that the Chief Secretary has admitted in correspondence—certainly by implication if not by a specific statement—that this has not been properly thought through and that the matter will resolve itself in the next two years. As far as I am concerned, it is totally unacceptable that a Government should introduce new taxation without having considered the detail and thought through the implications that this new tax will have on the economy as a whole.
There are four or five specifics with regard to the problems of implementing the stamp duty that I would like the Minister to address. The previous simplistic forms have been replaced by much lengthier and more complex ones, with explanatory notes that are longer than the form. That is not necessarily a Government innovation, but it is certainly unwelcome. Previously automated, the conveyancing forms now have to be written out, as my hon. Friend said, in black ink and with a capital letter in each box, adding to the bureaucracy and taking much more time than before. Incorrect documents were sent out; there have been unanswered questions, both verbal and written, from solicitors trying to deal with these matters; and there is the seemingly inevitable computer break down.
On Report, I specifically asked about the electronic calculator for businesses and the Chief Secretary assured me that all was in train and that other methods were in train for those who could not access the electronic calculator—as in my own constituency, not all businesses have access to broadband, so they cannot get it. Subsequently, I have come to understand that everything was not in train, and many businesses have yet to receive information and detail about it. When will that be fully addressed, because many businesses are deeply concerned?
When a highly professional and respected organisation such as the Law Society—which is deeply concerned, collectively as well as individually—writes to Opposition spokesmen, expressing its displeasure at the implementation of this new taxation, it is time that the Government took stock and listened to what others are saying.

451WH
Confusion still surrounds the implementation of the lease duty. Many businesses do not have a detailed understanding of how that applies to turnover leases, where it is not just a straightforward matter of multiplying the market rent—or the estimated rental value, as it is called in professional circles. Clearly, many on turnover leases pay 70 or 80 per cent. of the rental value. Is that the number that is capitalised? What happens when turnover varies and therefore rents go up and down on an annual basis? They are not predictable over a five-year or 10-year lease term, or even longer in some cases.
The other main area of confusion, with regard to the lease duty—nobody has been able to give me an answer to this, even though I have raised it in previous debates on the Floor of the House—is how break clauses will be operated. It is common practice in the commercial property market for a 10-year lease to have inserted into it a three-year or five-year break clause. Does that mean that stamp duty is taken at the break, at three years? Does the break have to be mutual, or can it be only on the part of the tenant or landlord for it to be classified as a break for the purposes of stamp duty?
The other point, which again does not seem clear and which I hope the Government are considering carefully—the hon. Member for Yeovil has also raised this point in previous debates—is that it seems totally iniquitous that some areas are exempt from stamp duty in totality, to use a topical word, because of the socioeconomic deprivation of the residential areas, without any regard to the commercial activity that takes place there. Therefore, places such as Canary Wharf, Meadowhall shopping centre just outside Sheffield, all the centre of Birmingham, as far as I am aware, and all the commercial centre of Leeds and Manchester are exempt from stamp duty taxation. It simply means—I am looking at it particularly from the point of view of the commercial property market, but it must be true for the residential property market too—that the value of those properties is increased by the percentage that is not being paid in stamp duty. Therefore, the value of the Meadowhall shopping centre, for example, is increased by £50 million with the brush of a pen. That cannot be a sensible use of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Prisk: With regard to the commercial aspects, a number of experts have told me that the complexity of dealing with commercial leases causes problems. One solicitor told me that when he is acting for eight lessees in buying the freehold, he has to complete one return for the freehold and eight separate returns to cover the eight leases to which the freehold is subject. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a bizarre form of bureaucracy gone mad?
Mr. Simmonds: I agree. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It goes back to the crux of the debate, which was so articulately put by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster: the Government did not think through the implications of the tax before they implemented it on 1 December 2003. Had they with our constructive help, postponed its implementation until 1 December 2004, all these issues could have been debated. The 452WH
Government could have simplified their proposals and could ultimately have achieved what they wanted, without going through this unpleasant process.
I want to give the Paymaster General an opportunity to assure the Chamber that there will be no extension of stamp duty in the foreseeable future and certainly no imposition of stamp duty on local authorities to enable them to raise further funds for their services. Boston council faces terrible problems at the moment because, as we all know, the Government are moving funds away from rural areas. Because its budgets are being cut, it must cut services or increase council tax by unacceptable amounts. I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to assure me that there will be no increases in stamp duty this year over and above those set out in the Finance Act and no extension to it to enable local authorities to-raise specific stamp duty to spend in their areas.
It is clear from this morning's debate that the Government tried to push the proposals through. They were ill thought through and ill considered. The consultation process that was supposed to take place was guillotined and curtailed. I suspect that the responses that the Govt received from professional bodies and business, which were not prepared to roll over and agree with them, were not what they wanted to hear. I hope that they will continue to look at the matter closely and make the necessary changes to ensure that everybody has full information and that the system works properly and is simplified and clarified so that business knows what taxes it must pay and when it must pay them.
Mr. Frank Cook: It might be advisable to remind hon. Members that it is customary in a 90-minute Adjournment debate to commence the first of the three wind-up speeches 30 minutes before termination. However, there have been occasions in the past when spokesmen or spokeswomen from the main Opposition parties have exceeded their portion of time, which is usually split into equal thirds. On one occasion they not only went excessively over, but shortened the usual time allocated to a Minister. Some Ministers might welcome such a tactic because it prevents them from having time to answer all of the questions that have been posed, but it is not fair on the Chamber, on the issue or on other Members. I appeal to all Front-Bench spokespeople to examine the time that is available and to seek to apportion it equally, or to terminate early.
10 am
Mr. David Laws(LD): Thank you, Mr. Cook, for your guidance on that point. I intend to give full time to the Paymaster General to respond to the many points that have been raised. I agree that it is a serious problem when Ministers are not given full time to address all the issues.
I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on the clear way that she set out the issues that are relevant to this debate. I also congratulate her on raising a matter that is of great importance to many people—including many businesses—throughout the UK, and that will benefit from the airing that it is given today. She started her speech by setting out what the new tax represents and how it will be applied. She went

453WH
on to describe many of the fundamental concerns that have been expressed about it, not least during proceedings on the Finance Bill, in the debate in the House on 12 November and by many business groups that have made representations to the Government.
The hon. Lady also did a good job in updating us on many of the practical concerns that have arisen since the new tax was introduced—some of which I was aware of and some of which I was not. I welcome the Paymaster General, and it is of great benefit that she is present to respond to some of those specific points. The previous debate on this issue on the Floor of the House was with the Financial Secretary. Recently, I have spent quite a lot of time with the Financial Secretary in the Standing Committee on the Child Trust Funds Bill, and I am pleased to see a fresh Treasury face this morning.
The hon. Member for Upminster will probably agree that the Paymaster General has had a lot of practical experience over recent months of the difficulties in implementing new Government policies, particularly on tax credits. The Paymaster General is familiar with the gap that can exist between Government intention and delivery. I hope that she will respond not only to some of the long-standing concerns about the new tax, but to some of the practical issues that were set out by the hon. Member for Upminster. They are separate concerns that are worthy of a detailed response.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Upminster also set out her concerns about the development of the stamp duty regime in relation to residential property transactions. There is increasing concern about the lack of fairness and rationale in the stamp duty system as it applies to residential properties. Over the years, that regime has increasingly caught large numbers of first-time buyers because of the Government's failure to index the starting threshold for payments of the duty. In addition, there is the illogical structure of rates, which means that people have a particularly high tax burden when they exceed the specific thresholds. There is growing momentum behind the case for fundamental reform of the stamp duty regime as it applies to residential properties. I hope that, at some stage, the Government will consider consulting on that issue and introducing proposals to reform it and to ensure that the thresholds are indexed.
The hon. Lady began her speech by teasing the Minister a bit about the stated purpose of the stamp duty land tax, and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) made similar comments in the introduction to his speech. The hon. Lady referred to modernisation as one of the stated intentions of the new tax. I think that the three stated intentions were modernisation, promoting e-business and promoting fairness. We are entitled to ask whether the new tax meets any of those criteria.
I share the hon. Lady's suspicion of the word modernisation. In fact, I can remember that my predecessor, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, got into difficulty in my party's federal policy committee prior to the 1997 election: he wanted to put the word "modernisation" into our manifesto and he was firmly told that he could not because it was meaningless new Labour jargon that signalled nothing clear about the intent of a policy. The debate about the stamp duty land tax probably shows that the members of that committee were correct to pull my predecessor up on that point.
454WH
The hon. Lady questioned whether the new tax is fair in the way in which it applies to different sectors. That point has frequently been made. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to the stamp duty land tax interacting with the deprived area relief in a way that has bizarre effects.
The hon. Lady also mentioned e-business and the extent to which there might be a gap with regard to the Government's stated intention of creating a streamlined tax system in which many transactions take place on the internet. She gave examples of the backward mechanisms that are in place in some cases for people to submit paper-based returns and the practical difficulties that have arisen out of that.
The Government have failed to persuade people about the benefits of the new tax reform. They have not convinced people that the stated Government intention of addressing long-standing distortions and loopholes is what the new tax is about. If that is what it is about, people fail to comprehend why its introduction has corresponded with a £200 million increase in the tax yield from this measure. The hon. Lady referred to that.
Mr. Prisk: In the original consultation document, the Government foresaw that the costs to the public and professionals would not only) be held level, but that they might fall. Given what has happened, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about that?
Mr. Laws:: The hon. Gentleman is right. The impression was created that this would be a tax-neutral reform designed merely to introduce a more rational system and to clamp down on tax avoidance, and that it might reduce some transaction and processing costs. If the points made by the hon. Lady are correct—I have no doubt that they are—one must question that part of the equation as well.
The hon. Lady referred to the increase in property taxation in the United Kingdom in the past few years and to the high transport taxes that many UK businesses pay. The CBI made that point in its representations to the Government about the implementation of this tax. It said that although UK corporate tax rates, and to same extent social costs, are lower than in many of our computer countries, it is not often understood that that is offset by high property and transport taxes. The reform of this tax is resulting in increased taxation on business and increased yields to the Exchequer.
It must be of concern to the Paymaster General and the Government that, in all the consultation that there has been about the introduction of the new tax—in all the representations that there have been since the details of the new tax were confirmed—there has been a universal thumbs-down from business lobbies, particularly in relation to the leasehold aspects of the tax. When we last debated the issue with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the House on 12 November, she was asked whether she could name a single professional or business body that supported the new tax or thought that it made any sense. She could not come up with the name of any organisation. I would be interested to hear today from the Paymaster General whether she has the names of any bodies that support its introduction.

455WH
The implementation issues that I want to focus on are not only the practical issues. The hon. Member for Upminster explained those issues clearly, and we must ensure that the Paymaster General has sufficient time to respond to them. Fairness issues were referred to in earlier debates, particularly in relation to how particular sectors will be hit by the implementation of the tax, as was the point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness about the interaction of the leasehold aspect of stamp duty land tax with the deprived area relief. A number of business bodies have made representations on those points.
In the debate of 12 November 2003, I reminded the Financial Secretary of companies' strong criticisms of the new legislation, and that the CBI had said that the Government's decision on the stamp duty land tax would drive up prices, cost jobs and damage regeneration. The CBI also said that the Government were underestimating the measure's potential cost to business. It stated explicitly that the Government were understating how many leases would be affected and overestimating the value of the leases, a point that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has made on many occasions. It will be interesting to hear from the Paymaster General whether the early implementation of the tax confirms the accuracy of the Treasury's assumptions on those points, or whether there is any early indication that the points made by business and reinforced by the hon. Gentleman have proved correct.
Business organisations expressed another strong concern that came out in the 12 November debate—that the tax would unfairly hit particular sectors of business. The British Retail Consortium made the assessment that the cost to retail members alone would be £200 million. The consortium pointed out that in a number of sectors, long leases are fundamental—for example, in the sports and leisure industry. Such sectors would be adversely penalised by the new tax. The Business in Sport and Leisure group, an umbrella organisation representing more than 100 private-sector companies in the sport, leisure and hospitality industry, had made that point in its representations to the Government and had pointed out that many parts of the leisure industry might well face an eightfold increase in stamp duty under the proposals.
It seems bizarre that a measure that, according to the Government, will promote fairness should hit particular sectors in that way, merely because of the typical structure of long leases that prevail in them. It seems odd that the Government should wish to frame measures that, in attempting to tackle tax avoidance, should penalise sectors involved in long leases of up to 20 or 25 years, often because of the capital investment involved in maintaining properties. In our earlier debate, the Financial Secretary said that some 60 per cent. of businesses would be exempt from the increase, because of the Government threshold. However, other business organisations have made representations that, in some areas, as few as 30 per cent. of companies would be exempt because of their sector's leasehold structures.
The other unfairness of the tax's implementation was raised by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. We have been critical of the new tax reliefs and
456WH
loopholes consistently introduced by the Chancellor in each pre-Budget report and Budget statement. All, no doubt, are well intentioned, but they have bizarre effects when the Government seek to implement them. The famous example was the film industry tax relief, designed to incentivise the British film industry. Initially, it was estimated that it would cost £30 million or £40 million per year, but it ended up costing £400 million or £450 million per year, because of the tax avoidance opportunities that it opened up.
The House of Lords Committee that considered the issue, and other groups that have made representations, have pointed out that the stamp duty land tax with the deprived area relief will have the bizarre effect of giving exemption and relief to a pub in an area such as Canary Wharf that serves the interests of rich investment bankers working nearby, or to the Harvey Nichols department store in Leeds, which the hon. Gentleman said would be affected. Such areas will get exemption and relief from the stamp duty land tax, whereas many other businesses will be operating in genuinely deprived parts of the country, including wards in my constituency that are among the 25 per cent. most deprived in the country. Those businesses will receive no exemption, which is odd and raises the question of whether the Government should revisit the subject of deprived area relief, as well as the fundamental basis for the stamp duty land tax.
There are many issues for the Paymaster General to respond to. Some have been raised before in the consultation process, during the passage of the Finance Bill and in the debate that preceded the introduction of this measure. No doubt, she will be unwilling to reverse the course in the short term on some of those matters. However, I hope that she will respond to particular issues that have been raised today and will plot a course to deal with these concerns in future.
I hope that the Paymaster General will respond first to the practical matter raised by the hon. Member for Upminster of the many real problems arising as a result of the introduction of this tax since 1 December. There is a gap between what we were promised in relation to the calculations and the processing of these transactions and the reality on the ground. It must be worrying that the introduction of the new tax has led to so many problems. The preparation that we were told would be in place does not seem to have been put there.
This is a new issue for us—it has not been debated in detail since the new tax came in. I hope that the Paymaster General will tell us how the Government intend to deal with those problems. Although they do not affect the fundamental introduction of the tax, she must be concerned about them. I also hope that she will undertake to reconsider some of the issues about which businesses are concerned. Perhaps she can tell us whether, by the next Budget statement, or at worse the next pre-Budget report, there will be a review of how many businesses have been affected by the leasehold reform in particular and whether the Government's initial estimate is being realised in practice. I hope that they will do some work to assess whether the introduction of the stamp duty land tax for leaseholds has had an unfavourable effect on some sectors, and whether that can be justified.

457WH
I think that the business community accepts that the tax has arrived and that it has lost its opportunity to halt the principle of this new tax. However, it wants the Government to respond in future to problems that emerge when the evidence demonstrates that their initial assessment was incorrect. It also wants the Government to show their willingness to respond to problems when they arise. I hope that as part of any review of this tax in the Budget, or in the pre-Budget report, there will not only be consideration about the fundamental nature of the tax and the interaction with the deprived area relief, but a review of whether the existing thresholds are set at the right level. Business organisations are asking for the threshold to be reviewed if the evidence shows that the Treasury got the initial assumptions wrong.
This debate has been a great benefit. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster on securing it. I now intend to give the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford full time to develop his case, and the Paymaster General time to respond in great detail.
10.19 am
Mr. Mark Prisk: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing this debate and on a thorough and excellent speech. She has shown on a number of occasions that she is able to get to the heart of the issue in a way that everyone can relate to, and I genuinely wish to commend her opening remarks.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). As always on this issue, he brings a professional insight that adds to our debate, as all hon. Members could hear.
The original objectives for reforming stamp duty were set out in the consultation document of April 2002 "Modernising Stamp Duty". In that, the Minister and the Financial Secretary—then the Economic Secretary—stated that the Government's reforms would be based on the principles of fairness and modernisation, and would enable electronic conveyancing. In short, the new taxation regime would
"make the house-buying process simpler, quicker and more efficient".
I wish that were true, but sadly those worthy statements have been overcome by not only the Government's desperate need to fill the Chancellor's financial black hole, but the actions of Inland Revenue officials. After all, if electronic conveyancing does not begin until 2006, why the rush to implement the tax by 1 December 2003?
From the botched consultation on lease duty, through the heavily guillotined considerations on the Finance Bill, to the shambles in implementation described by my hon. Friends, the tax is the story of an ill-conceived, ill-prepared measure that is hugely bureaucratic, technologically regressive, and has increased costs to home buyers and property professionals. My hon. Friends highlighted a number of problems that people face. The old one-page form is replaced by a six-page land transaction return, plus another eight pages of forms, just in case the first six were insufficient, and should one's attention wander, there are an additional 43 pages of guidance notes.
One reason why the forms are so long is that a requirement has been inserted into the new process for a raft of information that has nothing to do with the tax
458WH
being paid. Thus, for example, people are asked to put down their client's national insurance number. Why? Also, as hon. Members have described, there is the nonsense that the new forms, designed to enable electronic conveyancing, have to be completed by hand in black ink, there must be a capital letter in each of the key boxes and, of course, one's handwriting needs to be neat. Quill pen or no, clearly modernisation means something entirely different to the Government on the one hand and the rest of us on the other.
The result is that it is takes far longer to complete the new forms than the old. Most professionals tell me that instead of taking five minutes, it now takes 30 to 40 minutes. As all good lawyers will say, the Law Society has costed the tax. It has advised its firms to charge a minimum £40 extra for each residential conveyance, and £70 for commercial deals, in order to cover the increased costs. In most years there are about 1.5 million transactions in the residential market; that means £60 million of extra cost for home buyers and property professionals from Labour's new tax.
What went wrong, given that we have heard that the original consultation said that costs would be kept to a minimum—indeed, might even be reduced? Before the Bill came before the House, we were told by a raft of experts that the Government should treat the matter carefully, and that implementation should be delayed. Indeed, even the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which considered the issue with care, urged delay. Having listened to that advice, on several occasions the Conservative party offered to support the Government if they delayed implementation in order to get the details right. All that was rejected because, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, it would lead to a loss of tax revenue. We could see that, even by last summer, those halcyon ideals of a simpler, cheaper efficient tax were long gone; the agenda had changed.
The perils of ignoring the warnings became clear when, on 12 November, we debated the detailed rules for the implementation of lease duty. First, the debate was scheduled just two weeks before implementation, leaving businesses very little time to get ready for the new tax. Next, one of the orders printed was wrong and had to be reprinted, so the House had just five days for scrutiny before the debate. Then the Financial Secretary failed to answer 12 of the questions raised during the debate. With implementation looming—of course, that affects how people should respond to the new tax—she promised to write to me with the answers straight away, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, we waited a week and nothing arrived, so I wrote to the Financial Secretary and asked for answers before the tax came into force. All I received was silence.
I am rather persistent so I continued to press the point. I even hinted that I might make a fuss on the big day of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, which would have been warmly received by the occupant of that particular job. Suddenly and miraculously however, at 8 am on the morning of the pre-Budget report on 10 December, my fax machine whirred into action and direct from the Financial Secretary's office we finally got the answers that we sought. Faxing through Inland Revenue rules 10 days after legislation has come into force is no way to run a tax. Since then, many professionals have asked me about what was contained

459WH
in the information because they cannot find it, even 50 days after implementation. Will the Minister tell us whether those answers have been published? If they have, where can people find them?
Believe it or not—I do not want to stretch your credulity too far, Mr. Cook—there was another error in the statutory instruments. Several solicitors have since advised me that the orders passed by this House on 12 November failed to include a key definition: the definition of a start of lease term, which could be the date of grant, or the commencement date. I have looked through the orders and have them with me, but I cannot see the definition. Can the Minister direct me to where it is? If it is missing, what does that mean for the legality of those documents already processed? Are they open to challenge?
Since the tax came into force on 1 December, I have been inundated by a raft of letters from solicitors and those dealing with conveyancing, who are intensely frustrated by the whole process. They have condemned the implementation as bureaucratic, and the revenue's organisation as chaotic. I have many letters that I could quote, and I will quote one later, but first I shall raise specific issues so that we cart get a proper and full answer from the Paymaster General. I know that she will want to give answers.
Despite the Financial Secretary's promises, insufficient forms were printed in time for 1 December. Some firms reported delays of more than three weeks in receiving forms, which meant that they could not complete house purchases and business deals could not happen. What went wrong and why were insufficient forms printed? Some forms that were printed had the wrong information on them or were badly designed. I am told that one of the many tax form pages —SDLT4—has so many faults that the Revenue officers have told solicitors that they are going to have to withdraw the documents three weeks after implementation and have them reprinted. Is that true?
The education and information provision for solicitors in conveyancing was also late and inadequate. Many of the revenue seminars for professionals to explain how it would all work took place just days before implementation, leaving little time for professionals to prepare. Why did the process start so late, given that the main legislation was enacted last summer? If the answer is that the Government did not have the final details, why do they refuse our offer of more time to obtain those details?
We have heard about the problems with the helpline—where is the Inland Revenue these days without problems with its helpline? It collapsed in the first week, leaving many solicitors having to make repeated calls, and we have heard about one especially pertinent story during today's debate. Often, solicitors were left with no information whatever, and were faced with the embarrassment of having to explain to their clients that they could not fulfil the tax requirements on which people's move to their new home depended.
Lastly, there have been serious delays with the certificates of payments. As has been described, those are essential, because the Land Registry can reject an application to register a buyer's title to property without
460WH
such a certificate. We were promised a five-day turnaround, yet for many people it takes two weeks. Are there sufficient people dealing with that, and what is the reason for the delays, given that this is probably the quietist period of the year for home buying?
Solicitors have genuine frustrations. Andrew Almond of Messrs Halsall and Co. of the Wirral says:
"It is clear that the implementation of this tax has been brought about too quickly, with too little thought being given to the practicalities for administering the tax, and with the forms that we are required to complete having been prepared by people who can have no conception whatsoever of the difficulties they are creating and the time they are wasting for professional people, who are trying to serve their clients' best interests in a competitive commercial world, and where the method of imposition of such a bureaucratic tax has reached the point of sheer lunacy."
Those are the words of a professional trying to deal with the issue. Given the bitter experience of such professionals in the first month, when the housing market has been at its quietest, many people now fear that things will take a turn for the worse.
It is welcome to see the Paymaster General. She will be able to clarify whether she is dealing with the issue, or whether it is the Financial Secretary again. Will she confirm that the Minister responsible will meet me and the concerned professionals and their representatives to hear their concerns about what can be described only as gross incompetence?
What a wasted opportunity the tax has proved to be. Its implementation has been shoddy and haphazard, with error heaped upon error. Where we were promised simplicity, we have bureaucracy; where we were offered speed, we have delay; arid where we were promised fairness, we find hidden costs. In 2002, the Government's stated aims for the tax were to be commended. Yet today, as so often with this Government, the results deserve only to be condemned.
10.32 am
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate the speakers in the debate, and the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing it. I want to return to the questions that she posed and dispel some of the myths that are circulating about what happened on the introduction of stamp duty land tax.
As has been mentioned, in the Government's view, stamp duty land tax creates a fairer, more modern and more robust tax regime for transactions involving United Kingdom land and buildings. It successfully addresses the long-standing distortions and loopholes in the previous charge, which were being increasingly exploited by big commercial players at the expense of the majority of taxpayers.
Yesterday I was in Scotland meeting various groups and considering questions surrounding the introduction of new technology and the importance of using new communication forms. We considered how difficult it is to introduce such new methods, and how vital they are to smooth communication in society, and today's debate caused me to reflect on the fact that we are talking about a system that was in place for something

461WH
like 300 years, which hon. Members would apparently prefer to have kept. The serious problem that needs to be addressed is how to move to the new systems.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: Out of respect for the hon. Member for Upminster, and given that everyone has implored me to answer her questions, perhaps I should try to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has many opportunities to debate the matter. As he said, he does so assiduously.
In achieving the objectives, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was determined to introduce a new regime that would cause as little disruption as possible—a point to which I shall return, along with the points that the hon. Lady raised—to all those involved in land transactions, be they purchasers, sellers or those who assist them. The Inland Revenue officials worked with interested parties, including the Land Registry, the valuation office and practitioners to achieve that. Both during proceedings last year on the Finance Bill and elsewhere, there were calls for implementation to be put back, perhaps by a whole year, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government believed that it was right to act in 2003 to prevent further avoidance of duty under the old regime and an increase in the distortions, and we stand by that.
Mr. Simmonds: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I will not give way at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient; this is not his Adjournment debate.
We continue to consult on how we can have a fairer system that reflects commercial practice, not tax distortions, and takes account of moves towards e-conveyancing. Consultation on the processes commenced in the summer of 2002, and on some of the more complex areas, such as large developments and leases, it continued until the summer of 2003. That consultation was worth while. It produced worthwhile changes on the lease duty. For example, it resulted in the whole amount of the net present value below the thresholds for residential and commercial properties being exempt from the charge for commercial land. That means that every time a lease is chargeable. the duty will be £1,500 less than under the original proposals.
We recognise that the changes did not give everyone the outcome that they wanted. How could it for those who were taking advantage of the distortion? We have tried to help small and medium-sized businesses and business start-ups particularly. The consultation took place not only on how the legislation should be operated, but on the administration and implementation of SDLT. In that context, I recognise and pay tribute to the important roles played by all the representative bodies that we consulted, including the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland and the Law Society of Northern Ireland. They robustly represented the Interests of their members and it is the duty of the Government to listen to those interests, but to make decisions on behalf of all of us. They also worked with Inland Revenue officials to
462WH
prepare for implementation. Working together, more than 55 events were organised, which more than 5,000 solicitors and conveyancers attended. It is unquestionable that the move to the new regime was much smoother as a result of that work and benefited from it.
One of the messages that came across loud and clear was that practitioners wanted some flexibility in how SDLT was introduced. The interested parties are urging the Government to adopt a light-touch approach and provide such flexibility as to allow various ways to support their documents, as well as the move to e-conveyancing. The hon. Gentleman sought this morning to use the Government's willingness to adopt such a light touch approach and to implement such flexibility to criticise the system as a whole. This is a matter for the Government—Ministers' shoulders are broad—and this is what we must do. It will allow the Inland Revenue to adopt a light touch approach for a limited period to accept returns that do not include all the information that is required in the longer term. That light touch, which has been well publicised, also extended the time before which the Inland Revenue will seek to charge interest and penalties because of late delivery of forms.
All those initiatives require a high degree of manual intervention and a manually run office was established at Kenton Bar in Newcastle. That office has issued more than 58,000 certificates and has collected more than £99 million in revenue. It is currently receiving between 7.000 and 8,000 completed returns a day and processing those returns within three to four working days. The Inland Revenue's stamp offices expect to be able to maintain that service commitment of turning returns around with five days of receipt.
The hon. Member for Upminster asked a number of questions about implementation, and before making further more general points about the system I shall return to some of her questions. She said that the six-page form, plus the supplementaries, is a backward step. Moving away from stamping documents is a necessary first step to e-conveyancing. It is impossible to send documents down the internet. Little additional information has been requested. The national insurance number, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is one example of additional information, but it is the common currency that the Inland Revenue uses to deal with all its taxpayers and contacts. However, if the national insurance number cannot be provided, that by itself will not prevent a certificate from being introduced. Again, the question is when we will introduce the steps that allow us to move towards an e-conveyancing system while at the same time allowing flexibility. I believe that the right balance has been struck.
The hon. Lady and other hon. Members made the sweeping statement—it is open season on computers, particularly the Inland Revenue's system—that the computer went wrong. The computer did not go wrong. Best practice requires that IT is phased in when implementing a new system, and I hope that everyone finally understands that. It was always the plan to start

463WH
up with the manual processes, which is something that some hon. Members have implored the Government to do in this debate.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General give way on that point?
Dawn Primarolo: No. The hon. Lady asked many questions and, Mr. Cook, you made it clear that you expect me, quite rightly, to address her questions. If time permits, I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Running the manual process at the start also helps with the light-touch approach that I described previously. Again, the Government were implored to adopt that process in moving from one system to another, to assist practitioners.
The hon. Lady also discussed lease duties on pubs and restaurants and the charge for shorter leases. The change applies only to new leases; existing leases are not affected. As for Marks & Spencer, it has publicly stated that SDLT will not affect its expansion plans. The tax is in line with the Government's policy to encourage shorter leases.
The hon. Lady made a great deal in her speech about first-time buyers who cannot purchase because of rising stamp duty. I would like very gently to remind her that the Government have not increased stamp duty for the past three years, that transaction costs in the United Kingdom are lower than in most European countries and that the introduction of SDLT did not affect residential rates. She then went on to make the general proposition that is always made, that SDLT—and, it seems, anything else that the Government introduce—is a stealth tax. The changes to lease duty charge will remove the distortions between freehold and leasehold transactions. Hon. Members have mentioned the independent property research organisation that estimated that 60 per cent. of new commercial leases will be exempt from SDLT.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, it is important, in terms of protocol, that I answer the hon. Lady's questions. The hon. Gentleman is using up time by repeatedly asking me to give way. I still have a large number of questions to answer, and I shall do her the courtesy of answering them. That is what I am expected to do as a Minister.
The hon. Lady asked why the forms were so long. She said that they take longer to complete than under the old system and that they will increase the cost of buying a house. The forms seem longer because they had to be made IT compatible. In fact, they ask for virtually the same information that the stamp duty office asked for under the old stamp duty regime. We have taken steps to assist practitioners in implementation, such as the light touch approach, manual working and educational discussions on duty, and although we accept that it will take time for practitioners to become familiar with the form, we do not see any reason why in the long run the time taken to complete it should be significantly more than under the old regime.
464WH
I would also say that more than 98 per cent. of transactions will need only the basic form. The supplementary forms will be required only in a small proportion of transactions, primarily commercial ones, which is exactly the area where the distortion and the problems were occurring.
It was said by the hon. Lady, and in several of this morning's contributions, that the Inland Revenue ran out of forms in December. The Inland Revenue did not run out of forms. Everyone who asked for a return form will have received one. The Inland Revenue estimated the number of forms necessary, and it never ran out of returns. By early December, the Inland Revenue had received requests for more than 1 million returns for a maximum of 8,000 transactions a day. Returns could also he obtained from the website and from case management software, and the Inland Revenue sent out starter packs to more than 10,000 practitioners before 1 December.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No.
The hon. Lady went on to raise three questions. One concerned the duty calculator, the second related to the two weeks that the certificates took to arrive, and the third to the inquiry line not working. Those are important points, and I can tell her that there were problems in the first week of December, but the calculator was working correctly by the end of that week. In the interim period, the Inland Revenue staff were helping practitioners with calculations.
The hon. Lady gave a particular example of a telephone being put down in mid-conversation and she said that she would have liked to have been a fly on the wall at that point. I, too, would have liked to have been a fly on the wall to see what really happened. I cannot comment on the particulars of the case, but as a general point, and as the high standards by which the Revenue operates demand, I, like everybody else, would not expect anyone to have the phone put down on them when they are making inquiries. I do not know the details of the incident, but I will certainly make sure that my view about the courtesy of our staff on the telephone, and my understanding of how they behave, is the one that prevails.
The hon. Lady made points about the regulations, and that was a theme of each of the contributions made. We were, as I have tried to explain, rightly committed to allowing a proper time for consultation, but there was a minor error in the formula. That will not take effect for five years, but none the less it is important to have correct regulations. There was also the question about the answers that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave and whether they were in plenty of time. They were in plenty of time for a return of any SDLT transaction to be completed in time. The earliest SDLT transaction on 1 December does not require a return until 10 January. The start date of the lease is defined in general law—the express date of commencement of term or date of grant of the lease.
I hope that the hon. Lady realises that I completely understand her frustration at the anger that some people have expressed to her. I also hope that she accepts that the Inland Revenue did consult and undertook to ensure

465WH
a process that could be as smooth as humanly possible, given that we were transferring from one system to a new flexible one, as was requested of us in the consultation, with the manual working and the light touch approach. It continues to provide enough time for practitioners to become familiar with the new processes. The information required is the same as was required for 98 per cent. of those in the system predating 1 December.
Inland Revenue officials are going further because, if our objective is to move to e-conveyancing, it is important to ensure that there are products on the market that enable it to take place. That includes work to introduce an online version available on the Inland Revenue website and for Inland Revenue-approved versions of various returns to be provided by software companies as part of their case-management packages. Returning to the point about the process being all being pen and ink, both alternatives have been widely and warmly welcomed and will be introduced to the system.
Inland Revenue officials continue to work on other ways in which to complete SDLT returns. A stand-alone CD-ROM that will help some practitioners is currently being tested, and the Inland Revenue expects to have e-filing available in the autumn. As part of the development of those tailor-made response options, the Inland Revenue has consulted practitioners to ensure that the individual product will be of most value to their business. An online filing service will be available later in 2004.
One objective of the implementation of SDLT was to ensure that the new processes should not inconvenience property purchases, and particularly home purchases, to which the hon. Lady referred. Another objective was to ensure that there was less avoidance, which I am sure all Members welcome.
After only seven weeks, I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is difficult to judge whether the measure has been successful. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) referred to that in his contribution about monitoring and testing the objectives. However, the number of transactions notified to the Inland Revenue is up by about 25 per cent. and the amount of duty paid in November and December 2003 was more than £933 million compared with £864 million for the equivalent period in 2002.
Mr. Laws: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I should like to continue.
From a compliance perspective, it is interesting to note that higher than expected volumes of stamp duty transactions continue to be returned late to the Inland Revenue, and it must consider the reasons for that. There are a number of other issues in the market, so—before the hon. Gentleman jumps to his feet—I am not suggesting that there is a causal relationship between those volumes and the change in revenue, although we need to understand the trends in such matters. The Inland Revenue will therefore analyse the reasons behind that, and it will have the power to take action just in case anyone is backdating transactions.
We recognise that the successful introduction of SDLT on 1 December is not the end of the process, and in today's debate, hon. Members have again implored
466WH
me, as the Minister, to bear that in mind. As I have said, much has been done to prepare practitioners and that will continue. In answering the hon. Lady's points, I said that the programme that was introduced was designed in partnership with the various Law Societies. To test how successful it was, consider those who were involved in designing the process. More than 5,000 practitioners attended and the timetable was agreed with the Law Societies. Having been encouraged to carry out all this consultation, having listened to what was said to us and having taken on board the points and implemented them, we should not face criticism for having done that in the first place. Unless Opposition Members are suggesting that we should not have dealt with a distortion that is unfair to all taxpayers, I am a little perplexed.
Mr. Simmonds: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I was just coming to the hon. Gentleman's points, having completed my detailed reply to the hon. Lady, so I am happy to give way to him.
Mr. Simmonds: I am delighted that the Paymaster General has given way. Would she not accept that the Government could have closed the loopholes that were being used without introducing the additional taxation, and could have concluded the consultation period properly to make sure that such problems did not arise?
Dawn Primarolo: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman said that. A loophole allows people not to pay tax when they should t e doing so, and the purpose of the legislation is to stop their avoiding tax that they should have paid. The Government did not conceal the point that we were proceeding on the basis that we had avoidance and that the nature of that avoidance was distorting the stamp duty system.
Mr. Laws: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: If I could just finish my point, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The stamp duty system needed to be fundamentally addressed. That is not new; the Conservative Government did it on loan relationships, and I am extremely happy to discuss the detail of how that was implemented, what went wrong and how the Government are still trying to put it right.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way. She has obviously never heard of a tax-neutral reform before. Perhaps I can help her as she has clearly run out of her speech. In her earlier comments, was she saying that the yield from the new tax has, so far, turned out to be higher than expected? Is she saying, therefore, that when it comes to the Budget in a couple of months' time, she may have to revise up the yield that the Exchequer will get from the new tax?
Dawn Primarolo: I was not saying any such thing. That goes to show that when one tries to answer a question honestly by giving early indications to hon. Members, it can be swung round to mean something different thing. What is important is that we ensure that the tax is collected, that every body pays the fair amount

467WH
of tax that the legislation requires, that we introduce the new system, moving to e-commerce as smoothly as we can by taking on board points about the transition that are made to us in consultation, and that we have a system that is fair to all taxpayers. As a Government, we must ensure that we continue to monitor the system's introduction, continue the discussion on its implementation and therefore ensure that we have a system that is fair to all taxpayers and fair to taxpayers in the area. That is precisely what the Government have done.

FCO Contribution to Environmental Objectives
11 am
Norman Baker: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce the debate. I was encouraged to do so by a written ministerial statement issued on 2 December by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It sets out an analysis of its raison d'être and the United Kingdom's international priorities.
When I read the eight strategic policy priorities identified with the UK, I was dismayed to find that the word "environment" did not appear anywhere. In fact, notwithstanding the preceding blurb suggesting that issues were changing, the priorities tended to confirm the traditional view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a body that seeks to maintain stability through diplomacy—the big chess game—to maximise the UK's interest. I agree with the objectives. None is wrong in any way, but failure to take full account of the environmental crisis that the world is facing would undermine the objectives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is why I am raising the subject today.
To be fair, it is true that one of the objectives is sustainable development, but that is slightly different from tackling the backlog of environmental problems that have arisen in the world and which require something other than that strategy to ensure that what develops from now on is satisfactory. The strategy of "it is good as far as it goes" is not sufficient to deal with the crisis that we are facing.
Another objective is the security of UK and global energy supplies. Again, no one can dispute that we must ensure that the lights are kept on, but the way in which the objective is phrased suggests that we want to ensure that we have control over fossil fuel exploitation, whereas energy policy in the 21st century should be about diversity of energy sources and ensuring, as far as possible, that all the world moves towards renewable sources and that energy demand is not simply met, but reduced through the implementation of energy efficiency and conservation measures. I do not see such thoughts set out in the Foreign Office statement of 2 December.
If full account is not taken of the environment, the traditional Foreign Office objectives that have served us well over centuries will be undermined. I refer the Minister in particular to the comments of the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. On 9 January, he said:
"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism."
For understandable reasons, for the past two years we have heard a great deal from the Government about the threat of terrorism. The Prime Minister and others have rightly given attention to that matter and have taken steps both domestically and internationally to reduce the threat of terrorism to this country. No one can dispute that such a policy is anything other than sensible. However, we have heard little from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary about what is, according to David King, the more serious threat to the

469WH
world—that of climate change, which seems to be an add-on—a footnote—to policy, rather than a central tenet of it, which is what it should be.
It is a fact that, through climate change, our environment is facing unprecedented threats. There is an old saying that forests precede man and deserts follow him. That was never more true than today. Mass deforestation is taking place, so that even countries such as Brazil, which has gigantic forests, are losing areas the size of Scotland each year. 'We shall end up, not within my lifetime, but in the lifetime of others now on this earth, with the forests all gone.
The situation is that serious: forests that have existed for millions of years could disappear, and we are seeing the polar ice caps melting and the oceans rising. Millions of people could be flooded out of their homes, and perhaps killed. We are seeing extreme weather patterns across the world. In addition, we saw a projection only last week that a quarter of all species on this planet could be extinct by 2050. Of course, there is also the issue of resources, especially water, and the fact that access to water is in question for a large part of the planet.
There is an ethical dimension to that—I hope we still have an ethical foreign policy, as we did when the Labour Government came to power—but there is also a practical dimension in terms of traditional Foreign Office policy. If the current environmental degradation continues and if no steps are taken to deal with it, the objective of the Foreign Office to maintain stability and guaranteed supplies of energy will be fatally undermined, because the world will start fighting for resources.
We—I refer here to the north, or to NATO, one could say—would be dragged into a position where we would have to defend access to resources. We have not quite got there yet, but with the battle for oil meaning that guaranteed supplies of fossil fuels is a key issue around the world we are getting there. We must avoid that, because it leads to instability. The way we avoid it is by making a real attempt worldwide to have a sensible environmental policy. That is something on which the Foreign Office should be leading, not least because there is a commitment to it in this country. I pay tribute to the Government for signing up to the Kyoto protocol and to the European Union for leading the way on that issue. We need to go further by taking that battle to the United Nations and to some of our allies, who are perhaps less enlightened than we are on those matters.
That leads me on to the United States, which is our ally. We have many close links—indeed, my wife is half American—but I am sorry to say that the United States is the world's environmental pariah. We need to say so, and we need to take firmer action than we have so far taken to bring the Bush Administration in particular into the world we all live in and make them realise their responsibilities. We have the opportunity to do that, more so than perhaps any other country.
We have this so-called special relationship: it is clear that, over many years, the UK, under successive Governments, has worked hard to ensure that we are in a good position with the United States. That may be a sensible Foreign and Commonwealth Office objective, but if we are in that position we should use our influence, where we can, to encourage the Americans to move
470WH
forward on those issues and to make them realise that they are not isolated, that t hey live with and have a duty to the rest of the world, and that what they do affects us.
The Americans must appreciate that. Drawing in their horns and pretending that only America counts—which, I am afraid, is what the United States appears to do environmentally as well as in terms of the International Criminal Court and other issues—suggests that their policy is not sensible or sustainable.
The United States has not signed up to the Kyoto protocol. It has abrogated commitments made by President Clinton and its carbon dioxide emissions are 16 per cent. above 1990 levels, while the rest of us are cutting our CO2 emissions. The Government and the EU are on target to make their reductions specified in the Kyoto protocol, but the United States is not—and it is already the world's biggest polluter. Currently, 36 per cent. of carbon emissions came from the United States. Indeed, a third of the world's emissions come from there, yet Americans are getting worse in their approach to the issue.
The United States is the world's biggest economy and it has the greatest opportunity to deal with this matter. If it does not do so, how can we expect smaller countries to make the short-term sacrifices necessary to meet their Kyoto targets? Why should they bother when the United States does not?
The problem involves not only the United States' attitude to climate change directly, in terms of the Kyoto protocol. The front page of The Independent this week listed some attributes of the United States, including the opening by President Bush of 58 million acres of public land to road building, logging and drilling, and the attempt to downgrade or weaken 200 public health and environmental laws during his presidency, including permitting drilling for oil in pristine national park areas in Alaska and elsewhere.
I hope the Government recognise that President Bush's Administration are up to their neck in oil, in terms of the members' backgrounds, and that this is driving the Administration's policy. It is not in the UK's interest to go along with that. However, it is in the UK's interest to try to influence the United States to adopt a more realistic and responsible international approach to environmental matters, but I am not always convinced that we do that.
I was pleased to see—credit where it is due—what I hope is a true story in The Independent on Sunday on 11 January, which said that the Prime Minister is, finally, attempting to get George Bush to move on climate change. I very much hope that that is true. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to confirm it, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister should be doing—using his influence with President Bush to try and move him along in that direction.
On occasion, part of the price of the Government's objective to remain close to the Americans appears to be signing up and agreeing to whatever the US wants, even if we do not necessarily want to go along such a road ourselves. The Minister recently gave me an instructive parliamentary answer when I asked him on how many occasions since 1975 the UK vote in the UN Security Council was diametrically opposed to the US vote. In only 2.3 per cent. of the votes had the UK voted against the US.

471WH
Most of those occasions as helpfully listed by the Minister, were between 1975 and 1985, and there have been only two occasions since the Labour Government came to power in 1997 on which our vote was diametrically opposed to that of the US. I am not saying that we should seek occasions on which to vote like that—if we can get agreement and have a common policy, all to the good—but what has happened sometimes suggests that we are not as independent in respect of the US as we might be.
I would like to know what the Minister is doing through the Foreign Office, and what the Prime Minister is doing, to deal with Kyoto and the US. I would also like to know how much progress we have made with the Russians. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are putting pressure on the Russian Government to sign up to Kyoto, because if the Russians sign up the protocol will come into force. We need either the US or the Russians to do so.
I would also like to ask the Minister what we are doing about promoting renewables, conservation and energy efficiency worldwide. Britain is at the end of a very long pipeline in terms of gas and oil supplies from pretty unstable areas of the world, so it is in our interest to take such measures—we will be dependent on those fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. We also need to ensure that we have our own indigenous supplies, which means, essentially, renewable resources.
I would also like to know how the Foreign Office calculates the balance between the geopolitical aspects of its policy and the perhaps long-term environmental consequences, as, for instance, with some dam projects that the Foreign Office has been keen to support. Friends of the Earth has produced a report on a BP pipeline that is intended to run through Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, which says that 173 violations of World Bank standards have been committed.
The pipeline will carry 1 million barrels of oil daily, which, when burnt, will produce 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—a third of the UK's annual emissions. The Foreign Office is supporting that policy, presumably for geopolitical reasons, but there is a big environmental downside. How is the balance achieved and what is the process for assessing whether the environmental downside outweighs the traditional geopolitical benefits of any particular project?
For example, the Foreign Office traditionally claims to lobby the Chinese Government on human rights abuses in Tibet, an issue close to my heart. I think the Minister and his colleagues do that, and all the evidence is that the Foreign Office listens on the issue, although I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not meeting the Dalai Lama. However, do the Minister and his colleagues lobby the Chinese on the environmental destruction that is taking place in Tibet?
The Minister will know, for example, that Tibet is being used as a nuclear waste dump. He will also know about the obscene deforestation, which is causing flooding for millions of people, not least the Tibetans themselves, because the Yangtze is affected. Unsustainable agricultural practices have been taking place in Tibet, which over the years have led to starvation among the Tibetan people. The Chinese are
472WH
constructing a railway to Lhasa, which will enable that environmental destruction to accelerate. What are the Government doing about the environmental destruction of Tibet? I give that as a specific example, although there are other countries where it may apply. However, human rights are also abused if the environment in which people live is degraded. That is the important point, which I want the Minister to get across.
I draw the Minister's attention to the story in The Observer by Anthony Barnett about the Foreign Office apparently giving permission for 240 rockhopper penguins to be removed from Tristan de Cunha, a British dependency. That in itself is a relatively small matter, but it suggests that sometimes economic considerations come before environmental, so I hope that a system is in place to ensure that those things are properly assessed.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this important debate, and although there will be a number of areas where I disagree with what he has said, or at least his emphasis, nevertheless he is a Member of the House whom I admire for the genuine commitment and energy with which he pursues his causes. Fundamentally, though, his critique is misplaced.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that we do not weave environmental considerations right the way throughout the fabric of our foreign policies and operations, but that is not the case. From personal experience, I know the number of countries—I have visited them on Foreign Office business—with which we have raised environmental concerns and considerations.
The hon. Gentleman has made great play of the FCO strategy, which was launched and published before Christmas. It presents eight strategic international priorities with the collective aim of creating a safe, just and prosperous world, underscored by sustainable development. As the Foreign Secretary said in respect of the hon. Gentleman's written question, which appeared in Hansard on 5 January, priority 6 of the strategy specifically refers to sustainable development underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights. That underlines the fact that those issues are central to the work we undertake.
I have also commissioned within the Foreign Office the production of an FCO sustainable development strategy. This will provide the action plan to guide FCO staff in the implementation of this priority and of our public service agreement, which explicitly refers to making globalisation work for sustainable development in the UK and internationally. We are working towards that end in co-operation with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry. I went out of my way to involve Jonathon Porritt, chair of the Commission for Sustainable Development, in that process to give us ongoing constructive feedback about the way that the strategy is developed. That was exactly the right thing to do, and it underlines our commitment to this issue.

473WH
Furthermore, I believe that the strategy will show how the Foreign Office will work with other countries towards meeting international commitments on development that are agreed by the United Kingdom. Those commitments are the millennium declaration on poverty reduction, the Doha trade round on development of the international trading system, the Monterey agreement on financing for development and the commitments made at the 2002 World summit on sustainable development.
I will deal with some specific points the hon. Gentleman made. He started by referring to our strategy document and the focus on energy security, implying that it contained no environmental considerations. However, priority 7 specifically refers to practical initiatives to promote sustainable energy consumption. We are seeking to secure our energy supplies and, in doing so, to benefit the environment significantly through the promotion of renewable and sustainable energy. Promoting the diversity of supply is integral to tackling climate change.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Sir David King's comments, which were quoted in a newspaper, suggesting that climate change is more serious than the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Both climate change and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are serious issues that we take account of in the development of foreign policy, and in our recently published strategy we committed ourselves to tackling both.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of the position and situation with regard to environmental concerns about the United States of America. I make no apology for saying that we are strong allies with the USA—we share a number of interests, values and concerns. Nevertheless, there are a number of areas where we disagree, and we do not have a problem with saying so.
The Kyoto protocol is one such area where we took a different position from the United States, and that is a position that we continue to uphold. The International Criminal Court, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, is another matter on which we have made clear our position, which differs from that of the United States. However, resolving those matters and seeking to influence the United States are not so easy as he suggests.
I also dispute the hon. Gentleman's party political characterisation in suggesting that the problem is just with the Bush Administration and that, if there were a different Administration, the situation would be different. I was interested to read the comments made recently by Howard Dean, one of the front runners for the Democratic party nomination. He said that if he wins the nomination, he will not sign up to the Kyoto protocol. With respect, the issue is a bit more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding that disagreement on climate change and the Kyoto protocol, we are seeking to work with the US on a range of areas to promote environmental concerns and to achieve progress outside the Kyoto protocol. We continue to co-operate on climate change and believe that there are a number of areas for fruitful exchange, such as sharing our experience of the early action that business can take, working together on low carbon energy sources, and
474WH
exchanging views on technological developments and climate change science. Science and technology in particular are areas in which we can make progress.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the article that attempted to suggest what the Prime Minister's views are. We have consistently made it clear to the US at all levels that we wish to engage with it on climate change and we regularly raise the matter at political and official level. We shall continue to do that. In addition, the US is a key partner in out efforts to prevent forest destruction and illegal logging. We work effectively in G8 and the United Nations, and the US has recently launched a presidential initiative on illegal logging. We support all those initiatives.
The hon. Gentleman referred to export credits and various pipeline proposals. Through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, environmental considerations are at the forefront of our approach and the FCO cooperates closely with the ECGD on the social and environmental impact of its work. That will continue.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to concerns about the situation in China. One of the biggest challenges in tackling future environmental concerns is those countries that are going through dramatic growth—for example, Russia, China, India and so on. Unless environmental considerations are built into the development of their industries and businesses at this stage, we will have serious problems. We are doing something about that on an ongoing basis and are constantly engaging with those countries on these issues.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we recently established a China taskforce under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is treating the environment as a cross-cutting issue and covering every area.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rockhopper penguins. I want to make it clear that under the terms of the overseas territories White Paper such matters are for the overseas territories to decide. We have reached a new and sustainable position with the overseas territories. We reassured ourselves about the safety and security of the rockhopper penguins, but to intervene because we dislike a decision would be the wrong approach when, under the terms of the agreement, the matter is no longer one for the UK.
My final response to the explicit points made by the hon. Gentleman is to agree with the thrust of what he said, but to disagree with his conclusion. By that I mean that if we did not tackle environmental concerns throughout our foreign policy, I agree that we would eventually affect and constrain our security. However, I rebut the suggestion that we are doing that. We weave environmental
considerations throughout the range of our foreign policy deliberations.
I turn to some other key issues that the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be interested in. Climate change and the loss of natural resources and biodiversity are clearly shared global challenges, which we continue to face up to. We are aiming to reinvigorate the international response to climate change.
It is worth noting that, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have taken a lead, and we can be proud of our track record. We have shown leadership by setting the UK on the path to a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Indeed, the UK is one

475WH
of the few developed countries to have met, and gone beyond, the target agreed at Rio in 1992 to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000—a remarkable achievement. Between 1990 and 2001, emissions fell by more than 12.3 per cent., while the UK economy grew by over 32 per cent. That is substantial progress and it shows that we are committing to the issues, although I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman gave us credit for that.
We are also putting our money where our mouth is. In addition to our diplomatic efforts, we want to deliver concrete actions on the ground. To that end, the FCO has created the Global Opportunities Fund, which is spending some £4.7 million this year on financing sustainable energy and climate change projects in several of the world's major developing economies, including China and Russia. Environmental degradation and biodiversity loss also threaten the ability of the world's ecosystems to provide goods and services in a sustainable way, so they pose a direct risk to us all. We are also tackling that issue.
Another key policy instrument at our disposal is the convention on international trade on endangered species, which regulates trade in endangered plants and animals and is widely regarded as one of the most successful multilateral environmental agreements. As part of the UK delegation, the FCO ensured that the last conference of the parties in 2002 was a great success for the UK. Our proposal to protect the basking shark was adopted, and we were instrumental in stopping attempts to remove protection for some whale species. In that regard, the work of the International Whaling Commission, in which we are very active, is similarly productive and successful. Maintaining the moratorium on commercial whaling remains our core objective, and our overseas posts undertake concerted lobbying in that regard.
Norman Baker: I agree with what the Minister says on whaling, but will he say something about how
476WH
discussions on Kyoto are going with the Russian Government and whether he thinks they are likely to ratify?
Mr. Rammell: We are taking every opportunity at all levels, including the highest, which is Prime Minister to President, to express our view that it is critical for Russia to sign up to the Kyoto protocol. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, given the configuration of countries that have signed, Kyoto will not go forward without Russian endorsement. That is an issue of concern to us. We take it up regularly and we shall continue to do so.
We also work through a range of multinational agencies—the G8, the United Nations, the European Union and the Commonwealth—to ensure that we speak and act not only on our behalf, as we seek partners to work with us and take the process forward. The European Union, in which 40 per cent. of legislation is environmental, is clearly a major motor for change.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about our commitment on renewable energy. I was particularly pleased to be able to launch this year, in association with colleagues, the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership—a partnership forged at the World summit on sustainable development. That mechanism builds on our commitment to accelerate the development of renewable energy. Renewable energy sources are essential in tackling climate change, and they will also ensure the long-term energy security of the UK and promote sustainable development at home and abroad.
Access to information is also critical. That is why we are promoting good environmental governance through the partnership for principle 10. Tourism is another key sector. The Prime Minister launched the sustainable tourism initiative, and I was pleased to launch the Travel Foundation, which the FCO is funding, at a meeting of the Association of British Travel Agents in October 2003.
I genuinely respect the hon. Gentleman's concern over these issues, but we are addressing them. We are endeavouring to include environmental considerations throughout our foreign policy and practice, and we shall continue to do so.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Human Rights (Saudi Arabia)
2 pm
Mr. John Lyons: I am delighted that the subject of human rights in Saudi Arabia has been chosen for an Adjournment debate. It is obviously a vast subject, and I hope that hon. Members will feel free to contribute to the debate and make known their views. I want to draw attention to Sandy Mitchell—my constituent—Ron Jones and Bill Sampson, all of whom have faced abuse and torture in Saudi Arabia.
On Friday 6 August last year I received a telephone call from Sandy Mitchell to say that he had been released from jail in Saudi Arabia. He had telephoned for two reasons: to thank me for the contribution—very small, I admit—that I had made towards his release, and to say that he was innocent. The second reason for the phone call was unnecessary. I knew from the papers that he and the others were innocent of the allegation of bombing in Riyadh. The tragic case of Sandy Mitchell and the others centred on the charge that they set off a bomb that killed Christopher Rodway. I wish to put on the record not only my sympathy, but that of all hon. Members, for the family and friends of Christopher Rodway.
A dark tale of torture has been unfolding since the release of Sandy Mitchell and the others last August. It seemed that a new allegation would surface almost every month. New information and evidence would be produced by those who had been jailed. Sandy Mitchell was a senior anaesthetic technician at the security forces hospital in Riyadh. He was arrested on 17 December 2000 and was charged with the bombing and killing of Christopher Rodway. As I said, he was finally released on 6 August last year in response to a plea for clemency that was made to King Fahd. I thank the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and other hon. Members who made representations to the Saudi Government for the release of the men. During his term of imprisonment, Sandy Mitchell had to face solitary confinement, and physical and psychological torture. That was a continuing story for him when he was in prison in Riyadh.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I do not want to use the debate as an opportunity for an anti-Saudi discussion, nor do the prisoners. Sandy Mitchell and other prisoners speak fondly of the Saudi people. They speak in support of the people they met in prison, but we are against torture and the torturers, which is the focus of my contribution to the debate.
The debate will not go away. I and colleagues will not walk away from the abuses in Saudi Arabia. We are not willing to turn our backs on the people who have faced torture and abuse. It is as straightforward and simple as that. The Government, the House and the British people need to make it clear that they are horrified that, in this day and age, someone can be tortured in a country with which we are supposedly friendly. We should take the chance of today's debate to say that we stand four-square with the victims of torture—not just today, but tomorrow and in the future. That should always be the case.
The case of Sandy Mitchell and his arrest is horrific. He turned up for hospital on 17 December at 7 o'clock in the morning, only to be arrested by the Saudi secret
478WH
police. He said that he was handcuffed, hooded and taken to a detention centre where he was accused of carrying out several bombings in Riyadh. He pleaded with them and told of his innocence, but without any response. He said that he was in no way party to any bombing campaign and that he was sure that the others who had been mentioned in the arrest were not party to it, either.
Mr. Mitchell was immediately faced with a beating from the people who had Arrested him. He could not defend himself because his wrists and ankles were cuffed. The beating continued for several hours. He was then taken down to the cells and was chained to a door, so that he could neither sit nor lie down. He was denied sleep and rest for a total of nine days. He said that at about 10 o'clock that evening he was taken back to his house in chains by the security officers who had beaten him. They ransacked his house, and all his personal items, including clothes, cameras and diplomas were confiscated. Most of the items taken have never been returned. His wife and son were, of course, terrified by his arrest and by the state he was in when he was taken back to his house. On his return to the detention centre he was punched, kicked and spat on, and was again chained to the door of his cell so that he could neither sit nor lie down. As I said, he was kept awake for nine days and nine nights.
During Sandy Mitchell's imprisonment his beating consisted of the torturers striking the soles of his bare feet with axe-handles, with a Saudi sitting on his chest at the same time, making it difficult and frightening for him to breathe as his feet were being beaten. He was told that he would never be released if he did not confess to the bombings. He begged his captors to check his alibi for the evening on which they accused him of being involved in the bombing. He felt certain that friends and colleagues could easily convince the police that his alibi was strong and would clear him of any guilt. He demanded a polygraph test because, as a desperate man, he thought taking such a test would prove his innocence and he would be released. This was denied to him, and the torture continued. He said that, during the beating and torture, he was bleeding continually from inside his left ear, his nose and his mouth, and that he lost some teeth.
I do not intend to go on all afternoon. I think what I have said about the torture is enough. That story can be repeated by Ron Jones, by Bill Sampson, and by any of the other prisoners held in Saudi Arabia. Having listened to one case, one can multiply it by seven to obtain an accurate picture of what went on for a very long time—as I say, these men were held for two and a half years.
In addition to the beatings and the psychological torture, we need to consider the solitary confinement in which these prisoners were held during this period—again, an attempt to break them and extract confessions to something in which they were not involved. We know all of them, and there is no question of it.
Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this valuable debate. I think he underestimates the role that he, other hon. Members and the Government played in securing the release of these men. Does he agree that

479WH
for the long-term prosperity of the UK and of Saudi Arabia, it is important that a message comes from Saudi Arabia, to the effect that those who wish to go there and use their skills to add to the country's prosperity will be subject to clear, democratic justice, and not to some of the horrendous examples he has outlined?
Mr. Lyons: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said at the beginning, this is an argument against the torturers, not against the decent people of Saudi Arabia, who want to give support to those who go to work or holiday there—not only British people, but those of other nationalities—and seem to be a kind race in many ways. We need to insist that people can go to Saudi Arabia in absolute confidence of the legal and judicial system; I will return to that later, because I believe that there is a bigger role for the Foreign Office and for others in making sure it happens.
Dr. John Pugh: I hope I am not stealing the hon. Gentleman's thunder, but he will be aware that Ron Jones's case, in particular, goes to the Court of Appeal later this year—in May, I think. Is he expecting the Foreign Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs to intervene in the case being conducted against the Saudi Arabian regime? Is he expecting their intervention to be unhelpful and to argue that the State Immunity Act 1978 overrides human rights legislation? Is it not important to clarify the Foreign Office's take on that appeal and on the basis for intervention? What does it intend to achieve? It is also important that the British Government are not in any way implicated in condoning torture.
Mr. Lyons: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I will come to It in due course as I want to deal with the detail of that case and with what we would all expect from the Foreign Office and from the Government in these circumstances.
Mr. Mitchell said in his evidence that after about the fifth night he could not endure the beatings and the torture any more. He said he was prepared to sign a confession, no matter what it said. He was given a very sweet cup of tea and asked to sit down and sign a prepared statement of his confession. This was directed by Lieutenant Khalid al Sallah, the translator for Captain Ibrahim al Dali. These two seem to have been the two main torturers of Sandy Mitchell. I will refer to both of them again, as it is important that we identify the torturers and take the appropriate action when we can.
The interrogators also wanted to know, even after Mr. Mitchell had signed his confession, who had been involved with him—not only the other prisoners, but which people from the British embassy had assisted him. He could not believe that this line of questioning was being put to him, that it was suggested that the embassy was somehow involved in a bombing in Riyadh. He continued to be beaten and tortured into the eighth night, even after the confession, because they wanted further information. They said that if he would not help them further, they would bring his wife into the interrogation, because she was Thai and they could
480WH
do anything they wanted to her. He said that just hearing the screams of other detainees in the prison again put him under tremendous pressure to agree to anything they were saying in terms of the British embassy involvement and the devices for the bombings.
On 25 December 2000 Mr. Mitchell was hooded and taken to what he later discovered was al-Hiar prison. The officer in charge of the prison, when he saw the state of him, had him cleaned up and examined by two doctors. He then had to sign a statement that his injuries when he arrived at the prison had been based on some previous interrogation at another location. The prison was not prepared to accept responsibility for the state of him. He did sign such a statement, which, quite properly, the prison wanted him to do. He was then given some medical help and something for the pain, and he was allowed to sleep for three days. Being denied sleep for so long must have been torture in itself, as well as the interrogation and the beatings.
Mr. Mitchell said that his interrogation and the torturing had sometimes lasted for an unbelievable 14 hours. That was normal for him. Even after he had been taken to the prison, the beatings continued. He was hospitalised on three occasions, first for two days, then for 14 days and then for 15 days. Imagine the extent of the injuries that meant he was hospitalised for that length of time. He was allowed a visit from the British embassy after 46 days. Prior to that visit he was again warned not to complain to the embassy about his treatment or he would face even further beatings and torture. At least then he felt that the embassy had been involved, and would hopefully speak up for him and for the other prisoners and get things moving regarding his case.
Mr. Mitchell was then prepared—he says "drilled"—to make a video confession for television as part of his confession, which was rehearsed many times. At first he was told that it was nothing more than a video for the private files. All of us who saw the alleged confession on television were horrified because Sandy Mitchell was reading off an autocue in a very unconvincing manner—and no wonder, because it was the result of beatings and torture from previous days.
So a British citizen was shown all over the world confessing to the bombings in Riyadh, and that suited a lot of internal sources in Saudi at that time. They could claim that the bombings were not the work of domestic terrorists but were quite simply the work of British or other foreign nationals working in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. One of the issues here is the face that Saudi Arabia shows to the rest of the world, and although I cannot speak in any detail about the case he is referring to, Saudi Arabia certainly does not have a good reputation with regard to any form of religious freedom. Shi'a Muslims are regularly dealt with in a savage manner, and Christians who happen to be working in Saudi Arabia face all sorts of problems. Surely any country that wants foreign nationals to come and work within its boundaries, and

481WH
which wants to show the rest of the world that it is a developed country, should take religious freedom on board. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr. Lyons: There is an important question of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, which parallels the question of freedom for women to be accepted into Saudi society, and to be able to operate in a normal way. The issue is not just one of religion—there is the question of human rights for the whole population. The Foreign Office needs to address these issues sharply. We as a Parliament need to find a stronger voice when dealing with the Saudis, and the Foreign Office needs to lead that process.
Sandy Mitchell was finally taken to court in July, and before he entered the courtroom he was warned again that if he tried to retract his statement, he would be taken back to the detention centre, and the torture and the beatings would continue. That is what he was faced with at the so-called Department of Justice as he was being taken into court. It took about five months for a lawyer to come and speak to Sandy Mitchell and the other prisoners about the Saudis' abuse of their human rights during their time in prison. It was then that he found out that he had apparently been sentenced to partial beheading and crucifixion. His sentence had already been decided before he even saw a lawyer. That is how expansive Saudi justice is.
I do not intend to go through a lot of the horrific detail involved in this and other cases, but one issue that I must raise is the fact that as Sandy Mitchell and others were being tortured in Saudi Arabia, they noticed that the footcuffs and handcuffs that held them had been made in England. That should make us all feel tremendous shame, and I know that there is all-party support for saying that we cannot allow it to continue. We need to take action to ensure that this stuff is not exported and then used as part of a torture mechanism against any citizen, Saudi or otherwise.
Because we are talking about religious rights, the rights of women, the rights of foreign nationals and the rights of the Saudi population, it is important to record that we salute the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Although we are debating this issue today, and may spend some weeks and months on it, they are the custodians ensuring that Saudi behaviour is watched and properly examined every day of the week throughout the year. That is important. We should salute the work in which they have been involved. Amnesty International found a persistent pattern of systematic human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Again, that comes not just from the prisoners, but from the international organisation that knows best.
Anne Picking: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know that he has pursued the matter with great passion. His contribution so far has been excellent.
Before he moves off the issue of torture, I should like to say that I had the pleasure of meeting Sandy Mitchell after he was released. In my professional capacity I was able to judge that he is still suffering from torture. His mental health is in serious need of support. I was
482WH
concerned for him. Does my hon. Friend agree that although the beatings have stopped, the torture is ongoing for him and his family?
Mr. Lyons: My hon. Friend makes a valid, important point. The experience has not ended for the prisoners. Their release was great—it was a wonderful for all of them—but I am sure that the pain of trying to bring their lives together after two and a half years of imprisonment, torture and beatings will leave a tremendous physical and psychological scar on all of them. Again, we need to think about how best to help people in such circumstance s to move back into life and get back to normality. I am pleased that she raised that point. We must deal with such matters properly and more consistently.
In December I asked the Foreign Office whether it would investigate the claims of torture that were made against Saudi Arabia by the recently released British prisoners. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), replied for the Government, saying:
"Throughout the detention of the British men in Saudi Arabia, we raised with the Saudi authorities, at the highest levels, our concerns about the case, including the men's treatment and conditions in detention. We are in touch with the men and their lawyers and are doing what we properly can to assist them." — [Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 779W.]
With respect, that is all very well, but I want to know what the Government are doing to take on the Saudis on the question of the torture and beatings of British citizens in their care in prison. We must be sharper. Members of Parliament, the Foreign Office and the Foreign Affairs Committee must sharpen their language and be tougher on such questions. Those tortures and beatings cannot simply be put on the record by the Foreign Office or the Select Committee and dealt with as numbers. We must take up that challenge at all levels, whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister, or MPs who do so. We must ensure that people are treated properly.
It is important to note that the UN is unhappy with the situation in Saudi—it is not just me, other MPs, the British Government, Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International who are worried. In reports, the UN continually refers to the abuses that take place in that country, including the abuse of human rights, torture, beatings and jailings. We must raise those matters at every opportunity.
Since his release, Sandy Mitchell and the others have been referred for medical examination. Despite the fact that we have moved on and it is so long since the torture and beatings, they still want to prove medically that they were tortured and beaten in Saudi Arabia. I do not intend to go through the medical evidence produced by the Parker Institute in Denmark, which is the world centre of excellence to which people are referred when they think they are victims of torture and want to prove it. It is important that these reports should remain private, but I shall speak to the conclusion of that report, which states:
"There is an overall accordance between the presented torture history, the described symptoms and the results of today's examination. The findings are consistent with alleged torture with a high degree of support."

483WH
That is not an allegation by any of the men. It comes from medical evidence to support their claims. There should be no question in anyone's mind that everything points to the statements made by Sandy Mitchell, Ron Jones and others, being 200 per cent. true. The report, from such a renowned institute, confirms that in everyone's mind.
As I said to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), I want to come back to the issue of Ron Jones. The hon. Gentleman correctly said that the case would go to the Court of Appeal on 11 and 12 May. Again, we have been told that the Treasury Solicitor has been instructed to act on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the appeal. I am unhappy that we should interfere in a claim against the Saudi Government by a person who was beaten and tortured. We should be doing the opposite: we should do everything we can to assist such a claim. We should not stand in the way of it or raise a constitutional hurdle, but should make sure that these who are responsible for torture and beatings are brought to court and that the victim has his day in court to accuse them.
The Foreign Office website says that torture is abhorrent and illegal. If that is so, it should do nothing on 11 and 12 May to stand in the way of the proper presentation and prosecution of Ron Jones's case. The Foreign Office claims that the State Immunity Act 1978 gives legal protection, but t hat should never be a reason for the Government not to do something. I hope the Minister will reflect on that point and give it due consideration.
Jim Sheridan: This may seem a naïve question. It is right and proper for us to seek assurances from the Government that they will do everything they can to ensure that those who have been subjected to torture and their families receive every support and that the same does not happen again, but did the employers of any of those detained play any role in assisting them or in offering their families support?
Mr. Lyons: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. My information is that the employers of those who were arrested are under tremendous pressure. As employers in Saudi they did everything they could to keep channels open while their employees were in prison and to support the families, but that is difficult to do in Saudi; it is not an easy role for an employer. I am sure that those involved did everything possible in the circumstances.
I said that I would raise the case of Bill Sampson. I do so because the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) cannot be with us today, as he is detained elsewhere. I know that he would make these points on behalf of Dr. Sampson and I am happy to do so briefly.
Dr. Sampson was one of the few people who have dual nationality—British and Canadian. He says:
"Of those detained, I am the only dual-national (British and Canadian), and my case was initially handled by representatives of the Canadian Government. This was against my stated request to the Saudi Arabian authorities."
484WH
Dr. Sampson had asked that the British embassy deal with his problems. He continues:
"I have been given to understand that notwithstanding the Saudi Arabian refusal to recognise my dual-nationality, I was entitled under international treaty obligations to be visited by representatives of Her Majesty's government. As such, this has to be added to the long list of my basic human rights that the Saudi Arabian government violated.
The others"—
that is, Sandy Mitchell and others—
"and I were denied access to legal counsel until after we had already been tried and convicted. We were denied consular access during the initial phase of our detention (in my case, the first six weeks). We were denied private, unmonitored visits with our consular representatives. We were not allowed to discuss our situation or the case with the consular representatives. Alongside these basic violations, we were held in solitary confinement, denied access to the news and any information pertaining to our case, kept under conditions of continuous light, physically tortured by systematic beatings and sleep deprivation. Because of this brutality, I suffered a heart attack and almost died due to the special attention of my gaolers."
The case that we and other hon. Members have made is a strong one.
At the outset, I said that 6 August, which was when the men were released, was a wonderful day; but there has been tremendous pain and suffering since, because they have had to recall their dreadful, horrific story of torture and beating unnecessarily, as they know that we need to bring the Saudi Arabian Government to account and get justice, not only now but in future. We have to protect human rights in that country for foreign nationals and people living there.
What I say is not against anyone other than the torturers. I have named the two people whom Sandy Mitchell recalls torturing him. They were guilty, and if the Government do nothing about the matter, they will be guilty of human rights abuses and torture. That is the only conclusion that people can come to after listening to the case of Sandy Mitchell and the others. I am sure that all of us in the Chamber demand justice for people who have been tortured. As I said at the outset, we should stand four-square with the victims of torture.
2.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said about the treatment of his constituent Sandy Mitchell and the others who were kept in such appalling conditions and suffered such dreadful treatment, including torture. I want to mention a few things that have come my way because of a visit to Saudi Arabia, and some other matters that I hope are worth mentioning and may lead to a better understanding of what is going on there.
Last summer, I was invited to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia to meet Government Ministers by the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. At first, I refused, as I always have done—I have been invited before—because of the appalling treatment of women, as well as other human rights considerations. I felt very strongly about the issue of women in particular. However, I thought about the invitation, and uppermost in my mind at the time was what happened on 9/11—the demolition of the twin towers in New York. I started to think that perhaps the time had come

485WH
for some of us to start talking to Ministers in places such as Saudi Arabia, instead of being virtuous and not going to those places, especially considering that all those involved in the demolition of the twin towers were Saudi Arabian citizens.
I contacted CAABU and decided to go. A few days later, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden approached me and told me about the plight of Sandy Mitchell and the others. That convinced me even further to go, because he asked me to make representations on his and his constituent's behalf. Shortly after that, there was a very bad situation in Riyadh, in which a compound that housed mainly foreigners was completely demolished by suicide bombers; a number of bombers were involved. That was two days before we were to fly out.
We were invited to the Foreign Office, and the adviser there told us that we really ought not to go and that our lives would be in danger if we did. However, one member of the delegation was a Member of the other place, Lord Redesdale, and in true Brit fashion, he said to us, "Well, you can decide not to go, but I'll go. If we don't, the suicide bombers have won. If they stop us going to and having influence in countries such as Saudi Arabia, they have won their case." That was a good point. Having considered his and my hon. Friend's arguments, but in the teeth of opposition from my son and daughter, I decided that I should go.
We went and, as has been mentioned, we were treated with courtesy and hospitality. We were only there for a weekend. Of about six people, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) and I were the two women on the delegation. We were accepted: we were not asked to dress in a certain way and we were not asked to wear veils or cover our heads. We were treated with the utmost courtesy. I ate so much that weekend, I am sure I put on weight. That is not to trivialise what we are talking about.
During our visit we spoke to seven or eight Government Ministers. To each Minister we made representations on behalf of the British prisoners. We complained about their treatment and the charges that had been brought against them, and we begged for their release. Within weeks of our return they were released. Whether our representations had any impact, I am not sure. Later, I went to the Saudi Arabian embassy in London as part of a delegation that included my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and other Members involved in these arguments. That probably also helped.
Last summer, after the release of the captives, I was invited to a Saudi Arabian women's day—can you believe it—in London. It was a lovely occasion. We heard from all kinds of professionals from Saudi Arabia—I know this is trivial, but they were beautiful women and beautifully dressed—who were very clever and talented. It made me think that Saudi Arabia is moving in the right direction. At the same time, however, I had to consider the fact that women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to travel alone unless they carry a document demonstrating that they have their husband's permission to do so. They are not allowed to drive or vote, and they do not have any seats on the governing council. However, a handful of women now
486WH
have advisory positions to that governing council. Many of these women were in London last summer.
I made representations in Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Christian community about its right to freedom of worship. I was told by Saudi Arabian Ministers that there was no restriction on freedom of worship. They do not, however, allow buildings dedicated to religions other than the Muslim faith. I would like to discuss that issue with them once more.
I was very encouraged by the conference and lunch that I attended in London, and by seeing those terrific, talented women, who were able to speak up on behalf of the women of Saudi Arabia. This morning, however, I was very saddened to hear on the "Today" programme that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who is, I suppose, the Muslim world's equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, had condemned a group of women—I am sure that they were the same women whom I met in both Riyadh and London—for having the audacity to go to a business conference where they spoke, did not cover their heads and did not wear a veil. Apparently the Grand Mufti was very critical of those women. It was suggested that he was threatening about them. Having had contact with the Saudi Arabian ambassador to London with my hon. Friend, I will write to him in the next few days asking for his Government's assurance that those women will not be threatened; in fact, I would like to see such women promoted and accepted as a norm in Saudi Arabian society.
I looked through this morning's newspapers to see whether I could find a report of the Grand Mufti's comment, but I could not do so. I discovered one or two encouraging things, however. Morocco, another Muslim and Arab state, has passed a new law that will give women equal rights; there will also be family rights; and they hope that polygamy will become a thing of the past. In addition, women are now to be allowed to join the committees of the governing councils of the game of golf. So even we and our golling enthusiasts are coming into the 21st century.
2.39 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing the debate and on showing a great deal of patience and care in setting out the case of his constituent, Sandy Mitchell, and the experience of other hon. Members who have had to deal with the shocking instances involving British detainees in the past year. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for raising another issue relating to human rights problems in Saudi Arabia. I hope that the Minister will be able to touch on that in his reply.
The broader topic is important but, at the outset, I join others in supporting the efforts of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden to pursue the issue of compensation and related issues with the Saudi authorities. I hope that the Government will facilitate that, and that the Minister will shed some light on the situation in the Court of Appeal in his winding-up comments.
In response to a parliamentary question from my noble friend Lord Avebury on 17 November, Baroness Symons said that if the men choose to pursue a claim for

487WH
compensation, it is a matter for them and their lawyers. Everyone here would expect a little more activity on their behalf by the Government so that they will not simply be left in isolation to pursue their cases. The release of the prisoners was obviously welcome, and I join other hon. Members in acknowledging the efforts of many in the Chamber, and behind the scenes in the Government, who made key efforts on their behalf. The specific instance of the British detainees has cast a rather harsh light on the relationship that the United Kingdom enjoys with Saudi Arabia, not least in respect of human rights.
Before I am critical, perhaps it is only fair to recognise the complexities that exist in Saudi Arabia. The religious situation is extremely sensitive, and we all recognise that. There are difficult internal security realities, not least, as has been mentioned, after 11 September. There are also important regional strategic security issues, to which all of our concerns relate.
It would be churlish if we did not acknowledge the serious efforts that have been made by Crown Prince Abdullah to move the reform programme forward. His proposals last year for self-reform and the promotion of political participation were an important step forward. The national reform document, and the petition that he accepted from the Shi'a Muslims, also showed signs of progress. None the less, we have yet to see any fruits from that dialogue. I hope that the Government will continue to press for concrete outcomes from them.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden rightly paid tribute to Amnesty International. In its most recent report, it highlights many different issues, but describes how torture and ill-treatment remain rife. It also highlights the fact that international non-governmental human rights organisations have been denied access to the country to do anything meaningful.
The Government have not been slow to highlight the weakness of the Saudi position on human rights. On their website, they have focused for some time—in language consistent with that used in parliamentary answers—on aspects of the judicial system, corporal and capital punishment, torture, discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and restrictions on freedom of movement, expression, assembly and worship. This is not a relationship in which the Government are blinded or turn the other way.
Although I welcome the Government's frank statement on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, I recognise the complexity of our relationship with that country, in terms of trade, security and our joint efforts to combat international terrorism. The overlap between all those different issues sometimes means that none of them is particularly clear. Sometimes they all come together, most obviously in the al-Yamamah project—the scale of which is vast, but detail about which is limited. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has repeatedly asked the Ministry of Defence for information and has been repulsed on the grounds of confidentiality or disproportionate cost.
We are keen to get to the bottom of the extent to which there is any conditionality in the relationship, in a trading sense, with Saudi Arabia, particularly in
488WH
relation to that project, but in relation to our other dealings. On 18 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked if human rights were included as a condition in the contracts governing the al-Yamamah programme. The Minister of State at the MOD replied in a parliamentary answer that no conditions were attached. That will surprise many people.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden highlighted the fact that export licences from this country are still being allowed for types of equipment that would appear, at face value, to breach the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, by which such things are judged. Criterion two states that the Government will not issue an export licence
"if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression".
The export to Saudi Arabia of footcuffs and handcuffs that were manufactured in this country shows that there is at least one example of the failure of that process. Surely it is time for Britain to get its house in order, because, without that, we make a mockery not just of the licensing system, but of the Government's publicly stated position on human rights in Saudi Arabia.
It is important that we do not lose sight of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and his hon. Friends regarding Sandy Mitchell, Ron Jones and others. The Government must make every effort to assist them in their case against the Saudi Government. In our dealings with the Saudis, we must continue to urge them to respond positively to those appeals. We must also take account of the point made by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), who said that the Saudi authorities must send clear signals to citizens from other countries that they will enjoy the highest standards of international law in all their dealings with them.
On the wider issues, we must also encourage the Saudis to continue with the reform programme, and, in particular, to allow non-governmental organisations and others in to monitor how that is progressing.
We have a strong relationship with the Saudis. That relationship has to be frank, and we have to balance all our different interests carefully. However, without increased transparency and a proper understanding of the commercial and strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, the concerns about human rights abuses will continue, and our Government's position will continue to appear weak.
2.49 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), not just on securing the debate in the first instance, but on the way in which he set out his case. We lawyers, or former lawyers, have an expression, res ipsa loquitur, which means that the facts speak for themselves. The power of his case was that he allowed the facts to speak for themselves. The facts are chilling and that is what makes his case so powerful. I congratulate him on raising the cases of Sandy Mitchell and the Jones family over a long time. I hope that the Minister can give some of the reassurances about more effective action that the hon. Gentleman has called for.

489WH
A number of cases raise general concern about Saudi Arabia, and that is what I want to address. Nobody can have any doubts about human rights abuses after reading the evidence in the US State Department report. There are also several reports by non-governmental organisations that raise such issues—we have heard about Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for being vigilant on our behalf. The Government have their own assessment of human rights in Saudi Arabia.
Important information about human rights abuses comes from all quarters. In my part of the United Kingdom, the west country, there is a strong defence contingent and many former servicemen and women work or have worked in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regions. From them, I have received, on a number of occasions and over many years, first-hand testimony of human rights abuses and other difficulties in Saudi Arabia. There is undoubtedly a very worrying situation. We should all be concerned about the brutal and one-sided criminal justice system, unacceptable restrictions on religious freedoms, restrictions on free speech and movement, appalling discrimination against women and non-Muslims—or even the wrong type of Muslims—and a lack of representative Government and anything remotely approaching democracy.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned the comments of the Grand Mufti. I have a piece of paper that was printed from the BBC website that quotes his remarks. There was a conference at the Red sea port of Jeddah at which the chief businesswoman in the country, Lubna Al-Olayan, used her speech to call for female empowerment in the kingdom. She said:
"It is essential for Saudi Arabia's economic well-being for the potential of the country's female workforce to be unlocked. Without real change there can be no real progress. If we in Saudi Arabia want to progress we have no choice but to embrace change.
Her statements were reasonable and sensible. Unfortunately, the Grand Mufti's response was:
"I severely condemn this matter and warn of grave consequences."
I hope that the Government will support this brave businesswoman's call and condemn the comments of the Grand Mufti.
In a difficult and unstable region where the virtuous triangle of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights are thin on the ground, all hon. Members must ask how we and the UK Government can best act to help the situation to improve. I agree that we need a stronger and sharper voice on the unacceptable practices in Saudi Arabia, but the key question is how we can best advocate change.
Our quest for the right approach must be informed by three key principles. First, it is unrealistic to expect quick fixes. It took the people of our country hundreds of years to get the democracy that we have today. We all want rapid change, but we must recognise that such change can take time. Secondly, it is unhelpful— arrogant, even—for us to seek to impose western solutions on what is a very different region and culture. One size does not fit all in this case. Thirdly, we must accept a measure of realpolitik. In the struggles that we
490WH
have had in the Gulf region in the past 15 years or so, Saudi Arabia has been a friend and ally in some of our interventions. Those things need to be understood.
The human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, however, is intolerable and unacceptable. I say that even though this country considers itself to be a friend of Saudi Arabia and has strong trade links with it. There must be gradual change and reform. The question is how can we help to achieve that.
The Government have decided how they will tackle this matter. I will now refer to the "Human Rights Annual Report 2002" of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and specifically to the evidence given by the Minister on 28 January 2003—I am not sure how those dates tally, but apparently they do. He was asked about Saudi Arabia and, on page 35, he is reported as saying that
"there is an extensive list of concerns that we put forward, and they are in the public domain, about corporal and capital punishment, torture, discrimination against women and non-Muslims and restrictions on freedom of expression. However, we maintain a confidential dialogue with the Saudi Government on human rights issues because we do find in some circumstances that is more effective than public confrontation."
I am not saying that a confidential dialogue is not the right course of action—we all have to live in the real world—but if we are not careful, the words "confidential dialogue" can become a smokescreen or camouflage to hide behind. It could be another way of saying, "Actually, we are not doing much."
I am not accusing the Minister of that, but I would like him to say a little about what that confidential dialogue includes. How frequent are these confidential conversations? When was the last time that the Minister spoke to a Saudi Minister about human rights? The Minister says that the Government do, from time to time, criticise publicly the Saudi regime, but I would like to know when that last happened. I was unable to find any press cuttings of public criticism.
Saudi Arabia is an important trading partner, in particular in the realm of defence procurement. I note that the Saudi Foreign Minister has been to the UK four times in the past three years, and there have been many ministerial visits to Saudi Arabia in that time. Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, in her capacity as Minister with responsibility for trade and industry, has been three times in the past two years. The Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have all been to the country in the past two or three years. I would like the Minister to confirm whether on each visit the issue of human rights was raised. It is not so important whether they discussed the cases of individual families or the general situation, but that, on every occasion, the UK Government put down the marker that we find the country's human rights record unacceptable.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister understandably pointed towards some progress. On page 37, he says that
"we have seen in the last year the first time the Saudi's reported to the UN Committee Against Torture. There are still concerns but I think that is a positive development. There was the new criminal code, which came into force in Saudi Arabia in May 2002 which gives increased rights to those people accused of crimes. The fact that the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers visited Saudi in October 2002 I think was a positive development."
I do not disagree with any of that, but what has happened since January 2003 when he made those comments? In particular, what has happened to the new

491WH
criminal code, which introduced the radical notions of an accused person being allowed to be defended by a lawyer, and a court passing a sentence after the trial, rather than before the trial has taken place, as was the case? Is that code in place and working, and are we satisfied with it?
I recognise that Saudi Arabia is at the crossroads. The winds of change are beginning to blow fiercely through the country. It is facing a struggle with internal dissent and terrorism. It is grappling with population growth that is outstripping economic growth. Sectarian resentments are beginning to grow, and there is an upsurge in radical Islamic activism. Those are difficult issues for any Government to deal with. We must recognise the fragile state of the entire region, the stability of which is by no means assured.
Although, we appreciate the sensitivities of the country and the region, we none the less want the Minister to take effective action. It is vital that the Saudi Government act firmly and decisively against the threat of terror and global terrorists, and nothing should be used as a smokescreen or excuse to block further progress in giving Saudi citizens more freedoms, rights and justice. That might be achieved through confidential dialogue or through something else, but will the Minister tell us whether he will continue to press the Saudis, using all means possible, to accept the need for change and to flow with the inevitable river of reform?
3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): We have had an exceedingly good debate on what is, undoubtedly, a very serious issue. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing this debate on human rights in Saudi Arabia. I have listened carefully to all the points.
Jim Sheridan: Thus far, I have resisted the temptation to intervene on the persistent references to the constituency of my hon Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) as "Beersden". It is actually "Bearsden". I do not want my hon. Friend's constituents to be thought of as people hiding in a den, drinking beer.
Mr. Rammell: I am appropriately reprimanded and apologise sincerely for my mispronunciation. Perhaps it is because I have been drinking beer—no, I have not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden raised important concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, particularly his constituency concern. He focused on the cases of the British men who were detained in Saudi Arabia until August last year. I genuinely understand his concerns, and I pay tribute to the way in which he consistently supported their cause. He somewhat diminished his role in the process, as he played a key part in advocating their interests.
I shall comment in general terms on points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. To this day, the Foreign Office remains in close contact with the men
492WH
and their families. Indeed, throughout the two and a half years of their
detention, British Government Ministers and officials worked exceedingly hard to resolve their case and to secure their release. We consistently raised the matter with the Saudi Government at the highest levels and at every conceivable appropriate opportunity—I shall come back to that later—and we were in close contact with the men and their families throughout the case. Obviously, it was an extraordinarily difficult time for them. Mr. Ron Jones is present today in the Public Gallery, and I welcome him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden discussed the men's treatment while in detention. I wish to make it absolutely clear that throughout the case the paramount concern of Ministers and officials has been the men's welfare. We made clear our concerns about their treatment and conditions of detention with the Saudi authorities repeatedly and consistently at all levels. We did so in private—that goes to the nub of several points that have been made this afternoon—as our judgment and assessment were that that was the most effective, practical means of securing the men's release. Of course, we can be challenged over that assessment.
The majority of the families and of the lawyers believed that it was not in the men's best interests to raise the profile of their case publicly. We can be criticised, and different Members will have different judgments, but that is the conclusion that we reached. The fact that finally, albeit after too long a time, we secured the men's release suggests that our approach was sensible.
Let me comment specifically on some of the points that have been made. My hon. Friend spoke about the identities of two individual torturers. We raised with the Saudi authorities the role of named Saudi individuals involved in the men's detention. In respect of my hon. Friend's concern about what would happen if they came to this country, the position is that unless those individuals were found guilty by a court of an offence recognised under UK law, we would have no grounds for arresting them. That is the legal situation. We are aware of the ongoing legal case on the men's detention. We have expressed our concerns about it and the conditions of their detention, and we shall continue to do so.
My hon. Friend also said that he wanted a stronger voice from the Foreign Office against human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia generally. That is a key point. He asked explicitly what we are doing in that regard and I shall give three responses. First, there is undoubtedly a balance to be struck in respect of what might be described as strident, public criticism that could harm the interests of UK citizens. I am not referring to my hon. Friend, but unless we recognised that there is a balance to be struck, we would not be carrying out our responsibilities on behalf of UK citizens appropriately and responsibly. Secondly, in response to the question about what the Foreign Office is doing, people must look at what we have done: we have consistently pursued such matters and made our position clear.
Thirdly, on the generality of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, the issue was consistently brought forward by hon. Members of all parties when the Foreign Office published its annual human rights

493WH
report. We have listened and responded and the general criticisms of human rights in Saudi Arabia are far more explicit in that annual human rights report now than in the past. My hon. Friend referred to the excellent work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in relation to that process and other human rights cases, and I endorse that view. Although the Government have one role and human rights organisations have another, we respect such organisations and work with them to promote human rights and to take up particular issues of concern.
My hon. Friend also referred to Bill Sampson and questioned why he was dealt with as a Canadian national. He entered Saudi Arabia on his Canadian passport, and Saudi Arabia, under its statutes, does not recognise dual nationality. That is why it was appropriate and most effective for the Canadian authorities to take up the case. Nevertheless, we were in close contact throughout with the Canadian authorities and, since his release, we have offered to provide Mr. Sampson with appropriate assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned the approaches that she and others have made, both in Saudi Arabia and to the Saudi ambassador in London. I genuinely believe that all such representations, including our own in the Foreign Office and throughout Government, contributed to the work that went on throughout the men's detention to secure their release.
My hon. Friend also referred to the involvement of Saudi nationals in the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. Despite differences of view with the Saudi authorities about human rights, it is worth stating on the record that the Saudi Government have at all times condemned those attacks, as they have repeatedly condemned terrorist attacks wherever they occurred and whomever the victims were.
My hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Anne Picking) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden raised the important point that a number of the men concerned are still suffering from torture. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian said that we should be helping to integrate those men back into society. The point was well made. On their release, we arranged for fast-track access to national health service appointments and liaised with the offices of the men's MPs to help them get access to local services. It was right and proper that we responded in that way.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) raised in general terms the issue of selling arms to Saudi Arabia. It is worth saying that all export licences for equipment for Saudi Arabia are assessed case by case against both our own national arms export licensing criteria and the consolidated EU criteria. Most of our strategic exports to Saudi Arabia fall within the ambit that he mentioned—the al-Yamamah project—under the terms of the Government's memorandum of understanding that was signed in 1985. The equipment that is supplied is judged according to those licensing criteria. Key within that is the point that equipment is not sold if we judge that it could be used for internal repression or external aggression.
494WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) has not spoken today, but she is in the Chamber. She has consistently raised concerns with the Foreign Office on behalf of her constituent, Mr. Ron Jones.
Mr. Moore: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry that I did not catch him before he moved off the point to which I want to refer. Will he pick up on the specific issue that was raised not only by me, but by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), about the supply of equipment that can be used for repression?
Mr. Rammell: When I return to the body of my speech, I shall refer specifically to that worry. It is a key issue.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) referred to my comments at the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year when I spoke about the Government's annual human rights report. I said that we undertake a confidential dialogue with regard to the Saudi authorities and I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that that is not necessarily the wrong approach. He asked how often the dialogue takes place. It takes place exceedingly frequently and at every opportunity we raise such issues at official and ambassadorial levels.
My noble Friend Baroness Symons has explicit responsibility for Saudi Arabia, which is why the hon. Gentleman has not heard me usually referring to such matters. She has raised the matter directly with the Saudi authorities, as have the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We take such an approach consistently and we shall continue to do so. The hon. Member for South-West Devon also acknowledged from my comments that some progress has been made in Saudi Arabia, an issue to which I shall return.
One of the matters that we need to reflect on is that when dealing with human rights at any time, there are intermingling forces of progress and forces of reaction. We are therefore constantly engaged in making exceedingly difficult judgments about how to promote the forces of progress while, at the same time, making clear our opposition to the forces of reaction. The hon. Gentleman sought a more detailed response in respect of Saudi Arabia. On 24 February, I will give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on this year's annual human rights report, when I am sure we shall go into such issues in considerable detail.
Laura Moffatt: My hon. Friend rightly mentioned steering a careful path between encouragement and criticism. We have all been sensitive to that. Does he agree that it is most important for the victims of torture to know that the Government, especially the Foreign Office, are not obstructive to any action that they may feel is necessary? It is not just a matter of sitting back and allowing things to happen, but of supporting people from the United Kingdom who may have been in difficulty, particularly in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. We support United Kingdom nationals

495WH
who have been in such difficult circumstances and we shall continue to do so. I think that she was alluding specifically to a legal case, to which I shall refer later.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised the issue of men being shackled by leg irons that were made in England, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. I am sure that all of us shared the horror and revulsion when that fact was revealed. It is a worrying and serious allegation and it is important that I make some specific comments about it.
In March 1994, an open individual export licence was granted for the export of shackles to destinations that included Saudi Arabia. In an announcement to Parliament on 28 July 1997—under a Labour Government—known as "the torture statement", the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), committed the Government to taking the necessary measures to prevent the export or transhipment from the United Kingdom of leg irons, gang chains and shackles—excluding normal handcuffs—and electric shock belts designed for the restraint of human beings.
That announcement also committed the Government to encourage European Union member states to impose similar restrictions as a third step towards a global ban. As a forerunner to that announcement, Saudia Arabia was specifically removed as a destination on the export licence on 25 July 1997. I am trying to make it clear that the equipment to which my hon. Friend referred is in Saudi Arabia because of the export licensing regime that existed prior to 1997. All other things being equal, similar equipment could not be exported today.
We greatly welcomed the men's release on 8 August 2003. We were relieved at their return to the UK and to their families. Indeed, Ministers and officials had worked vigorously to secure that outcome. It is worth relating the efforts that we went to when they were released. British embassy officials met them and stayed with them until they boarded the flight to London. We arranged for the men to be accompanied on the flight by a team of British medics and a British embassy official. Police collected members of the men's families from their homes across the UK and drove them to Heathrow airport so that they could meet the men on their arrival. The police then took the majority of the men and their families to their homes or other locations of their choice.
Although the Foreign Office's consular remit and responsibility normally ceases when a British national returns home, on this occasion, given the exceptional circumstances, we offered the men further assistance. As I said, we offered them fast-track access to the national health service. We liaised with their Members of Parliament and—rightly and appropriately, given the circumstances—the Foreign Secretary spoke to each of the men on their return.
The issue of compensation has been raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden mentioned that, too. I am aware of the men's desire for compensation. It is of course for them to decide how they proceed in that regard, and whether they pursue legal action. Nevertheless, we remain in close touch with the men, their lawyers and the Saudi authorities, and it
496WH
would not be appropriate for me to go further on those issues now. Indeed, to do so could compromise any progress that would otherwise be made.
Mr. Lyons: It may be true that there are outstanding legal cases, but behind all that, at the end of the day, there is a drive to receive justice rather than compensation. I ask the Minister to reconsider the legal opinion that he has been given in respect of Ron Jones and the two people I mentioned, Khalid al Sallah and Ibrahim al Dali. Surely the Foreign Secretary should consider how we could arrest those people the minute that they step foot in the UK or the EU. That would be a way forward.
Mr. Rammell: I give my hon. Friend a commitment that I will look at that legal advice again. It is clear legal advice, and I will happily discuss it with him in detail, but it would be totally inappropriate for Ministers to give cavalier commitments on something of such importance when we know that, legally, we could not act differently.
The Foreign Office's annual human rights report describes in detail how the Government have responded to human rights challenges around the world, including in Saudi Arabia. Our view is that the promotion and protection of human rights is morally right and firmly in our national interest. By that, I mean that countries that have strong and good human rights records tend to be those with which we have good relations and can do business. We are convincing people that we are taking the right approach on human rights both from a moral and altruistic and from a self-interested point of view.
The annual report on human rights makes it clear that we have human rights concerns in a wide range of countries. We undoubtedly use different approaches to human rights issues in different countries. I know that that sometimes subjects us to criticism, but it is a reality that one size does not fit all. The same approach is not the most effective in every situation. Our experience has been that engaging the Saudi authorities in discussion on human rights issues in private is often more productive and effective than public confrontation. However, let me be clear that private discussions are in no way synonymous with a soft approach. That refers to the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-West Devon.
We have deep concerns about Saudi Arabia's failure to implement basic human rights norms on a wide range of issues, including aspects of the judicial system, corporate and capital punishment, torture, discrimination against women and non-Muslims and restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and worship. Hon. Members have referred to a number of those issues, and it may be helpful if I expand on them.
We are worried that the Saudi legal system's procedures do not meet accepted international standards. Indeed, in a fact-finding mission to Saudi Arabia in October 2002, the United Nations special rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Cumaraswamy, met representatives from the Government, the Shura council, the board of senior religious scholars, the bureau of investigation and prosecution, the judiciary, the prison service and the legal professions. His report identified many areas of

497WH
concern. He considered that the Saudi judicial system continued to rely heavily on confessions, that the Ministry of Justice's control over judges contributed to a lack of transparency and impartiality, and that torture and prolonged, incommunicado pre-trial detentions continued. We voiced our concerns about Saudi Arabia to our European Union partners at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 2003.
We also have concerns about capital and corporal punishment. As hon. Members will be aware, the Saudi judicial system imposes corporal and capital punishment under Saudi sharia law. A number of crimes can be punished by death, including adultery. The judicial and administrative authorities' use of amputation—for example, for theft—and flogging remain prevalent. Individuals can be sentenced to flogging for consumption of drugs and alcohol. We believe that the Saudi authorities executed 53 people last year, one of the highest levels of public execution in the world. The Saudi authorities are well aware of our views on the use of the death penalty: we oppose it in Saudi Arabia and everywhere in the world. We also oppose judicial corporal punishment in all its forms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. While women represent more than half the school and university population, they are constrained in the types of job that they can take and in the positions that they can hold in society, and there are severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, to which my hon. Friend referred. There has been some progress. In September 2001 Saudi Arabia ratified the UN convention for elimination of discrimination against women, but we and others have voiced disquiet about the broad reservations that it placed on that ratification. Again, therefore, it is a mixed picture.
Against those wide-ranging concerns must be set some encouraging developments in Saudi Arabia in human rights issues. In May 2002 the Saudis adopted new criminal justice procedures aimed at modernising the criminal justice system. The Saudi Government have shown a greater willingness to engage with the international community and openly discuss human rights issues, and we support and encourage them in that process.
Mr. Streeter: The Minister mentioned the new criminal justice system. In his evidence to the Select Committee in January it was clear that it had not yet been implemented, although it had been introduced in a different way the previous year. Does he know whether it has now been implemented and is working, and are we satisfied?
Mr. Rammell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I meant to pick up that point earlier.
We have seen some practical implementation of the new system. We continue to monitor the situation closely and we are encouraging the Saudi Government
498WH
to move further. In terms of progress, we have also seen a greater willingness by the Saudi authorities to engage with the international community in dialogues on a wide range of issues. Indeed, in January 2003 the Saudi Crown Prince, who is responsible for much of the day-to-day running of the country, set out proposals for self-reform and the promotion of political participation in the Arab world. Two dialogues have been held since then, and a third is planned. It will address what in many senses is the most controversial subject—the situation of women in Saudi Arabia. We see that as a positive step forward and will encourage that process.
A number of hon. Members referred to the legal case that Mr. Jones is pursuing. Mr. Jones has asked the Court of Appeal to decide that the United Kingdom's existing legislation regarding the immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of UK courts, under the State Immunity Act 1978, is not compatible with the UK's obligations under the European convention on human rights. That request is a legal challenge to the 1978 Act under the Human Rights Act 1998. In accordance with the requirements of the 1998 Act, the Government have a right to be party to the proceedings. The legislation is theirs, so they have a right to be represented. The 1978 Act is the responsibility of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has asked to be joined as a party. The Government are intervening not to go against Mr. Jones. but to defend existing UK legislation. I shall be happy to talk to hon. Members about that on another occasion.
In conclusion, this has been an important debate on a difficult issue. There have been some positive human rights developments in Saudi Arabia, but there is undoubtedly still a long way to go. We continue to have wide-ranging concerns, but we remain committed to encouraging Saudi Arabia to improve its human rights record. We are encouraged by the ratification of some of the United Nations' human rights treaties, but we should like to see the Saudi authorities go further in implementing those treaties and lifting their exceedingly broad reservations, particularly with regard to women. We continue to press the Saudi Government to ratify the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, which are two of the six core UN human rights instruments.
We continue to voice our concerns at every opportunity, both privately and publicly. However, as I have stressed on a number of occasions, there must be a balance between explicit public condemnation and private dialogue. The reaction of hon. Members suggests general recognition of that point. If we do not take that balance into account, we shall not serve the interests of UK nationals. In that context, we shall continue to pursue our course of action. I thank every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, who initiated it. This has been a good opportunity to raise issues on an important subject.

Language Development (0—3 year olds)
3.28 pm
Chris Ruane: Thank you for your kind introduction, Mr. Cook. The issue is indeed intriguing. I should like to bring to the Chamber's attention what I believe is the key issue facing the country today. At first glance, one might not think that it could possibly be this, but the development of language governs not only an individual's ability to talk, but the ability to think, reason, argue, discuss, debate and use a range of higher-order skills that are necessary for an individual and a national economy to function properly in the 21st century.
I draw hon. Members' attention to this book "Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children", by Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, who are professors of human development and psychology. They have produced what is widely recognised as the most comprehensive study of early language development ever conducted. I should like to give a brief summary of that research, which was first brought to my attention by the journalist Polly Toynbee, in a recent article in The Guardian. I am indebted to Polly: the House could not get a copy of the book for me in time, but she sent one last Friday. I read it over the weekend and was very impressed. The authors originally took part in intervention programmes with four-year-olds. They tried, with extra funding and resources, to raise the children's educational attainment. They could not achieve this, and wondered why that might be, so they examined development from nought to three and found it to be the key.
Hart and Risley studied 42 families: professional and working-class families and those on welfare. Once a month they went into the family home and recorded every single word that was uttered to the child concerned. They did this for two and a half years. They spent six years categorizing, coding and analysing this information. They found that, over the two and a half year period, there were widening gaps between the vocabulary growth of the child from a professional family, the child from a working-class family and the child from a family receiving welfare. By the age of four, the child from a professional family had had 50 million words spoken to him, the child from a working-class family 30 million, and the one from the family on benefits just 12 million.
The researchers also examined the types of words that were spoken and the context in which they were used. They looked at positive reinforcement and negative discouragement, and what they found in this regard was equally shattering. The child from the professional family had had 700,000 words of encouragement, with just 80,000 negatives. However, the child from the family receiving benefits had 60,000 words of encouragement and twice as many words of discouragement. One can imagine the effect of this, day in, day out, on a child's motivation, confidence, self-awareness, self-esteem and aspiration—it cannot be exaggerated.
Hart and Risley also found that the vocabulary of a child of three from the professional class was greater than that of the adult from the family receiving benefits.
500WH
That is a devastating statistic. I would say it needs further analysis, but if it is true, a great deal of intervention needs to take place. I think this might help us to understand why social class is the most significant defining factor in a child's educational success in Britain. According to the March 2003 Education and Child Poverty report, the gap established was larger than in any other country in the developed world. I know that the Pre-School Learning Alliance, a national educational charity that has campaigned on this matter, is also concerned. Recent research by the Government's Basic Skills Agency has also found a notable decrease in language skills in all primary school children, regardless of family demographics, within the last five years. A clear initiative to foster early language development among disadvantaged British children is essential.
I want to turn my focus to what can be done in the UK to give children from working-class families and those on welfare equality of opportunity from the day they are born. Before I do this, I would like to give credit for what the Government have done for families in deprived neighbourhoods—the list is impressive. We have increased child benefit to more than £16 a week for the first child, and continue to uprate it each year. We have introduced a range of early-years programmes, including Sure Start, which now attracts £500 million in funding. We have reduced class sizes in infant schools to below 30. We have introduced literacy and numeracy hours and have dramatically improved the results obtained in standard assessment tests. We have introduced flexible working hours and paternity leave, extended maternity leave and pay, and introduced the working time directive to enable families to spend more time together. We have introduced the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, which specifically target women and poorer communities. In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor announced new tax and national insurance breaks for employers who supported child care. We have helped to set up workplace nurseries, after-school clubs, pre-school clubs, breakfast clubs, and family and neighbourhood learning centres in deprived communities. Indeed, I have a dedicated family learning centre opening in my constituency in March, in the West ward of Rhyl, the poorest ward of the 865 in Wales. This Friday I will be opening an out-of-school club at Ysgol Brynhedydd in my constituency. The parents are over the moon at these developments.
I am sure the Minister will add to this impressive list when she sums up at the end. In the Green Paper for children published last September, proposals were put forward to offer a comprehensive approach to the improvement of the lives of British children and youths. I look forward to further development of the initiatives in the coming months, in particular the thorough assessment of how language development can help achieve the goal of lifting children out of poverty. That is a noble goal, set by the Prime Minister—sorry, that was a Freudian slip; the Chancellor has set the goal of lifting all children out of poverty by 2020. However, is bringing them out of poverty so that they are hovering just above the poverty level enough? I do not believe so. We should give such children material support, but our true goal should be to let each and every one of them flourish, and that is contingent on—I refer the Chamber back to the title of the debate—improving children's language development between the ages of nought and three.

501WH
The importance of language education for children between nought and three should be recognised in our financing and budgeting. That would show our priorities. Putting the finance in place would show that we are serious about tackling the issue. UK education funding between the ages of nought and 21 is biased towards the secondary and tertiary sectors. In 2001—02, net expenditure in England per pupil was £5,170 for higher education, £3,790 for further education, £3,500 for secondary education and £2,940 for pre-school and primary education, which are now lumped together. I have not been able to obtain the figure for the nought to three-year-olds, but I imagine that funding for them would be dramatically lower. That bias is maintained, despite the fact that for at least 50 years we have known that 50 per cent. of learning is done before the age of five. Ignatius Loyola said 400 years ago, "Give me the child until the age of seven, and I will give you the man." Yet our funding priorities are the inverse of that.
I have concentrated on an overview of our achievements to date and on the importance of the early years, but I wish to return to the specific point of language development, and to what measures the Government could take to narrow the gap among nought to three-year-olds of different social classes. I urge the Minister to conduct a comprehensive assessment of previous research on that issue, of which there are numerous examples from around the world. We need to reassess the excellent work done in America, of which I am sure civil servants are aware. We should consider the High Scope Perry pre-school project, which focused on the early education of disadvantaged children in the Michigan community. Those children learned language through activities that they created and implemented themselves, with the guidance of adult educators. For every $1 invested in that programme—and we have a canny Chancellor interested in savings—$7 was saved during the next 20 years, because less money was subsequently spent on special educational needs, welfare benefits and juvenile crime. The university of North Carolina set up the Abecedarian project, in which infants from low-income homes were put in an intensive child care setting, which resulted in a return of $4 for every $1 spent.
I ask the Minister to look not only to the US but to areas of the UK. In Wales, we are surging ahead with breakfast clubs—putting the nutrients into children from the poorest communities so that they can function and learn properly at school. The parents-as-teachers partnership involves a different approach: it is based on the philosophy, which I share, that parents are the first and most influential
teachers. Involving parents in the learning process has the added benefit of improving language skills throughout the family. All those approaches share the goal of establishing strong language skills in each child well before he or she is ready to begin primary school, thus preparing the child for success throughout his or her education and continuing into adulthood. I urge that there be a thorough review to see how these kinds of successful early childhood education programmes may be implemented, developed and expanded in the UK.
Some of the strategies outlined by Risley and Hart seem eminently sensible to me. They have worked in communities in America. Can they work in ours? They
502WH
recommend quality, income-graded child care that is affordable for all parents. I have already mentioned that the Chancellor has proposals on that.
Last week I was conducting a listening exercise at a local factory in my constituency. There were 10 people around the table, eight of whom were women. One woman calculated that she had spent £36,000 on child care on her child from nought to six. I do not want to diminish the argument for higher education, but hon. Members can draw their own conclusions from that example. Another person calculated that after paying child care costs during the school holidays she was working for £2.27 a day. Those people wanted the Government to support workplace child care.
Is there a case for parenting classes for every child of 15 and 16 years old, or even earlier, so that they are aware of language between nought and three? If they then have children—and especially if they have them early—they will be fully aware of the importance of language. Should the families have enhanced benefits for enrolling on parenting courses? That may help to reduce economic inactivity and help parents to help their children. If parents are willing to co-operate, they should be rewarded.
Hart and Risley estimate that it would take 41 hours a week of one-on-one tuition to bring the child from a family on benefits up to the language exposure level of a child from a professional family. We as a state will not be able to afford that. We must bring the parents on board and help them spend 41 hours a week in constructive dialogue with their children. Engaging the parents will be the key to improving linguistic development. We can learn from the parents-as-teachers project in America, as well as the success of projects around the UK.
Although the Pre-School Learning Alliance cites early language development as central to its ongoing project of striving to provide a series of learning opportunities associated with pre-school education that will support more long-term learning, it has lost funding for its central initiatives. That has greatly reduced the access of parents in the country's most deprived wards to these essential programmes for the promotion of early language development. The alliance contacted me about that yesterday.
If we are cutting back on the support and funding for such excellent projects and organisations, we have no chance of releasing and unlocking the potential of children in deprived neighbourhoods. I have seen the expenditure plans for the Minister's Department and I welcome the rapid expansion of the Sure Start programme from £179 million in 1998 to £531 million now, increasing to £1,506 million by 2006. That is truly rapid progress, and I am pleased about it, but higher education expenditure is currently £7.7 billion and there is a proposed budget of £8.3 billion by 2006.
Last week I was also listening to the views of some families on a local council estate in an area of deprivation. It was mainly mothers who turned up. In fact, it was the council estate that I grew up on. The parents commented on the recent wall-to-wall publicity for top-up fees on the TV and in the other media. They said, "That's an upper-class thing. The rich mummies and daddies are worried. How much will you be spending on the 50 per cent. who will never have the

503WH
chance to go to college? How much will you be spending on our children? You'll just let them fester and get into crime, drugs and failure." That is a valid point. I do not want to rubbish the higher education argument. However, although we need that investment, which I welcome, we must question where we get it from. This is an issue of social justice: putting the resources where they are most needed and where we will get the most feedback.
Is it right that there is a disparity in the funding of programmes like Sure Start? We are spending 14 times as much on higher education as we are on that dedicated Sure Start programme for children of nought to three years. Is it right for us to spend that much? There needs to be a seismic shift in funding for pre-school education to at least equal, if not overtake, the funding going into higher education. Perhaps I need the Chancellor to be present, because I am sure that the Minister would welcome a fourteenfold increase in her budget to help her achieve her Department's aims. With due respect to the Chancellor, I must say that he has already done more than any other Chancellor in British history to improve the lot of working-class families, and I have given a comprehensive list of his achievements.
There must be a massive expansion of ring-fenced funding targeted at the specific aim of language development in nought to three-year-olds. The Chancellor is a canny Scot who knows where he can get value for money. The earlier we intervene, the greater the savings we will make. The price of failure—the alternative—is juvenile crime, welfare payments and crippled communities. The costs to the individuals are lost opportunities, unfulfilled lives and untapped potential.
Funding is a key issue, but it is not the only one. Another key issue is how we engage the nation with the issue of language development, and, more important, how we engage families who would most benefit from it. Again, I draw comparisons with the debate on higher education funding: nought to three-year-olds in working-class communities do not have a National Union of Students to stick up for them and say, "These are our priorities; we believe in our priorities above everybody else's in the whole of the UK." They have no such lobby. They do not have the equivalent of university vice-chancellors, who can pop in for a cup of tea and a chat with a Cabinet Minister or the Leader of the Opposition and set out their stall. They do not have a powerful parliamentary lobby of MPs who will get to grips with the facts and figures and rebel against the Government if they feel it necessary because they are passionate about the issue. There is very little passion on the issue in the House of Commons.
There are many organisations and individuals that do a sterling job in this country in highlighting the issue of language development in young children. The Pre-School Learning Alliance has helped to co-ordinate much of that activity, but in the busy world of the lobbying of Government it does not have funding, the resources or the contacts of the multinationals—or even of the major national charities and voluntary groups.
In the light of that, I ask the Minister to do all that she can to unite and co-ordinate the voice for the pre-school child. I specifically ask her to establish some high-profile
504WH
British longitudinal research on the influence of enhanced language development on the educational attainment of children in deprived areas. I also urge her to engage the media and the public in that project. She will probably recall the "7 Up" programme, which has now been going on for 40 years and charts the success or the failure of upper-class, middle-class and working-class children every seven years. Whenever that is on TV the whole nation is engaged. We are all aware of reality TV programmes such as "Big Brother"; if we had a TV programme that properly focused on the improvement of the lives of nought to three-year-olds in working-class communities, one can imagine how fascinating, accessible and highly informative it would be. That would help us to get across our key message to the people who would most benefit from it.
To summarise, I welcome the many and varied measures that this Government have taken to help families with young children in deprived areas. I recognise the importance of language development between the ages of nought and three for the individual, for the community and for society. I call upon the Government to continue to expand rapidly the budgets for the education and social care of nought to three-year-olds. I urge them to take particular note of the research of Hart and Risley and focus specifically on increasing the number of words and positive reinforcements spoken to young children in deprived neighbourhoods. I call for the establishment of a longitudinal study on this important issue, and for the relevant media outlets to be used to popularise that research. I would also like the Minister to do all she can to work with the early-years development lobby to ensure that this key issue remains at the top of our political agenda.
3.49 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing this debate. It is sad that there is not greater interest in it, particularly given that the ambition on the Government side of the House is to secure much better equality of outcome for every child. My hon. Friend has identified a critical matter and there was nothing in his contribution with which I disagreed.
I have not read the book that was referred to—I would be delighted to have a copy—but I did read Polly Toynbee's article. She always writes incredibly powerfully and her articles make a contribution to social policy. Her articulation on what is a vital piece of our understanding of what makes for equality of opportunity was very important. Many of my colleagues in this sphere were also influenced by it. It was a really good bit of journalism, which I hope will be widely read.
That article highlights two stark facts that I will mention. One is that, by the age of four, a child from a professional background hears 50 million words, whereas a child from a welfare background hears only 12 million. That is a fantastic difference. The other, rather frightening, conclusion drawn from that research was that it would take 41 hours a week of talking at the level offered by the professional parent for the child from the working-class background to experience the

505WH
same vocabulary. That shows the mountain that we have to climb if we are to achieve genuine equality of opportunity.
I draw your attention, Mr. Cook, and that of my hon. Friend to other bits of research that influenced our thinking. One is some research done by Feinstein, who demonstrates that one can measure children's cognitive development at 20 months and that there is a distribution regardless of social background and class. Some working-class kids have high cognitive skills and some middle-class and upper middle-class kids have low cognitive skills. However, over time, by the age of five or 10, class is really locked in so that the children with low cognitive skills from a high-income background overtake those with higher cognitive skills and a low-income background. That also demonstrates the importance of our intervention.
The other bit of research was given to me in my early days in this job. It was an analysis done by Charles des Forge of all the research literature about the importance of parenting and the influence of it on outcomes for children. He demonstrated what is common sense to us all: good parenting in the home has a greater impact on the educational outcome of children than do socio-economic background and the most excellent teacher in the most wonderful school. That is largely about parents talking to their children. If we can improve that aspect of parenting, we can improve outcomes for children.
We are thinking about—I would welcome any contribution from my hon. Friend—how we can strengthen parents in the home and support them in talking to their children; how we strengthen the role of fathers as well as mothers; how we provide support at key transition points; how we better develop the peer group support that comes from projects such as home start or the peers early education partnership, which is a good early intervention project whereby, in group situations, mothers are encouraged to develop their children's linguistic skills; and how we can spread those projects.
My hon. Friend described accurately and in detail many of the initiatives that we have taken to tackle child poverty and I echo something that he said. There are two ways that we tackle child poverty. One is through the tax and benefits system, and as a Government we have been incredibly successful in doing that, with a third of children lifted out of poverty through the changes that we have made to tax and benefit. However, the cycle of deprivation will never be stopped simply by intervening in the tax and benefits system. We also have to intervene to provide that equality of opportunity for children through the education system, health, housing and parenting skills. That is where the linguistic agenda comes into its own.
On the balance of funding, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's analysis that we have got it wrong in Britain. We spend more per capita than any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development comparator country on the elite group who go through to higher education, and we spend less than any comparator country on children in their early years. The Danes spend 2.4 per cent. of their gross domestic product on children in those years; despite the investment that we have made since we entered government, we still spend only 0.4 per cent. of our GDP on children in their early years. I know from
506WH
conversations with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that the issue of children and their early years is central to the political agenda and to the programmes in which the Government are engaged.
The assessment of research is obviously important. Much of the Sure Start programme—we have embarked on 524 Sure Start programmes around the country—is built on the High Scope Perry evidence. We are beginning to find evidence in England of the impact of early multi-disciplinary intervention on children and their families. In one Sure Start programme in Corby, the number of children who have to have a special educational needs assessment has been reduced by 10 per cent. In another programme in a London borough, children who were ref erred to the early-years programme by social services—very needy children—are now performing as well At key stage 1 as middle-class children from more advantaged homes. Leicester saw a 40 per cent. reduction in referrals to social services because of Sure Start and early intervention. We are getting there, and we will continue to review successful interventions.
We are engaged in longitudinal research. I am sure that that research is in the Library, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy. Over a 10-year period, we are evaluating the impact of our interventions through what is known as EPPE—effective provision of pre-school education—research. We will use that knowledge to influence where we go from here.
I want to mention some initiatives that my hon. Friend did not. We haw developed a pedagogical framework for all professionals working with children from birth to three. That is a step forward, and my hon. Friend might like to have a copy of the framework. It will be used by professionals and, we hope, by others to consider how they can best work with children in those early years to develop their potential. It contains a lot of information about speech development. We are now in the process of training professionals to feel comfortable using the "Birth to Three Matters" framework throughout early-years work.
We will also shortly publish a book about children's development from birth to three. We have called it "The Learning Journey: Birth to Three Matters". The book will help us explain to parents how children learn and develop from birth and will offer advice on supporting children's development. We are listening closely to children; one can listen to children from an early age. A project has been undertaken by the Coram family, which I found fascinating when I first went to see the research evidence. The evidence showed how listening to children will improve how one relates to them and will enable them to learn and develop their linguistic skills.
We have commissioned Manchester Metropolitan university to create an early language training programme for us, which will develop training materials to support early-years practitioners. Although in the first phase the focus will be the foundation stage, which involves three to six-year-olds, the project is linked to the "Birth to Three Matters" framework. We will extend it to the nought to three age group at a later stage.
The Sure Start unit is funding the development year of a campaign that we have called "Talk to Your Baby", which has come from the work of the National Literacy Trust. Again, the aim is to raise awareness.

507WH
I am delighted that we have had this short debate. This is a key issue. The best possible start for our young children is at the heart of Government policy. We will continue to drive our policies forward, which we believe will improve life chances. Early intervention with a mixture of universal initiatives, targeted support and mainstreaming will pay huge dividends for all our children.
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. We come to the final subject for our consideration today: the use of blast cleaning by the armed forces.
I am conscious of the fact that this is an Opposition Supply day and that a Division is due at 4 o'clock. If no one has any news on that, we will commence with Mr. Richard Bacon.

Blast Cleaning (Armed Forces)
4 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have secured this debate. The Minister will have some familiarity with the subject because he was kind enough to host a meeting with my constituent Mr. Nigel Farrow and I at the Ministry of Defence on 2 July last year. He will not be surprised to hear that it is in relation to Mr. Farrow that I secured the debate.
Mr. Farrow is an inventor who runs a business called Farrow System in Loddon in my constituency. He has built a successful business from scratch, which now employs 25 people. One of its main products is an innovative blast cleaning method. Blast cleaning involves forcing a mixture of water, air and abrasive grit—for example, sand, glass beads or copper slag—through a pressure hose on to the surface being cleaned. Many people will have seen old stone churches and other buildings cleaned in that way. Blast cleaning has many industrial and commercial applications, but there have always been problems with traditional methods, the most notable being that they can cause serious damage to the surface being cleaned and that a big mess is often left behind.
Mr. Farrow invented a new blast cleaning technology that would solve those problems. It is quicker, more accurate and less messy, so operators can see what they are doing. Crucially, it can be applied with much greater delicacy than any previously known method, to the extent that it is possible to remove layers of varnish from valuable antique furniture without damaging it or to remove layers of paint from a surface one at a time. Of course, it can also be used for a wide range of more industrial applications.
Mr. Farrow was invited to demonstrate his new process on the BBC television programme "Tomorrow's World", which he duly did on 2 February 2000. After that, Mr. Farrow's telephone did not stop ringing. One call was from Mr. Alan Jones of the Royal Navy, who called to say that the Navy was interested in meeting Mr. Farrow because—
4.2 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.17 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Bacon: I was saying that one of the many telephone calls received by Mr. Farrow following the appearance of his method on "Tomorrow's World", the BBC television programme, was from Alan Jones of the Royal Navy. Mr. Jones thought that Mr. Farrow might be able to help the Navy with a long-standing problem.
Mr. Farrow was asked if Mr. Jones' colleague from Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Marine Structures at Rosyth naval dockyard could contact him to arrange a demonstration at Rosyth, Scotland. To this Mr Farrow agreed. It is important to note that Marine Structures' department at Rosyth was doing its own research on removing surface coatings. That is a germane point to which I will return.

509WH
Mr. Farrow duly went to Rosyth on 15 June 2000 for the demonstration, which was arranged by Mr. Malcolm McGugan of the Ministry of Defence agency, DERA Marine Structures at Rosyth. Mr. McGugan made it clear that during the maintenance and repair of Royal Navy glass fibre hulled vessels, there was an ongoing problem in that paint contractors, when they removed the paint, caused damage to the structure of such vessels by over-blasting and that this was an ongoing problem that the Navy had been unable to solve.
Mr. McGugan said he was fed up with the paint department of the Navy—the contractors, in some cases—which was responsible not only for applying new paint, but for removing the surface of the old; he was fed with the damage they caused to the structures of glass-reinforced polymer—GRP—or fibreglass vessels through over-blasting. Indeed, engineers from Marine Structures had put in place a protocol that there had to be a warning bottom layer of green paint, which would prevent contractors from over-blasting on the basis that once they saw the green paint they would know that they had blasted enough, although over-blasting continued.
Mr. McGugan said that the paint department blamed Marine Structures, saying that the marine vessels were not strong enough. It subsequently became clear that the Navy had been conducting intensive research for some years, but without success, on how to solve the problem of over-blasting. I will ask the Minister about the question of research later.
The Rosyth tests on 15 June included using Farrow System to remove bio-fouling such as barnacles
"from the hull of a ⅔ scale MCMV model at Rosyth",
also to provide a surface abrade to a thick GRP panel. In attendance were a considerable number of senior MOD officials and scientists, as well as contractors. Following the Rosyth demonstration, on 16 June 2000 Mr. McGugan, who had arranged the trial, issued a report on the results to Minewarfare IPT, which was copied to others.
Mr. McGugan's report noted the low volumes of grit and water produced by the method—in other words, it produced very little mess—and also that
"unlike current methods, the system can be used on internal compartments of the ship".
The report also stated that Mr. Farrow's method was quick, precise and capable of removing one layer at a time.
Mr. McGugan also observed that in any paint removal system the skill and experience of the operator are important factors. He stated that when a powerful combination of grit and pressure is used, speed is maximised, but he also highlighted the fact that
"the process relies entirely on the operative keeping the pressure nozzle moving over the surface and preventing an area being structurally damaged."
By contrast, Mr. McGugan noted, Farrow System used a relatively fine-grained soft grit and achieved a considerable variation in blast strength by altering the pressure and the water-grit mixture. He continued:
"Thus, the 'skill' aspect of the process is moved towards the calibration/set-up of the system with a subsequent reduction in the possibility of damage to the GRP through inappropriate use of the method by the operator."
510WH
In short, Mr. McGugan acknowledged that that was a helpful new development.
There followed a rather sniffy e-mail from Mr. Gary King of Sea Technology Group Materials Technology, otherwise known as STGMT, who seemed to take exception to Mr. McGugan's report. Mr. King wrote:
"I have to admit surprise at the necessity for a demonstration of 'Wet Blasting' as a means of paint removal. This method has been the prescribed, major method of surface preparation of GRP structures"—
that is, fibreglass—
"by STGMT, for several years.
Whilst I have no wish to detract from the capabilities of the Farrow System, I believe it is incorrect to consider it as innovative. Both FSL at Portsmouth and DML at Devonport have employed similar systems for paint removal by other contract companies.
I am afraid I also have to disagree with the statement in the report 'Unlike current methods, the Farrow System can be used on internal compartments of the ship'. The greatest associated problem with internal paint removal is and has always been the clean-up operation."
It is worth reminding the House that one of the key aspects of Mr. Farrow's system is that it involves very little mess compared with traditional methods.
Mr. McGugan was furious at the e-mail and replied to Mr. King that while blasting in general might not be new as a technique, contract companies were over-blasting and damaging the underlying GRP structure. He went on to point out that Mr. Farrow's method had just been used on HMS Victory—the Minister will know that that is the flagship of the Second Sea Lord, and probably the most famous warship in the world—to restore delicate antique timbers, with excellent results. Indeed, the commanding officer, Lieutenant-Commander Frank Nowosielski, said of the restoration:
"The condition of the wood is excellent. Better still, the process did not do any damage to the deck at all."
In September 2000, Mr. Farrow went to Fleet Support Ltd.—FSL—in Portsmouth to do a small demonstration on the quayside. He was repeatedly asked whether his method was environmentally friendly, which it is. That demonstration was followed by an invitation to remove the surface coatings from the fresh-water tanks and bathroom area of a minesweeper, as soon as he had gone through the required supplier accreditation process. Mr. Farrow duly went through the accreditation process, and his first opportunity to work on a ship in port for its base maintenance period was with HMS Quorn.
Around that time, Mr. Roy Hussey, a senior project leader at Fleet Support, warned Mr. Farrow as follows:
"Do you realise that if you mess this up we will lose the fleet abroad?"
In other words, the work would be done elsewhere. It seems that there had been a long-standing row between Marine Structures and the paint department at Fleet Support. For several years, Marine Structures had been saying to the paint department, "You are damaging our ships." The paint department at Portsmouth was so worried that it thought it might lose the fleet—it understood that there was only one more chance.
While Mr. Farrow was going through the accreditation process, a trial took place in October 2000 on HMS Berkeley with a Quill Falcon 50 machine from Quill International, but using the conditions and

511WH
parameters—the grit and pressure parameters—that Mr. Farrow had shown Fleet Support earlier in the year. Quill's system was given very rapid approval by the ship support agency, while Mr. Farrow had to spend several months fighting to be listed in the "Warpaint" document. Quill machines started to be used, but since January 2001 Mr. Farrow has not even had any inquiries, let alone the opportunity to tender for work.
In early 2001, Mr. Farrow was told that someone cannot be an approved contractor unless they are in "Warpaint", the document for specifying standards for surface treatments, so he set about getting listed. The Minister told me in his letter of 11 July 2003 that he had been unable to discover any reason why Mr. Farrow might have been told that being listed in "Warpaint" was a requirement for tendering for work. He assured me that that was not the case. Anyway, Mr. Farrow was told otherwise.
In February 2001, while Mr. Farrow was still working on HMS Victory, Mr. Roy Hussey of Fleet Support told him that he wanted him to work on three minesweepers. As the HMS Victory work neared completion, Mr. Farrow sought out Mr. Hussey to ask him when work on the minesweepers would commence, as he had staff commitments and wanted to be able to plan staff time. Because Mr. Farrow was wearing a different-coloured overall from the rest of his staff, Mr. Hussey mistook him for someone from a rival firm and said, "I've told you before: I'm happy with the Farrow System. I don't need the alternative." What is more, he was fairly obviously coming under pressure to use a different system from Farrow, even though he was pleased with the results.
In July 2002, Farrow System was granted UK patent 2344348, which relates to the heat parameter used in the method. In October 2002, Farrow System was granted UK patent 2372039 in respect of the pressure parameter. Farrow System has also been granted a number of patents elsewhere in the world, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. While we are on the subject of the heat parameter in Mr. Farrow's method, it is worth noting the statement by the Ministry of Defence that it was of no consequence. Indeed, the Minister's letter of 19 June 2003 specifically stated that there was no heating of the fluid in any application of the wet-blast method to Royal Navy ships. That point was repeated to me in his letter of 11 July 2003.
The MOD is now seeking to revoke Mr. Farrow's patents. I shall return to that in a moment, but I want first to address the important issue of water contamination. A serving officer on HMS Quorn told Mr. Farrow before he started working on the Quorn, "You know the real reason why you're cleaning these tanks is that the water is contaminated and the water from the tanks is what we drink." Paint on the inside was flaking off, and the water was in direct contact with the fibreglass, which had no gel coating, although perhaps it should have had. The Fleet Support people had been trying to remove the surface coating of the tanks but, in common with what was happening on other vessels, they were over-blasting and causing serious structural damage. Mr. Farrow went inside a tank and removed the coating in a controlled and benign way.
512WH
I also want to mention shells, because one of the calls that Mr. Farrow received following the appearance on "Tomorrow's World" was from the bomb disposal experts at Porton Down. Shells are washed up on the north Wales coast every spring during the high spring tide, including chemical shells left over from the second world war.
Mr. Farrow went to Porton Down on three occasions between March and June 2000 and advised staff on the use of the Farrow method for cleaning shells. Those staff, wearing chemical protection suits, used the Farrow method to remove marine debris from the shells and thereby identify which were conventional and which chemical. Of course, one cannot cause a controlled explosion with a chemical shell, because it would spread dangerous chemicals everywhere, so although the
conventional shells were disposed of once identified, the chemical shells are still being stockpiled.
Mr. Robert Cox of the MOD told Mr. Farrow that the experiments in cleaning the chemical and conventional shells that Mr. Farrow and his staff had witnessed had been successful, and that the MOD wished to purchase several units from Farrow. Negotiations would be conducted by Mr. Richard Hollands of the MOD but, three years later, nothing has happened, so I would like to ask the Minister how the MOD is now coping with the problem of cleaning conventional and chemical shells from the second world war that have been washed up.
That brings me to a series of other questions, the first of which is about public procurement. Who controls Fleet Support's procurement policies? Is it fair that it does not put work out to tender? We are dealing with taxpayers' money, and the Minister may say that it is down to the prime contractor to choose how it procures services.
In a letter to Mr. Farrow's patent adviser, Mr. Harrison, on 14 August 2003, Mr. Robert Beckham, director of intellectual property at the Ministry of Defence, made that point when he reiterated the fact that the Ministry requires the dockyard to work to a standard of surface finish and that how that finish is obtained is for the dockyard contractor to determine.
None the less, it seems rather strange that there are seven or eight approved painting contractors that get work, most of which are not listed in "Warpaint", but only two paint removal methods. However, all work appears to go only to one company, Quill International. I would appreciate it if the Minister supplied me with all the copies of "Warpaint" so that we can establish when Quill was first listed and when Farrow System was listed, and what the previous system was for removing the surface coatings. What standards were applied before Mr. Farrow showed the MOD and the Navy how to do it more effectively?
Now that the MOD is seeking to revoke Mr. Farrow's patents, will the Minister explain why the Ministry is attacking the heat patent 2344348, given his statement in a letter to me that heat is of no consequence?
Has anybody on a royal naval ship been affected because of the contamination of tanks that contain fresh water? If so, how many and what has been done about it? When Mr. Farrow raised the issue with Mr. Gary King, who is, incidentally, the editor of "Warpaint", Mr. King made no attempt to deny that there was an

513WH
issue with the contamination of tanks that contain fresh water. He simply said to Mr. Farrow, "Prove it." That is a slightly worrying attitude when the health of naval personnel is at stake. If, as stated by the MOD on several occasions, there has been no change to the method of operation, what was the purpose of all the trials in 2000?
In December 2003, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury, announced a new, radical plan that the Government were considering, which would allow British inventors to draw on a central fund to fight companies that steal their ideas. He said that a lot of the big companies have deep pockets, which means that they can fight for a long time against smaller firms or individuals. I hope that that applies to big companies and not to the Government, and that the Government would do all they can to encourage new inventions and inventors, rather than do all they can to squash them. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
4.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing the debate and I am grateful to him for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the matter in the Chamber this afternoon. As the hon. Gentleman said, we had a very amicable meeting on the matter last July, shortly after I became a Minister at the Ministry of Defence.
Over the past year, there have been several articles in the press on blast cleaning of warships constructed of glass-reinforced plastic, often known as GRP. The articles have also alleged that the MOD has been improperly dealing with patented technology in the field and they have questioned the tendering practices of the Department. The hon. Gentleman has repeated many of those points today, and I hope to set the record straight.
Blast cleaning is an old technology that has been and is still used widely by contractors to the MOD supplying support to all three of our armed services. It is used for the cleaning and removal of coatings from surfaces. The fundamental technical principle behind blast cleaning has been known for many years and many companies operate in the United Kingdom within the field.
Blast cleaning takes place with the use of a pressurised fluid on its own—for example, air or water—or with the use of fluid entrained with abrasive particles such as grit entrained in air or water. The pressurised fluid, or fluid abrasive combination, is impacted against the surface from which the coating is to be removed. The use of blasting has been found to be useful to the armed forces for the removal of paint and dirt from equipment surfaces in general. One of its advantages over other forms of paint removal is that when used on delicate surfaces at low pressure it does not damage the underlying surface, unlike chemical solvents, which can do so in some instances. Materials such as GRP are less robust than metals such as steel. Much work has been done in devising or selecting blasting media, equipment and processes that enable the use of blast cleaning parameters that do not damage delicate surfaces.
Mr. Bacon: In Mr. McGugan's report on 16 June 2000, he referred to the then ongoing research. Will the Minister supply me with copies of that research?
Mr. Caplin: I will consider that and reply to that point later in my response.
514WH
The solution that I was referring to has been known for many years, and is typically to adjust parameters such as impact pressure, grit size and grit hardness. Today's debate is about blast cleaning across the armed forces, although many questions are specifically directed at Royal Navy activities. However, I shall address the use of blast cleaning across the whole of the armed forces.
The Royal Air Force deals with contractors that use materials such as plastic acrylic media, under wet and dry conditions, for paint removal from aircraft and other vehicles. Aluminium oxide may also be used for corrosion removal on selected components. The RAF also uses low-pressure aqueous washing rigs to clean aircraft.
The Army deals with blast cleaners under the auspices of the defence trading agency, ABRO, and uses dry abrasives for paint removal prior to repair work. For the removal of temporary camouflage paint, a simple water and detergent spray is used.
The Royal Navy has a contract with Fleet Support Ltd., which is responsible for the management of the Portsmouth Dockyard, Devonport Management Ltd. and Babcock Rosyth Dockyard Ltd. Those contractors may also choose to contract the task of blasting to a number of sub-contractor.
All of the issues that have arisen today have been raised previously, and have emanated from questions raised by Mr. Farrow, who is the managing director of Farrow System Ltd. The hon. Gentleman and I met him in July. The questions have been raised with specific reference to the removal of paint from GRP hulls and superstructures of Royal Navy surface warships. Mr. Farrow gave a demonstration of his blast cleaning equipment on "Tomorrow's World" in 2000, and an employee of the Ministry of Defence watched the programme. As the Department is always interested in potentially useful techniques, our member of staff felt that the claims made by Mr. Farrow were worthy of further investigation. The then Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Marine Structures at Rosyth, which held a watching brief for the Ministry on such matters, arranged for a demonstration of the Farrow system to be given at the dockyard.
Mr. Farrow gave a demonstration at Rosyth for DERA Rosyth and Babcock Rosyth Dockyard Ltd. in June 2000. A report was written by DERA Rosyth and sent to the Ministry's Warship Support Agency and the Defence Procurement Agency, which is responsible for paint techniques for surface ships. The Defence Procurement Agency made it clear to DERA Rosyth that, however effective the trial was, it did not represent a new technology but was known and had been prescribed for GRP vessels for several years. It was particularly noted that operator skill was an important factor in avoiding damage to exposed areas of the surface.
Mr. Farrow has since alleged that the Ministry of Defence has changed its working practice as a result of his demonstration of the Farrow system at Rosyth. The Ministry simply refutes that. Any problems with the removal of paint from GRP had been solved a considerable time before the Farrow system became available. In particular, successful trials of various abrasives for removing paint from GRP surfaces were

515WH
made in 1996, as a result of which, low-pressure water slurry blasting, using garnet as the abrasive, was recommended. Moreover, there had been earlier successful use of the known techniques at Portsmouth, using olivine grit rather than garnet.
In the time left, I shall address the specific legal issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Farrow. The first is that the Ministry has been using two United Kingdom patents that have been granted to Mr. Farrow. The MOD's policy is to recognise and respect the intellectual property rights of third parties. In particular, when use is made of valid patent rights under the Crown use provisions of the Patents Act 1977, the Ministry honours its legal duty to compensate the patents' owners in accordance with that Act.
On first becoming aware of the allegations made by Mr. Farrow, the MOD undertook an investigation into the facts. The Ministry found that most of the claimed parameters of Mr. Farrow's patents were known as a result of earlier trials held in 1996, and I can confirm that the Ministry found that the procedures in use at Portsmouth did not fall within the claims of Mr. Farrow's patents. However, it was found that the techniques used at Devonport might fall within the scope of one of Mr Farrow's patents.
However, from a study of the literature that predated Mr. Farrow's patents, the Ministry considered that the UK patents, despite having been granted, were invalid in the light of relevant published material that had not been found by the UK Patent Office. The Ministry informed Mr. Farrow that in the light of the investigation, it did not consider that he had a sustainable claim for compensation under the Crown use provisions of the 1977 Act. Mr. Farrow does not agree with the Ministry's findings on the validity of his patents, and to try to resolve the impasse, the Ministry, with Mr. Farrow's knowledge, has instituted actions to seek revocation of those patents before the UK Patent Office. The action was filed on 7 January 2004 and will take about nine months to complete.
The second legal issue raised by Mr. Farrow is that the Ministry has released confidential information belonging to him to other contractors and that, as a consequence, the practices adopted by the Ministry's contractors have changed. From our investigations, I
516WH
can say that those allegations are entirely unfounded. According to the DERA Rosyth report, the only contractor present at the demonstration of the Farrow System at Rosyth in 2000 was the dockyard operator Babcock Rosyth Dockyard Ltd. Additionally, any information that may have been divulged there by Mr. Farrow was already in the public domain.
In any case, knowledge of the technique demonstrated by Mr. Farrow can be traced within the Ministry to at least as far back as 1996 to a report by Coating Consultants Ltd.
Mr. Bacon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caplin: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Prior to Mr. Farrow's trial at Rosyth, the Ministry had already solved the problem of removing paint from GRP. Use of wet grit blasting at reduced pressure was already practised at Devonport and Portsmouth, and there has been no change at either dockyard resulting from the demonstration of the Farrow System at Rosyth.
The third legal issue that Mr. Farrow raised has been the probity of the tendering practices adopted for the Ministry at the various dockyards. The Ministry of Defence's policy is to treat contractor's information released to it in the strictest confidence when it is confidential. However, since privatisation of the royal dockyards, responsibility for management work at the dockyards is in the hands of private contractors. The Royal Navy is a customer of the respective main contractors and is not involved with directing how work should be performed.
The Ministry requires that the dockyard works to a given standard of surface finish within a given delivery period. How that finish and delivery time is met is for the dockyard contractor to determine, as is the decision on whether a subcontractor is brought in to do the work. The Ministry endorses certain contractors and processes that it considers capable of reaching that standard, and the Farrow System is one of a number that are recognised as meeting the standards required.
I am out of time, and I may well have to write to the hon. Gentleman on some of his other questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will rule out amending to 15 per cent. the Government's 2010 target for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. [148613]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The Government today published for consultation its draft National Allocation Plan for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. In doing so, we reaffirmed our commitment to our domestic goal to move towards a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide of 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010.

  The UK Climate Change Programme sets out the policy framework to ensure that we meet our Kyoto target and move towards the domestic goal. We are committed to reviewing the Programme this year, which will provide an opportunity to introduce new policies and measures, or to strengthen existing ones, if the conclusion is that more needs to be done to achieve the domestic goal.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department is working to ensure that the UK fulfils its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. [148006]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The UK signed and ratified the Montreal Protocol in 1987, and has since ratified the four other amendments, London (1990) Copenhagen (1992) Montreal (1997) and Beijing (1999). The Community has implemented its obligations under the Montreal Protocol through EC Regulation 2037/2000, which is directly applicable in UK law. This Regulation has put in place an accelerated phase-out programme on the supply and use of ozone depleting substances, as EU member states were keen to move faster than the Protocol. A statutory Instrument has been introduced which creates offences and sets penalties for any breaches of the ozone regulation.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the audited amount of(a) plutonium and (b) uranium at each nuclear energy facility which was unaccounted for in each year since 1997. [148500]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with international practice, the inventory difference that occurs when the result of a physical inventory of nuclear material is compared with
  1234W
  the book inventory is referred to as MUF ('material unaccounted for'). The difference may be negative (an apparent loss) or positive (an apparent gain). MUF is a recognised feature of accounting for nuclear material and is caused primarily by the uncertainties inherent in the techniques used to measure nuclear material. MUF figures at UKAEA, BNFL and Urenco sites are published annually by the industry. Copies of the figures published since 1997 have been placed in the Library of the House. There is no evidence to suggest that there have been any real losses or gains of nuclear material.

  Oral Statements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she has made no oral statement to the House on an environmental matter since July 2002. [148586]

  Margaret Beckett
  I take very seriously the importance of keeping the House properly informed across the whole range of my broad portfolio of responsibilities.

  Packaging Waste
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 were not published until 14 January; and if she will delay their entry into force. [148980]

  Mr. Morley
  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 were not published until 14 January due to delays caused by the Christmas holiday period. However, the Regulations came into force on 1 January 2004, as intended.

  Protected Species
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are for designating a wild species of animal as protected. [148656]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Every five years the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) advises Government on which animals should be legally protected by listing on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. JNCC reported to Government with its recommendations in September 2002, which included full protection for this species. The next stage is for Government to conduct a public consultation based on these recommendations, which will occur in spring 2004. Following this consultation, the Secretary of State will decide on the changes to be made to the schedules and these will be implemented by Statutory Instrument.

  For a species to be recommended for scheduling one of the eligibility criteria in each of the Sections A to D below should be met:
  A. Generally, only native (including re-established) taxa are to be considered. Taxa introduced or thought to be introduced to Great Britain by man could be considered exceptionally, with the following provisos.

  1235W
  (i) the organism is endangered or extinct in its native range, and
  (ii) preferably, the natural range reaches the north west coast of Europe (i.e. continental distribution extends to the Atlantic coast of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Scandinavia; for marine taxa, the distribution includes the north west Atlantic area), and provided that
  (iii) information suggests that the organism is unlikely to have an adverse impact on important native species or ecosystems.
  B. The taxon must be either:
  (i) established in the wild in Great Britain; or
  (ii) occur as a vagrant in Great Britain and require international protection; or
  (iii) be believed extinct in Great Britain as a breeding species, but be in the process of re-establishment; or
  (iv) be believed extinct in Great Britain, but with the possibility that it could become re-established naturally.
  C. The taxonomic status of the organism must be well authenticated. Taxa below the species level could be considered, providing they are:
  (i) clearly recognisable (i.e. morphologically distinct), and
  (ii) geographically or ecologically distinct.
  D The taxon must be endangered in Great Britain, or likely to become so unless conservation measures are taken, and/or be subject to an international obligation for protection. One or more of the following may indicate that a taxon is or may become endangered:
  (i) it is included in a JNCC-approved British Red Data Book as Extinct, Endangered or Vulnerable (or, in Red Lists drawn up using the recently revised IUCN criteria, as Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable)]
  (ii) it has been well searched for but is known from only a single locality;
  (iii) it is confined to a particularly threatened habitat. The extent or quality of the habitat is being significantly reduced or is likely to become significantly reduced, thus threatening the survival of the organism;
  (iv) it is rapidly declining in population, number of localities occupied or range. Indicative would be at least 50 per cent. decline observed, estimated inferred or suspected in the last 20 years, or a decline of at least 50 per cent. projected, inferred or suspected to be likely in the near future. The decline must transcend normal fluctuations;
  (v) it is endangered, or likely to become endangered through being targeted for exploitation or killing for commercial reasons and/or through being particularly attractive to collectors.
  International obligations apply to a taxon which is:
  (vi) naturally resident and listed on Appendices I, II or III of the Bern Convention; Annexes II, IV or V of the EC Habitats and Species Directive; Appendix I of the Bonn Convention (unless derogations are in force); and/or endemic to Great Britain and included in a JNCC-approved British Red List.

TRANSPORT

  Drink-driving
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has undertaken of the impact on drink-related accidents of lowering the legal limit of alcohol for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg; and for what reasons he has not introduced a lower alcohol in blood limit. [147927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government considers that strengthened enforcement of existing controls, combined with publicity and education, is the appropriate basis for dealing with drink-drive accidents and casualties. The 1236W
  Government carried out an analysis of the possible savings in road traffic casualties from a reduction in the legal alcohol limit for the purposes of the 1998 consultation document "Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps", a copy of which is in the House Library. This estimated that a reduction in the limit to 50mg/100m1 could save around 50 fatalities per year, but was based on a number of assumptions about accident causation and individual driver compliance. We have also considered more recent published research into the potential impact of lowering the limit, the results of which appear to be inconclusive.

  Shipping
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) injuries and (b) fatalities of employees of shipping companies there were in each year since 1997, broken down by company. [148486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), a separate branch within the DfT, records injuries and fatalities to crew of UK vessels.

  Regulation 9(1)(e) of The Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999 has the effect of preventing the disclosure, for any purpose other than the investigation, of any report of an accident provided to the MAIB, including the names of the ship owners. However, where an investigation has been ordered by the Chief Inspector, regulation 10 provides that a report is to be made publicly available. The following table therefore shows figures only for injuries and fatalities to crew of UK registered merchant vessels for which investigations have been concluded and a report published, as at 16 January 2004.

  Owner Name

  (a) Injuries

  (b) Fatalities

  1997

  Alderney Shipping Co Ltd.

  1

  J. R. Rix and Sons Ltd.

  1

  Lowline Ltd.

  6

  Orcargo

  1

  Princess Cruises Inc.

  1

  Vector Offshore Ltd.

  1

  Viking Standby Ltd.

  1

  Total

  9

  3

  1998

  P&O European Ferries

  2

  1

  P&O Stena Line Ltd.

  1

  Total

  2

  2

  1999

  RFA

  1

  Lowline Ltd.

  1

  Nomis Shipping Ltd.

  2

  Total

  2

  2

  2000

  P&O European Ferries

  2

  P&O Stena Line Ltd.

  1

  P&O Stena Line Shipmanagement Ltd.

  4

  Shetlands Islands Council

  1

  Total

  7

  1

  2001

  Eidesvik Shipping UK Ltd.

  1

  Princess Cruises

  1

  Turk Phoenix Ltd.

  1

  Total

  3

  1237W

  Owner Name

  (a) Injuries

  (b) Fatalities

  2002

  Cunard Line Ltd.

  1

  1

  P&O North Sea Ferries Ltd.

  1

  Total

  1

  1

  2003

  Hanson Aggregates Marine Ltd.

  1

  Total

  1

  0

  Note:

  1. Accidents to shore based workers onboard ships in port/drydock are reported to HSE, not MAIB.

  2. There is no general requirement for foreign in UK waters, to report onboard accidents authorities.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) injuries and (b) fatalities to workers on ships there were in each year since 1997. [148487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for the number of crew killed and injured on UK registered merchant vessels, reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch of DfT by 15 January 2004, are as follows:

  Killed

  Injured

  1997

  5

  329

  1998

  2

  320

  1999

  4

  278

  2000

  3

  305

  2001

  3

  287

  2002

  5

  301

  2003

  2

  261

  Notes:

  1. Accidents to shore based workers on board ships in port/dry dock are reported to HSE, not MAIB.

  2. There is no general requirement for foreign flagged vessels, even in UK waters, to report on-board accidents to personnel to UK authorities.

  3. The number of UK flagged merchant vessels increased by more than 20 per cent. between 2001 and 2003.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions, in each year since 1990, powers to direct a ship to leave UK waters have been used, giving in each case the reason for the direction. [148848]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The powers to direct a ship to leave UK waters have only been used on one occasion. On 19 July 1999, a direction was issued to the MV Rainbow Warrior for the purpose of securing the safety of the ship and of other ships, persons on the ship and other ships, and other persons and property.

  Aviation
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further sanctions are available to his Department to recover fines where an airline has been banned from United Kingdom airspace due to non-payment of fines. [148960]

  Mr. McNulty
  The recovery of charges due under Carriers Liability legislation in respect of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom without the required documents is the responsibility of the Home Office. Such charges may be recoverable through the courts as a debt.1238W
  However, if a carrier was not operating to the United Kingdom, the enforceability of a court's judgment would be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to pursue this course.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reduce the charges levied on users of British airspace as a result of the transfer of responsibility for aviation safety regulation from the UK CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency. [149596]

  Mr. McNulty
  Regulation (EC) No. 1592/2002, establishing the European Aviation Safety Agency, applies to the design, production, and airworthiness of aircraft and aircraft products, together with associated personnel and organisations. It has no bearing on the way British airspace is managed or the charges levied with respect to the use of British airspace.

  The Agency took up its safety regulatory duties on 28 September 2003, and for the time being, has authorised national aviation administrations, including the UK CAA, to carry out tasks on its behalf under national charging schemes. Until the Agency has established its own staff and processes, including a Regulation on fees and charges, we cannot estimate the precise effect on the work of the CAA. The CAA intends to review with UK industry the impact that EASA will have on the costs of its Safety Regulation Group and the associated charges to UK industry.

  Bus Travel
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to work with the Office of Fair Trading to clarify the position on the ability of bus companies and local authorities to offer through ticketing arrangements permitting cross-boundary travel by encouraging reciprocal arrangements. [148277]

  Mr. McNulty
  These matters are regularly discussed between my right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

  Car Insurance
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of(a) the number of people driving on roads in England and Wales without adequate insurance cover in each of the last five years and (b) trends in driving without insurance in recent years. [148738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Current estimates from the insurance industry are that there are about 1.25 million motorists driving while uninsured. No estimates are available for earlier years. Figures for convictions for uninsured driving show an average yearly increase of 1.2 per cent. since 1998.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the average cost to the insurance premium holder in each of the last five years of driving without insurance. [148740]
  1239W
  Mr. Jamieson
  For the year 2002 the cost to each motorist's insurance premium is estimated at between £15 and £30. However, no figures are available for previous years.

  Flight Paths
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department has issued to airlines in respect of flight paths that take commercial aircraft above 30,000 feet. [148589]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department has not issued any guidance. When designing air traffic services routes, airspace planners are bound by the provisions of guidance material contained in the ICAO Air Traffic Services Planning Manual—Doc. 9426. In addition, the operational approval and aircraft certification given by the Civil Aviation Authority to aircraft operators covers the operation of aircraft at all phases of flight at any level.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental assessment has been made of the(a) benefits and (b) disbenefits of commercial aircraft flying at (i) 20,000, (ii) 25,000, (iii) 30,000 and (iv) 35,000 feet. [148590]

  Mr. McNulty
  No specific assessment has been made of the benefits and disbenefits of flight al these altitudes. However, research jointly undertaken by DLR (the German aerospace agency) and Manchester Metropolitan University within the European research project, TRADEOFF, looked at the hypothetical impact of reducing cruise altitudes on contrail coverage and its radiative forcing (a measure of the climate impact), as well as the effect of increased fuel consumption (and hence CO2 emissions). The research concluded that flying at lower cruise altitudes reduced contrail formation but increased fuel consumption.

  Any detailed assessment would have to explore these trade-offs further. The research was not intended to suggest changes in operating practices, which would need full international agreement.

  Kazahkstan (Air Transport)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to argue, in his discussions with the Government of Kazahkstan, that a charter service from Uralsk to Amsterdam cannot be considered as a replacement for a service from Uralsk to London; what recent discussions he has had on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [149485]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 745W.

  We are pursuing this matter with the Kazakh Government. Our objective is to ensure that the services offered by airlines meet passenger demands and that no unreasonable obstacles are put in the way of those services.

  Lower Airspace Radar Service
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) why he has initiated a regulatory impact assessment on the funding of his Lower Airspace Radar Service; and if he will make a statement; [149597]
  1240W
  (2) what plans he has to charge general aviation users for the Lower Airspace Radar Service. [149598]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State has not initiated a regulatory impact assessment on this matter as funding of the Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) through its Directorate of Airspace Policy.

  I understand that the CAA will shortly be issuing a consultation document setting out the options for the future funding of the service.

  Roads
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the proportion of congestion on roads in England and Wales which is caused by poorly planned and lengthy street works carried out(a) by utilities and (b) by or on behalf of highway authorities. [145530]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]: The Department does not hold figures for the proportion of congestion cause by street works that are poorly planned or lengthy, whether carried out by utilities or highway authorities. However, Transport Research Laboratory figures indicate that all types of road and utility works cause around 10 per cent. of congestion on the Highways Agency's Trunk Road and Motorway system. The proportion of this carried out by Utility Companies is under 2 per cent.

  The Department does not hold equivalent figures for local roads. Relatively little utility apparatus is located under motorways and trunk roads. Therefore, congestion caused by utility works on local authority roads will be significantly higher than the equivalent figure for Highways Agency roads given above.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the Highways Agency's budget was spent on road maintenance projects in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [149147]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proportion spent in 2002–03 and forecast to be spent in 2003–04 is about 46 per cent.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major improvements are planned to the trunk road network. [148927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) to the trunk road and motorway network currently comprises 72 schemes each costing more than £5 million. These are:

  A1 (M) Ferrybridge—Hook Moor (under construction)

  A1(M) Wetherby—Walshford (under construction)

  A2—Cobham Phase 1 (under construction)

  A2 Bean—Cobham Phase 2

  A2/A282 Dartford Improvement

  A5 Weeford—Fazeley Improvement

  A10 Wadesmill Colliers End (under construction)

  A14 Rookery Crossroads Grade Separated Junction

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass (under construction)

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J13 Improvement (under construction)

  A63 Selby By-pass (under construction)

  1241W

  A120 Stansted—Braintree Improvement (under construction)

  A249 Iwade—Queenborough Improvement

  A303 Stonehenge

  A421 Great Barford By-pass

  A500 City Road and Stoke Junction Improvement

  M25 J12–15 Widening (under construction)

  M60 J5–8 Widening (under construction)

  A1 1 Attleborough By-pass

  All Fiveways—Thetford Improvement

  A47 Thorney By-pass

  M6 Carlisle to Guardsmill extension

  A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction

  A14 Haughley New St—Stowmarket Improvement

  A3 Hindhead Improvement

  A38 Dobwalls By-pass

  A595 Parton—Lillyhall Improvement

  A1 Peterborough—Blyth Grade Separated Junctions

  M62 Junction 6 Improvement

  A46 Newark—Widmerpool Improvement

  A30 Bodmin Indian Queens

  A483 Pant—Llanymynech Bypass

  A5117/A550 Deeside Park Junctions Improvement

  A419 Blunsdon

  A66 Temple Sowerby and Improvement at Winderwath

  AI Dishforth to Leeming

  A1 Bramham—Wetherby (Including Wetherby By-pass)

  A1 Leeming to Barton

  A64 Rillington By-pass

  M40/A404 Handy Cross Junction Improvement

  A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling

  A66 Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank Improvement

  A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement

  A428 Caxton Common to Hardwick Improvement

  A30/A3 82 Merrymeet Junction

  A66 Long Newton Junction

  A1 Stannington Junction (under construction)

  A69 Haydon Bridge By-pass

  A419 Commonhead Junction

  M4 Junction 18 Eastbound Diverge

  M5 Junctions 17–18 Northbound Climbing Lane

  M5 Junctions 19–20 Southbound Climbing Lane

  M5 Junctions 19–20 Northbound Climbing Lane

  M1 Junction 19

  A14 Ellington—Fen Ditton Improvement

  A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle By-pass

  A45/A46 Tollbar End Improvement

  M1 Junction 6a to 10 Widening

  M1 Junction 10 to 13 Widening

  A1 Morpeth to Felton Dualling

  A1 Adderstone to Belford Dualling

  A1/A19/A106 8 Seaton Burn Junction Improvement

  A19/A184 Testos Grade Separated Junction

  A505 Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5 to M1 Link)

  A421 Bedford to M1 Junction 13

  A21 Tonbridge to Pembury

  M40 Junction 15 (Longbridge)

  A64 Colton Lane Grade Separated Junction

  1242W

  A590 High and Low Newton By-pass

  M20 Junction 10A

  A30 Garland Cross to Chiverton Cross

  A30 Temple to Higher Carblake Improvement

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how sums of money raised in fines from speed cameras in Essex which have exceeded the totals spent on purchasing and operating speed cameras in Essex have been spent in each of the five years prior to 2001–02; and whether these sums have been allocated to another Department. [149383]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: Prior to the start of the cost recovery system to fund safety camera activity in 2000–01 all revenue from speeding fines was passed to the Consolidated Fund at HM Treasury.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answers of 6 January 2004,Official Report, columns 215W and 216W, and his answer of 13 January 2004, Official Report, columns 676–7W, how the £520,357, that was collected in fines from speed cameras that was not spent in purchasing and operating speed cameras in Essex in 2001–02, was spent; and whether this sum was allocated to another Department. [149384]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: Under the netting off scheme the amount returned to the safety camera partnership can only cover the cost of purchasing and operating safety cameras. The rest is passed to the Consolidated Fund at HM Treasury.

  London Underground
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has made representations to Transport for London regarding(a) reliability and (b) comfort, under each of the PPP contracts for the London Underground. [149014]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport has not made specific representations to Transport for London on either of these issues. I have regular meetings with the Mayor for London, London Underground and Transport for London. At these meetings a wide range of issues are discussed, including the operational performance of the Underground and the delivery of improvements to the network.

WALES

  Student Finance
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the devolution of higher education funding for students to the National Assembly for Wales. [148359]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) today.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage in Wales. [148360]

  Mr. Hain
  Around 60,000 people in Wales stood to benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in April 1999 and for the increases since.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with North Wales police authority about reducing the numbers held in police cells in north Wales. [148361]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with representatives of the police forces in Wales.

  Cells are normally used only to accommodate people who need to be held in custody by the police. Occasionally, prison inmates are held overnight because they cannot reach their prison by a reasonable time, or to facilitate their return to court the next day.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the Barnett formula. [148362]

  Mr. Hain
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss funding arrangements for Wales. The Barnett formula is a means of calculating changes to the Welsh Block from its historic base.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the funding of the NHS in Wales. [148357]

  Mr. Hain
  I have met the First Minister and the Assembly Health Minister in recent weeks to discuss the NHS and health provision in Wales.

  Since 1997, funding for the NHS across the UK has increased; in Wales the 2004–05 budget for health will be almost 95 per cent. more than in 1996–97.

  In Wales, as in the rest of the UK, this has resulted in greater numbers of doctors and nurses, improved services and more patients being treated.

DEFENCE

  Airfield Support Service Project
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated aggregate costs incurred by the three bidding consortia for the Airfield Support Service Project are. [149057]

  Mr. Ingram
  Actual costs incurred by the three bidding consortia are not known to the Department and are a matter for the consortia themselves.

  A1 Yamamah
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the 1992 National Audit Office report about the A1 Yamamah programme. [149510]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 February 2003, Official Report, column 735W.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he intends to make in relation to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme and compensation to ensure that(a) a beneficiary is guaranteed five years' worth of payments notwithstanding earlier death and (b) lump sum payments to give effect to such guarantee are not taxed at a 35 per cent. rate. [149152]

  Mr. Caplin
  The decision of the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme includes a provision to allow a lump sum payment to a spouse or partner of up to five years' pension payments, less the lump sum received on retirement and pension payments up to the date of death, if a member dies after retirement but within five years of the pension coming into payment. The Government propose in "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: the Government's proposals", published on 10 December 2003, that such payments should be taxed at 35 per cent. The Ministry of Defence will be considering the benefit proposal further in the light of the taxation arrangements.

  Army
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget for army combat arms training was in each month since January 2001. [148870]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: Army combat arms training has been taken to encompass individual training for all personnel at Phase 1 (initial) training (which will include individuals who go on to serve in non-combat arms), and individual training at phase 2 (specialist) and phase 3 (career and development) training for personnel serving in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery, the Infantry, and the School of Army Aviation. LAND Command undertakes collective training for the whole Army but cannot identify specific costs associated with such training for combat arms. The sums shown include an element for HQ Admin costs etc., which cannot easily be separated out, but exclude all salary costs of trainees, which are accounted for separately. The figures are as follows:

  Month

  £ million

  April 2001

  27.599

  May 2001

  28.447

  June 2001

  31.833

  July 2001

  30.378

  August 2001

  26.729

  September 2001

  27.676

  October 2001

  28.505

  November 2001

  29.591

  December 2001

  29.585

  January 2002

  29.409

  February 2002

  28.914

  March 2002

  30.046

  1245W

  Month

  £million

  April 2002

  29.777

  May 2002

  31.053

  June 2002

  31.142

  July 2002

  31.429

  August 2002

  30.959

  September 2002

  30.589

  October 2002

  31.957

  November 2002

  31.251

  December 2002

  31.126

  January 2003

  33.256

  February 2003

  29.879

  March 2003

  31.905

  April 2003

  32.660

  May 2003

  32.836

  June 2003

  27.767

  July 2003

  32.421

  August 2003

  28.732

  September 2003

  29.089

  October 2003

  32.559

  November 2003

  32.034

  December 2003

  28.318

  January 2004

  31.626

  February 2004 (projected)

  31.573

  March 2004 (projected)

  31.225

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many army musicians were obliged to down-rank on transferring to the Guards regiments from other regiments; and what effect this down ranking will have on these soldiers' pensions. [148963]

  Mr. Caplin
  Transfer to bands of the Guards Division is voluntary. Seventeen army musicians who volunteered to transfer and are still serving accepted reversion to the rank of Musician as a condition of transfer. Reversion in rank has not been a condition of transfer since April 2003.

  Reversion in rank may affect an individual's pension award. Rank for the purpose of assessing pension entitlement is calculated by taking the highest paid rank held for an aggregate of two years or more during the last five years reckonable service.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial restrictions have been placed on army recruiting. [148869]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will provide a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 24 November 2003 about Mrs. Iris Griffiths of Kingsbridge and the Defence Export Services Organisation, which was acknowledged by his Department on 2 December 2003. [148721]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: My noble Friend Lord Bach wrote to the hon. Member on 15 January 2004.

  Departmental Posts (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) service posts in his Department in Gibraltar will be (i) transferred to the private sector and (ii) removed. [148458]
  1246W
  Mr. Ingram
  Headquarters British Forces Gibraltar is currently evaluating the most cost-effective method of delivering janitorial, catering and transportation services. Although under review, at this stage no decisions have been made to transfer posts to the private sector.

  Routine local resource management plans are to make a reduction of 23 civilian and one service posts, over the next four years. We envisage that this will be achieved by a combination of natural wastage and voluntary early retirement.

  Forces Personnel
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statistical data his Department collates on the rate of marital break-up among forces personnel. [148150]

  Mr. Caplin
  Each service records, on individual pay and personnel documents, the marital status of its personnel using different marital categories. Analysis of marital break-ups and divorce rates is carried out on an ad hoc basis by analysing changes to the marital status of personnel.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the application of standards in the UN Basic Principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials for law enforcement duties conducted by UK military personnel in Iraq. [141686]

  Mr. Ingram
  The practices adopted by United Kingdom military personnel in Iraq are consistent with the UN Basic Principles for the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, despite the fact that we are operating in circumstances rather different from those in which it was intended to be applied.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms are in place to ensure the(a) impartiality and (b) independence of investigations into non-combatant deaths in Iraq. [141687]

  Mr. Ingram
  In exercising their constabulary powers the Royal Military Police (RMP) are independent of the Army's chain of command. At the conclusion of any RMP investigation, a report together with supporting evidence is submitted to the appropriate commanding officer and to the Army Legal Services—ALS. ALS will then advise the commanding officer whether there is a prima facie case for disciplinary action. In serious cases, ALS will advise the commanding officer on the procedure for referral to a higher authority and, if appropriate, on to the Army Prosecuting Authority—APA. The APA is statutorily independent of the chain of command. The independence of the APA was confirmed in the European Court of Human Rights in the Cooper Case last December.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the soldier's card issued to forces serving in Iraq. [147676]

  Mr. Ingram
  The soldier's card contains information about the Rules of Engagement. It is not our practice to comment on Rules of Engagement and I am
  1247W
  withholding information regarding their contents under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts let to private contractors for the supply and support of UK troops in Iraq, stating in each case the nature and value of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [148004]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as it is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 8 January,Official Report, column 453W, on Iraq, when the Iraq Survey Group is to make its final recommendations. [148035]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 538W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his strategy is for ensuring that children in Iraq do not come into contact with depleted uranium. [148055]

  Mr. Ingram
  British forces are taking the following actions to minimise the risk posed to civilians by Depleted Uranium (DU):DU fragments on the surface are being removed from the battlefield as they are discovered.
  Local people have been warned through signs and leaflets that they should not go near, or touch, any debris they find on the battlefield.
  Military vehicles known to have been hit by DU munitions within the southern sector of Iraq under British military control have been clearly marked.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in the Iraq Survey Group. [148064]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 16 January 2004, there were 1,272 people employed in the Iraq Survey Group.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 9,100 ISO containers used for Operation TELIC are missing and unaccounted for by his Department. [148868]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: To date 9,595 ISO containers have been supplied in support of Operation TELIC. Of this number 5,793 currently remain in use on the operation.

  The balance of 3,802 have either been returned, re-tasked or are awaiting return to either the MOD or to the leasing companies as appropriate.

  At present we have 73 containers, 0.76 per cent. of the original amount, unaccounted for. It is expected that the next information update from theatre will identify the locations of the majority of these containers and that they will either be in transit or have been re-tasked.
  1248W
  It is stressed that it is unusual to lose a container totally. It is far more likely that it would have been re-tasked or returned and that a delay has occurred in getting the relevant information back to the Defence Container Management Service.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what number and percentage of Army Medical Service reserve personnel have left the service following Operation Telic. [149350]

  Mr. Caplin
  Although we do not hold figures for the number of people leaving the Army Medical Services Territorial Army (AMS TA) overall, I can confirm that 240 Professionally Qualified Officers, from Role 3 reserve medical units (field hospitals) have left the TA over the last 12 months. This represents approximately 13 per cent. of these units. Very few of these individuals gave Operation Telic, or the risk of mobilisation, as their primary reason for leaving. Over the same period, approximately 300 people joined the same units.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the other national contingents under the command of 3 (UK) Division; [143729]

  (2) if he will list the countries involved in the Multinational Division (South-East) (MND(SE) in the South Iraq provinces of Basra, Maysen, Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna. [143730]

  Mr. Ingram
  3 (UK) Division formally handed over headquarters duties to the Multinational Division (South East) on 28 December 2003.

  In addition to United Kingdom forces the following nations currently contribute a combined total of around 5,200 personnel to the Multinational Division: Italy; Denmark; Norway; Netherlands; Czech Republic; Portugal; Romania; New Zealand; Lithuania; Japan and Iceland.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the failure rate of the bomblets in the cluster munitions his Department purchased from BAe Systems in 2003; whether the use of these munitions in Iraq has contributed to the assessment; and if he will make a statement. [146431]

  Mr. Ingram
  No cluster artillery shells purchased from BAe Systems in 2003 were used in Iraq during Operation Telic. The ammunition used during Operation Telic was from a procurement made in 1996. No assessment of cluster artillery shells was carried out in Iraq.

  However, each batch of these munitions procured is subject to acceptance proof firing. This requires a statistically viable sample of each batch to be fired and monitored. The area is then searched by the manufacturer's Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel to identify and report any bomblet failures. All ammunition lots we have procured have met the requirements. Other testing involves a random sample of the Self Destruct Fuze being independently tested by the manufacturer prior to assembly. Again, all these fuzes have met the requirements.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contractors' bid costs have been refunded in full, or in part, as a result of procurement competitions being terminated or substantially altered since 1997; in how many cases compensation has been paid; what the total value of such payments is; and if he will make a statement. [147957]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost (Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

  In the event that a procurement competition was terminated or substantially altered consideration would be given, on a case-by-case basis, to whether to reimburse bid costs.

  Reservists
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) full-time reservists with full commitment contracts, (b) full-time reservists with limited commitment contracts, (c) full-time reservists with home commitment contracts and (d) volunteer reservists have been called out on active duty in each year since 1997; and what the average active duty service time has been for each category. [148669]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) commitment was established in 1998.

  The numbers of FTRS personnel called out for permanent service by the Royal Navy (including Royal Marines) and Royal Air Force since 1998 are detailed in the following table. The Army does not keep a separate record of FTRS personnel called out for permanent service.

  FTRS full commitment

  FTRS limited commitment

  FTRS home commitment

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  0

  2001

  2

  2

  0

  2002

  3

  2

  0

  2003

  18

  56

  0

  These figures do not include those personnel who, as part of their FTRS commitment, served on operations.

  We have been unable to distinguish between the forms of service that reservists were undertaking when mobilised. Therefore, the figures detailed as follows cover all reservists mobilised.

  Number of reservists mobilised

  1997

  980

  1998

  840

  1999

  1,400

  2000

  1,120

  2001

  920

  2002

  1,720

  2003

  9,550

  1250W
  A central record of the average period of mobilised service that each category has served since 1997 is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in 2003 for Operation TELIC reservists would have been mobilised for between seven and nine months (this includes pre-deployment training and post-deployment leave).

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters(a) were released to Annington Homes in each year since 1996 and (b) are projected to be released in each of the next five years; what the location is in each case; and what factors influence decisions on releases. [146516]

  Mr. Caplin
  Within the Defence Housing Executive's (DHE) overall disposal programme, the following numbers of properties have been handed back to Annington Homes, following the sale of the bulk of the family estate in 1996:

  Properties

  1997

  8

  1998

  1,366

  1999

  1,188

  2000

  2,679

  2001

  2,640

  2002

  2,366

  2003

  1,513

  At the time of the overall sale and leaseback in 1996, 2,373 properties were released to Annington Homes. Subsequently, a total of 11,760 properties have been handed back at over 300 sites across England and Wales. A further 560 properties are due to be handed back by the end of March 2004.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army serving in(a) 2 Signals Brigade and (b) its subordinate units have been mobilised during Operation Telic. [149422]

  Mr. Caplin
  One hundred and sixty six members of the Territorial Army who serve in either 2 Signals Brigade, or its subordinate units, have been deployed on Operation TELIC.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 277W, how many and what percentage of contracts issued by his Department since August 2002 which involved the use of wood have not complied with the Defence Contract Condition (DEFCON) 691. [148847]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence places in excess of 30,000 contracts per annum. MOD commercial staff are advised to include the Defence Contract Condition (DEFCON) 691 in all relevant contracts that may involve the supply or consumption of timber. However, if it is clear that performance of contracts does not involve the supply or consumption of timber, then
  1251W
  DEFCON 691 need not be called up. The MOD does not keep central records of the number of contracts, which contain DEFCON 691.

  University Places (Service Sponsorships)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he and his officials have had with the Department for Education and Skills on the impact of the introduction of top-up fees on service sponsorships for university places. [149042]

  Mr. Caplin
  None.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of top-up fees on the provision of service sponsorships for university places. [149043]

  Mr. Caplin
  No assessment has yet been made.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department's approach to the human rights issue in Chechnya includes representations to the Chechen Government. [149160]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK's representations over human rights in Chechnya have, to date, been made to representatives of the Russian Federal Government, rather than to local authorities.

  Hebron Rehabilitation Committee
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support the United Kingdom has given to the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee; and if he will make a statement. [149096]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK has not given any financial support to the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee. However, we are aware of their valuable work restoring the old city of Hebron, and have in the past lobbied the Government of Israel to ensure the Committee's work is not obstructed.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the welfare of animals denied access to Palestinian pasture lands since the construction of the security wall. [148902]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 19 November 2003,Official Report, column 1054W. As we made clear then, we have serious concerns about the impact of the fence on the daily life of those Palestinians directly affected. We are particularly concerned at the impact the establishment of a closed zone has had on access to basic services, including health and education in the area, and on the ability of Palestinian farmers to cultivate farmland and care for their livestock.

  Migrant Workers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence he has received since 1 July 2003 on the coming into force of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; and what steps remain to be taken before UK ratification of the Treaty. [149249]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government have received communication from a variety of sources seeking UK ratification. However, we have no plans to ratify the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. The scope of the Convention is wider than the UK's existing immigration laws. Incorporating it into UK law would imply fundamental changes to our legislation and would undermine the UK's system of frontier control.

  The Government consider they have already struck the right balance between the need for immigration control and the protection of the interests and rights of migrant workers.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to assist(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi to bring those guilty of crimes against humanity to justice; and if he will make a statement. [148856]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are working with the Rwandan Government to develop and begin implementation of a strategy for legal and judicial reform; implement the "gacaca" process of local justice in all provinces: and work constructively with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In Burundi, during 2003–04 we are contributing £5.7 million towards the cost of the African Union's peace-keeping force. We are also encouraging the UN to look at ways in which the international community can support post-conflict justice.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being provided to(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi to fight terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [148857]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are not providing direct assistance to Burundi and Rwanda to fight terrorism, but we are helping Rwanda with security sector reform and looking at the possibility of doing so in Burundi. We currently assess the threat from international terrorism in Burundi and Rwanda as low, but this is kept under careful review.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being provided to efforts to initiate the peace process in Burundi; and if he will make a statement. [148859]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK has increased its engagement in Burundi since the signing of the Arusha agreement in 2000, providing both political and financial support. We are working with the EU, UN and regional partners to consolidate the peace process to support peace-building activities, including the African Mission in Burundi, and long-term recovery and poverty reduction.
  1253W
  In 2003–04, the UK has made a total of £11.6 million available for Burundi, including £5.7 million to support the African Union-led peace-keeping force.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of sunset clauses in legislation; and which Acts containing such clauses relevant to his Department were passed in each year since 1997. [149331]

  Mr. Straw
  Whether a sunset clause is needed in legislation depends on the circumstance of each Bill. In the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), much of our legislation is to implement HMG's international obligations, so if those obligations do not have a specific time limit, a limit in our domestic legislation would not be appropriate. No Acts of Parliament since 1997 for which the FCO is responsible contained a sunset clause.

  United Nations
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the deadlines were for payment of regular budget contributions to the United Nations for each year since 1993; and when the United Kingdom made these payments in each year. [148667]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Secretariat issues invoices for contributions to the Regular Budget at the end of December each year, following the conclusion of General Assembly business in the fifth committee. Contributions are due within 30 days of receipt of invoice.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office pays 25 per cent. of its assessed contribution in January and the remaining 75 per cent. in April, in keeping with Treasury rules on expenditure which falls across financial years.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with representatives of(a) the UN, (b) the Government of Morocco and (c) the Polisario concerning the future government of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [148299]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss the situation in Western Sahara with our contacts at all levels in the United Nations, the Moroccan Government and the Polisario.

  Most recently, my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean discussed Western Sahara and other issues with the Moroccan Deputy Foreign Minister, Fassi-Fihri, at his request when he was in London on 6 January.

  Zimbabwe
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his 1254W
  Department has received from Zimbabwean journalists on issues surrounding freedom of the press in that country. [149159]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British Embassy in Harare has regular contact with a wide range of journalists in Zimbabwe, including those from independent newspapers. I met a senior delegation from the Daily News during their November 2003 visit to the UK. We condemn the Government of Zimbabwe's attempts to block press freedoms in Zimbabwe, and the state-sponsored violence and human rights abuses which accompany their misguided policies. We will continue to do all we can to defend freedom of speech and of the press in Zimbabwe.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Directorships
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the number of women holding directorships in FTSE 100 companies; and what this represents as a percentage of the total number of directors. [148398]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]: The number of female directorships has reached 101 in 2003, up by 20 per cent. on the previous year. Women now account for 9 per cent. of FTSE 100 board members and nearly 4 per cent. are in executive roles.

  The Higgs and Tyson reports, which the Government commissioned last year, looked at a number of aspects for improving the overall performance of company boards. The Higgs Review reported on how the quality, independence, and effectiveness of non-executive directors may be strengthened; and the Tyson Report subsequently considered how companies could pursue recruitment of directors from broader and more diverse backgrounds.

  The Government strongly support all efforts to improve the diversity and effectiveness of company boards. Since November, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality and I have been meeting Chairs, Chief Executives and senior figures from business to raise awareness about the business case for greater diversity on UK boards and to gather examples of good practice already in place, which we plan to disseminate further to companies, professional bodies and executive recruitment firms.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Gambling Bill
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the expected timetable is for the draft Gambling Bill after the consultation period ends. [149482]

  Mr. Caborn
  After taking account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee, which is now scrutinising the draft Bill, and of the points made in our
  1255W
  wider public consultation on its provisions, we intend to amend its provisions as necessary and to introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people employed in her Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148631]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held within the Department and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For civil servants generally, sick absence may be allowed on full pay for up to six months. Departments are responsible for paying Statutory Sick Pay to staff for up to 28 weeks as a proportion of their full pay.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  McClean Review
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners when he expects the publication of the first report of the McClean Review into clergy terms of service to the Archbishops' Council. [149477]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  The report of the McClean Group will be published and copies sent to members of the Church of England's General Synod on 23 January. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library and I will also ensure my hon. Friend receives one.

PRIME MINISTER

  11 September
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Bush about assistance for families of British victims of events on 11 September 2001 in pursuing inquiries into those events. [149500]

  The Prime Minister
  We have had extensive discussions with the US Government, at many levels, about circumstances surrounding the events of 11 September 2001. An independent commission of inquiry in the US into pre-11 September intelligence is also taking place.

  The Government remains ready to help UK relatives of 11 September victims in their dealings with the US Government in any way that we can.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the United Kingdom has shared with the United States Administration and US intelligence services the information on alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger, to which he referred in his letters of 1 September 2003 and 28 October 2003 to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. [149538]
  1256W
  The Prime Minister
  Exchanges between UK intelligence officials and their opposite numbers in the US are confidential and it would not be appropriate to provide any farther details beyond those we have already provided.

TREASURY

  Aggregates Levy
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment has been made of the impact of the aggregates levy since its introduction on the quarrying industry in(a) the East Midlands and (b) the United Kingdom; [148961]

  (2) when the level of the aggregates levy was last reviewed; [148962]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact the aggregates levy has had since its introduction on (a) the extraction of virgin aggregates and (b) the use of secondary aggregates in (i) the East Midlands and (ii) the UK; [148972]

  (4) what plans there are to review the level of the aggregates levy; [148975]

  (5) what assessment has been made of the impact of the aggregates levy since its introduction in (a) the East Midlands and (b) the UK. [149143]

  John Healey
  An update on the Government's current assessment of the impact of the aggregates levy was in the pre-Budget report (Cm 6042). Monitoring of the aggregates levy takes the form of a rolling programme of research and analysis of data as it becomes available. It encompasses all regions of the UK and it takes account of data from specific research, such as the Government-commissioned Symonds Report on the levy's impact in Northern Ireland, as well as information from business organisations, individual companies, environment groups and site visits by officials.

  Emerging evidence suggests that overall primary aggregates extraction has fallen since the levy's introduction; for example, the total outputs from the Annual Minerals Raised Inquiry for Great Britain for 2002 show a decrease of 5.7 per cent. on the 2001 figures. While there are a number of factors affecting extraction levels, it is clear that the levy has played a significant part in encouraging that reduction.

  The rate of the aggregates levy is reviewed annually as part of the Budget process.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) percentage rate and (b) actual tax revenue for air passenger duty was in each year since 1994. [149224]

  John Healey
  (a) Air passenger duty is not set as a percentage rate but as a monetary amount. Current air passenger duty rates are as follows.
  1257W

  £

  EEA Destinations

  Non-EEA Destinations

  Standard Rate

  10

  40

  Reduced Rate

  5

  20

  (b) Air passenger duty revenues for 2002–03 were £816 million and are published in HM Customs and Excise's Annual Report (HC52). Historic revenue figures can be found in table 2.1D of Financial Statistics published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Barnett Formula
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amounts(a) the Welsh Block and (b) the Scottish Block has been changed as a consequence of change in public funding for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew through the operation of the Barnett formula for each of the last six years. [148309]

  Mr. Boateng
  Changes in the Welsh and Scottish Blocks are determined through the Barnett formula, details of which were published in the Statement of Funding Policy in July 2002. The Barnett formula provides the devolved Administrations with aggregate increases reflecting a population share of overall increases in UK Government Departments' provision.

  Charitable Donations (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of charitable donations from the United Kingdom to developing countries in each of the last five years. [149156]

  John Healey
  The Government conduct a survey every year of non-Governmental organisations which provide assistance to developing countries. Aid flows from voluntary agencies are estimated from a statistical inquiry conducted annually by DfID in line with current survey control policy. The following table sets out the figures for the years 1998 to 2002.

  Expenditure by voluntary organisations in developing countries

  £ million

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total expenditure

  397

  495

  534

  456

  482

  of which:

  Officially funded

  143

  175

  170

  207

  221

  Funded by other UK agencies

  1

  22

  9

  24

  26

  Privately funded

  253

  298

  354

  225

  235

  Source:

  Voluntary agencies surveys of 1999–2003. The private element is published in DfID's annual publication "Statistics on International Development".

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148995]

  Ruth Kelly
  5,247 of the 98,770 staff employed by the Treasury, Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise have declared a disability.
  1258W

  Number

  HM Treasury

  Capacity

  10

  Co-ordination

  7

  Hearing

  9

  Learning

  4

  Mentally ill

  1

  Mobility

  7

  Speech

  2

  Visual

  4

  Total number

  44

  HM Customs and Excise

  Hearing Impairment—and other

  20

  Hearing Impairment—alone

  110

  Learning difficulties—alone

  23

  Learning difficulties—and other

  7

  Mental illness—alone

  32

  Mobility impairment—and other

  48

  Mobility impairment—alone

  126

  Physical co-ordination—alone

  31

  Physical co-ordination—and other

  22

  Reduced phys. capacity—and other

  70

  Reduced phys. capacity—alone

  256

  Severe disfigurement—and other

  1

  Severe disfigurement—alone

  1

  Speech impairment—and other

  2

  Speech impairment—alone

  8

  Status unknown

  43

  Unknown disability

  106

  Visual impairment—and other

  16

  Visual impairment—alone

  61

  Total number

  983

  Inland Revenue

  Unknown disability

  1,126

  Reduced physical capacity

  729

  Visual impairment

  668

  Mobility impairment

  651

  Hearing impairment

  625

  Mental illness

  242

  Learning difficulties

  72

  Speech impairment

  46

  Physical co-ordination difficulties

  43

  Severe disfigurement

  11

  Obsolete descriptions

  8

  Total number

  4,220

  Grand total

  5,247

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter dated 5 November 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding EU children's clothes VAT plans. [149781]

  John Healey
  I replied to the hon. Member on 14 January.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of widening the VAT reduction to 5 per cent. on energy saving materials; [149099]

  (2) if he will take steps to allow a stamp duty rebate at time of purchase for homebuyers installing energy efficiency measures; [149098]

  (3) if he will introduce a new tax allowance for private landlords investing in energy efficiency. [149100]
  1259W
  John Healey
  The Government are committed to improving household energy efficiency, as part of their programme to meet Energy White Paper targets. The Government routinely evaluate the impact of policy initiatives, including environmental tax measures. The Government have a long-standing commitment to pursue EU changes to permit a reduced rate of VAT for the DIY installation of energy saving materials, and have already applied a reduced rate of VAT for the installation of materials in certain other circumstances. The Government consulted on further measures to improve household energy efficiency in 2003, including a tax allowance for private landlords investing in energy efficiency. The Government also invited views on other possible policy initiatives. Responses were published and are being taken into account in further policy development. In the pre-Budget report (Cm 6042) we confirmed that we believe that there is a case for the further use of economic instruments as part of a package of measures to promote energy efficiency. A further announcement will be made around Budget 2004.

  Excise Taxes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the European Commission on combating the evasion of excise taxes within the European Union. [148479]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers and officials from the Chancellor's Departments hold discussions with the European Commission and their counterparts from other EU member states on a wide range of issues, including the effective operation of the EU excise system.

  Fuel Tax
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Ex chequer what plans he has to increase the duty on liquefied petroleum gas; and if he will make a statement. [149417]

  John Healey
  In his Pre-Budget Report in December 2003 (Cm 6042), the Chancellor announced that the Government will gradually increase the duty rate for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) over the next three years, setting duty differentials on a path towards a level commensurate with the fuel's environmental benefits. Consistent with the Government's commitment to give three-year certainty on duty differentials for alternative fuels, the duty differentials for LPG for the next three years will be announced in Budget 2004.

  Inland Revenue Code of Practice 26
  John Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue's Code of Practice 26 will be made available to members of the public at local tax offices. [146331]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Code of Practice 26, "What happens when we have paid you too much tax credit?", is available to claimants via Inland Revenue Enquiry Centres. It is also available online at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ leaflets/credit.htm.

  World Debt
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the terms and conditions relating to(a) loans made by the International Monetary Fund to third world countries and (b) debt cancellation. [149471]

  John Healey
  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lends to low-income countries through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), a lending instrument offering softer terms than conventional IMF lending. Loans under the PRGF are based on a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), which is prepared by the country in co-operation with civil society and other development partners, in particular the World Bank. The UK believes that IMF loan conditions should reflect only what is necessary for the success of a program, to ensure the protection of IMF funds, and to meet the core requirements of the Fund's mandate. Conditions should be appropriate for a particular country. This is upheld in new guidelines on conditionality introduced by the IMF in September 2002 and the UK will work to ensure these guidelines remain appropriate and that they are upheld in practice.

  The UK continues to be fully committed to the rapid and full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to ensure that it delivers a robust exit from unsustainable debt for the world's poorest countries. To change the underlying dynamics of those countries in which debt indicators are deteriorating, it is important that—in addition to receiving debt relief—countries implement the reforms necessary to allow them to grow faster, to increase poverty reduction expenditure and to enable them to diversify their export bases and better absorb macroeconomic shocks, such as a decline in specific commodity prices. So far 27 countries have started to receive debt relief under the initiative, worth over US $70 billion. To be eligible for the HIPC Initiative, countries must be eligible for highly concessional assistance from the World Bank and the IMF, face an unsustainable debt situation after the full application of traditional debt relief mechanisms (such as application of Naples terms under the Paris Club agreement), and must make a commitment to poverty reduction through the implementation of a Poverty Reduction Strategy.

  The HIPC Initiative has an important role to play in maximising the resources available for poverty reduction in developing countries. However, unless there is an increase in the volume of resources available from donors to poor countries, additional debt relief would simply reallocate resources from one form of financing to another, and from non-HIPC poor countries to HIPC countries, without adding to the overall financing available for poverty reduction. Furthermore, all HIPC countries would still need additional aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals even if all of their debt from the World Bank and IMF were cancelled. That is why the UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important. It could provide the much-needed substantial increase in resources which debt relief alone would not achieve and which could be disbursed by way of grants and additional debt relief.

  Places of Worship/Historic Buildings
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the implementation of existing VAT Directives relating to the care of listed places of worship; [149491]

  (2) what fiscal incentives his Department provides to support the maintenance of historic buildings; what plans he has to increase this support and if he will make a statement. [149490]

  John Healey
  In accordance with the rules laid down in the EC Sixth VAT Directive, the repair and maintenance of listed places of worship, and of all other buildings, is standard-rated for VAT purposes.

  We have been negotiating hard with our European Partners to extend the categories of permitted reduced VAT rates to include the repair and maintenance of listed places of worship. Although at this time the future of these negotiations is uncertain, it remains one of the Government's objectives to achieve such a reduced rate.

  In the meantime we continue to provide support through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which provides an equivalent reduction in the cost of these repair projects. In his Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor announced that funding for the grant scheme is in place for a further two years, until the end of March 2006.

  As well as the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, the Government provides a range of fiscal incentives to support the maintenance of historic buildings, including exemption from inheritance tax for heritage maintenance funds. The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes are considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the annual Budget process.

  Public Expenditure (Allocation within UK)
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the figures listed in Table 8.6b and 8.13b of the Corrigendum to Chapter 8 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003, what assessment he has made of the per capita cost of providing a parity of service provision in each region and nation of the United Kingdom with a view to determining which region/nation is receiving(a) more, (b) less and (c) the correct level of funding in each service programme. [149455]

  Mr. Boateng
  Spending by the devolved administrations is determined by the principles set out in the Statement of Funding Policy published by the Treasury in July 2002. Spending by region is determined by departments; there is no single allocation formula. Spending is determined according to the circumstances of the particular spending programme.

  Scottish Executive
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he plans to make to determinants of the grant, other than the Barnett Formula, paid to the Scottish Executive in 2004. [149633]
  1262W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's spending plans for 2004–05 were published in the 2002 Spending Review White Paper (Cm 5570). The grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund for 2004–05 will be published in the Scotland Office chapter of the Department for Constitutional Affairs 2004–05 Departmental Report.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many community and amateur sports clubs are registered for tax relief; [149366]

  (2) what steps he is taking to promote the package of tax concessions available to community and amateur sports clubs; [149367]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of community and amateur sports clubs eligible for tax concessions. [149368]

  John Healey
  It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 clubs might be eligible to apply for registration as a community amateur sports club (CASC). As at 16 January 2004, 587 CASCs had been registered. A list of registered clubs is published on the Inland Revenue website, and is updated on a monthly basis.

  In the Pre-Budget Report (Cm 6042) the Chancellor announced the Government's intention to double the Corporation Tax thresholds below which registered CASCs are exempt from tax. This will mean that clubs with a trading turnover of less than £30,000 and gross property income of less than £20,000 will pay no Corporation Tax. The measure will be introduced in the next Finance Bill.

  Clubs registered in England and Wales will also receive mandatory rates relief of 80 per cent. with effect from 1 April 2004. Local authorities can increase this relief to 100 per cent. at their own discretion. These measures will help clubs raise funds to improve facilities for participating in sport, by reducing the burden placed upon them.

  The Inland Revenue, in partnership with the Central Council of Physical Recreation; Bates, Wells & Braithwaite; Deloitte & Touche and others, held a series of regional seminars in 2003 to promote the CASC scheme. The Inland Revenue continues to work closely with representative bodies to encourage awareness of the scheme among their members.

  The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport also wrote to all Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), in December, encouraging them to promote the scheme to amateur sports clubs in their constituencies.

  Telephone Charges
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was derived in 2002–03 by Government Departments and agencies from use of the 0870 telephone number which charges callers. [149599]
  1263W
  Mr. Boateng
  Information about the use of 0870 services by Government Departments and agencies is not held centrally.

  Thames Gateway Bridge
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Thames Gateway Bridge will be included in the comparator expenditure for the purposes of allocations under the Barnett Formula; and how much additional money will go to the devolved administrations as a result. [149643]

  Mr. Boateng
  Comparability factors for the purpose of allocations under the Barnett formula are published in Annex C of the Statement of Funding Policy. The latest version was published by the Treasury in July 2002. Comparability factors are updated in each Spending Review. Under the Barnett formula the devolved administrations receive a population share of comparable aggregate increases in departmental spending.

  Tourism (VAT)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the VAT rate on tourism services, with particular reference to tourist accommodation. [149225]
  1264W
  John Healey
  The Chancellor keeps all tax matters under constant review, and I refer the hon gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 823W.

  Trade Union Recognition Ballots
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what types of expenses accrued by a company campaigning against a trade union recognition ballot would be(a) tax deductible and (b) able to be offset against other tax liabilities; what the total amount of tax not paid in respect of such expenses has been in each of the last five years; and what plans he has to change the tax rules applying to such expenses. [149577]

  Dawn Primarolo
  (a) Expenses which are deductible in computing a company's trading profits are those revenue expenses which are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company's trade and which are not subject to a specific statutory prohibition.
  (b) Such expenses cannot be set against other tax liabilities as such, but a trading loss created or augmented by such expenses may be set against other liabilities as permitted by statute.

  We have no centrally available information on this matter.

  Tax policy is kept under continuous review and any changes are announced by the Chancellor, usually at the time of the Budget.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many induction centres for asylum seekers there are in the UK; and how many asylum seekers have been processed by induction centres since they opened. [147861]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently two induction centres open in the UK: Dover Induction Centre which opened in January 2002 and Yorkshire and Humberside which opened in June 2003. These two induction centres have processed about 26,700 asylum applicants collectively.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many induction centres for asylum seekers the Government plans to open; when they will open; and where. [147862]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government plans to establish a network of induction centres in London and the regions during 2004. Negotiations with potential providers for further induction centres are ongoing so the exact locations and final number cannot be confirmed at this time. The final number will depend on the number of bedspaces each potential provider can deliver and capacity required will change to reflect changes in asylum intake. It is expected however that the network will consist of about eight induction centres.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers he expects will be processed by each induction centre; and what the expected cost is of each centre. [147863]

  Beverley Hughes
  When the national network of induction centres has been established it is expected that all asylum applicants will be processed through an induction centre, with the exception of detainees and those under Social Services care, for whom induction services will be tailored and delivered differently. Negotiations with potential providers are still ongoing and therefore information on the cost of each centre is not yet available. The number of asylum seekers processed by each centre depends on the number of bedspaces each centre can deliver and on asylum intake and dispersal rates.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers reached the UK in 2003(a) as a result of illegal people-smuggling operations conducted by criminal gangs and (b) because they held false documentation. [148042]

  Beverley Hughes
  The nature of illegal entry is such that it is impossible to quantify. Illegal entrants are detected in a wide range of circumstances and time frames, from discovery in the back of a lorry on, or shortly after, arrival, to discovery much later, when found working. Although many of those discovered will 1266W
  claim asylum, no figures are kept centrally to differentiate between asylum seekers who arrive illegally, asylum seekers who arrive illegally as a result of criminal action, and illegal entrants generally.

  The Government established the multi-agency Reflex strategy to tackle the criminality behind people smuggling, and will continue to support this strategy in tandem with increasingly effective border control measures, which saw a 52 per cent. reduction in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK in the 12 months from October 2002.

  It is also not possible to quantify, except at disproportionate cost, the number of asylum seekers who reach the UK because they hold false documentation, although it is reasonable to conclude that many who do so arrive will claim asylum.

  In the 12 months ending 30 September 2003, 8,446 false documents were detected at UK ports of entry.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has collated of links between the change in the number of asylum seekers and people traffickers. [148043]

  Beverley Hughes
  Government action led to a 52 per cent. reduction in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the UK in the 12 months from October 2002. Incidences of human trafficking to the UK remain low, although the vast majority of those entering the UK illegally do so with the assistance of people smugglers (or facilitators). Figures for the prosecutions of facilitators do not differentiate between asylum seekers who enter illegally, and other illegal entrants. There is no clear statistical trend in the number of facilitators prosecuted at the major ports of Dover and Heathrow.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications the UK received from citizens of Sri Lanka in(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003. [148420]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 6,395, 5,510 and 3,130 asylum applications (principal applicants) from nationals of Sri Lanka in 2000, 2001 and 2002 respectively and 630 asylum applications (principal applicants) from January to September 2003.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication, including provisional data for October to December 2003 and totals for 2003, will be available on the 24 February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been received from citizens of Sri Lanka since it was included in the list of designated countries on 17 July 2003; how many of these applications(a) have been accepted, (b) have been refused, (c) are still

  1267W
  pending, (d) have led to non-suspensive appeals, (e) have resulted in successful non-suspensive appeals and (f) have resulted in judicial review. [148421]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum applications are published for annual, quarterly, and monthly periods. The following table shows the number of asylum applications (principal applicants) from nationals of Sri Lanka from January to September 2003, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 2003 by month, nationals of Sri Lanka

  Applications

  January

  120

  February

  80

  March

  100

  April

  70

  May

  95

  June

  75

  Initial decisions on asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, nationals of Sri Lanka, 2003 by month

  Decisions

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of exceptional leave to remain

  Grants of humanitarian protection

  Grants of discretionary leave

  Total refusals3,4

  January

  155

  5

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  130

  February

  180

  *

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  160

  March

  250

  5

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  225

  April

  185

  *

  n/a

  —

  10

  175

  May

  140

  —

  n/a

  —

  5

  135

  June

  155

  5

  n/a

  —

  10

  140

  July

  100

  *

  n/a

  —

  5

  95

  August

  60

  *

  n/a

  —

  5

  55

  September

  45

  5

  n/a

  —

  5

  40

  Total to date

  1,265

  20

  55

  —

  35

  1,155

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest five, with '*' = 1 or 2.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  4 May include some refusals under non compliance grounds,

  n/a = not applicable

  The following table provides information on the outcomes ofappeals at the IAA relating to Sri Lankan nationals, in January to September 2003, the latest date for which figures are available. Not all refusals result in

  Outcome of Appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, nationals of Sri Lanka, 2003, by month

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Total

  Total

  As percentage of Determined

  Total

  As percentage of Determined

  Total

  As percentage of Determined

  January

  625

  55

  9

  560

  89

  10

  2

  February

  535

  45

  8

  475

  89

  15

  3

  March

  600

  65

  11

  525

  87

  10

  2

  April

  545

  80

  14

  455

  83

  15

  3

  May

  505

  85

  17

  405

  80

  20

  4

  June

  480

  75

  16

  395

  82

  10

  2

  July

  505

  70

  14

  420

  83

  15

  3

  August

  490

  50

  10

  435

  88

  10

  2

  September

  410

  55

  14

  350

  85

  5

  1

  Total to date

  4,710

  580

  12

  4,015

  85

  110

  2

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest five (except percentages), with '*' = 1 or 2. Figures may not add up due to independent rounding.

  2 Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  1268W

  Application

  July

  30

  August

  30

  September

  30

  Total to date

  630

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest five

  Information on how many of these applications have been accepted, refused, are still pending, have led to non-suspensive appeals or have resulted in judicial review could be obtained only by examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  The following table provides information on the outcomes of initial decisions relating to Sri Lankan nationals, from January to September 2003, the latest date for which figures are available. Initial decisions made in any given month may relate to applications made in previous months.

  appeals and appeal determinations made in any given month may relate to initial decisions made in previous months.
  1269W
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants who are citizens of Sri Lanka were given permission to stay in the UK in(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003; and how many applications were refused in each of these years. [148422]

  Initial decisions on asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by year—nationals of Sri Lanka—principal applicants

  Decisions

  2000

  20013

  20024

  20034,5

  Total decisions

  9,050

  10,350

  4,285

  1,265

  Grants of asylum

  900

  1,440

  340

  20

  Grants of exceptional leave to remain

  285

  540

  275

  55

  Grants of humanitarian protection

  6—

  6—

  6—

  —

  Grants of discretionary leave

  6—

  6—

  6—

  35

  Total refusals7

  6,875

  8,370

  3,670

  1,155

  Grants of exceptional leave to remain under backlog criteria8,9

  895

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria8,10

  100

  6—

  6—

  6—

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Revised figures

  4 Provisional figures

  5 January to September

  6 Not applicable

  7 May include some refusals under non compliance grounds.

  8 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum backlog.

  9 May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  10 May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  The following table shows the available data, for outcomes of appeals relating to refused asylum applications (principal applicants) for nationals of Sri Lanka in 2000, 2001, 2002 and from January to September 2003. Allowed appeals may result in grants of asylum, grants of humanitarian protection or grants of discretionary leave, or in appeals to the IAT by the Secretary of State, and do not necessarily result in permanent settlement.

  Outcome of appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants—nationals of Sri Lanka—2001 to September 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  2001

  2002

  Total to September 2003

  Appeals determined by adjudicators

  Total

  290

  525

  4,710

  Allowed

  Total

  105

  145

  580

  As percentage of determined

  36

  28

  12

  Dismissed

  Total

  180

  370

  4,015

  As percentage of determined

  62

  70

  85

  Withdrawn

  Total

  5

  10

  110

  As percentage of determined

  2

  2

  2

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5 (except percentages). Figures may not add up due to independent rounding.

  2 Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  1270W
  Beverley Hughes
  The following table shows the available data, for outcomes of initial decisions relating to asylum applications (principal applicants) for nationals of Sri Lanka in 2000, 2001, 2002 and from January to September 2003. Grants of exceptional leave to remain and of discretionary leave may be followed by review of individuals' cases and do not necessarily result in permanent settlement.

  Information on asylum applications and decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will be available on 24 February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were held in prisons in England and Wales owing to no final decision having been reached on their right to remain in the United Kingdom as political or religious asylum seekers on 1 January 2003. [148608]

  Beverley Hughes
  Detention under the Immigration Acts may normally be appropriate while a person's identity and basis of claim is established, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person will fail to comply with the terms of temporary admission or release, or to effect removal. In addition, individuals whose asylum claims appear to be capable of being decided quickly may be detained as part of a fast-track asylum process. The majority of those detained for these reasons are held in Immigration Service removal centres. In a small number of individual cases it is necessary for reasons of security and control to hold detained persons in prison accommodation. The immigration or asylum cases of such individuals may be at various stages. Information on case status is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  As at 27 September 2003 (the latest date for which information is available) there were 100 persons detained in prisons in England and Wales solely under the Immigration Act, who had claimed asylum at some stage.
  1271W
  Information on the number of asylum applicants detained solely under the Immigration Act is published quarterly on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html. Data for those detained at the end of December 2003 will be published on 24 February.

  Civic Renewal
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage people to take part in community action for the purposes of civic renewal. [147239]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: The Home Office recognises that local communities are best placed to define and solve their own problems and that they should be able to work with the relevant authorities and organisations in a flexible way. This approach is termed civil renewal and can be applied across areas such as policing, criminal justice, and the work of drug action teams.

  In terms of policing and police reform, for example, in the last six months three police authority areas have been identified—Cheshire, Merseyside and Northumbria—to test out new ways to engage with communities. The lessons they learn will be fed through to the work of a Practitioner Panel which will identify and share good practice in citizen-focused policy and community engagement.

  Reform of the criminal justice system will continue to address the challenge of developing more effective community engagement, so that individuals and communities affected by crime can play an active part in solving the crime-related problems in their local areas, and can feel greater confidence in the criminal justice system.

  As another example of the civil renewal approach, the Home Office is monitoring what drug action teams across the country do to engage local communities. Progress is good, including a grants scheme for black and minority ethnic community groups to carry out research into the health needs of their communities and generate ideas for service improvements.

  The Home Office is currently consulting the community and voluntary sector about practical ways to build capacity in communities in order to achieve civil renewal. It has also recently launched the Active Citizenship Centre, which is the centre for research in best practice and case studies of civil renewal.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham of 10 July 2003. [144158]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 16 December 2003]: The Home Office can find no trace of the original correspondence. After being provided with a copy, I replied to the hon. Member on 18 December 2003.
  1272W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his normal practice is for the length of time taken to reply to correspondence. [145620]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office's published targets for responding to correspondence are as follows:

  Length of time taken to reply to correspondence

  Correspondence from Member of parliament relating to matters other than immigration, nationality and HM Prison Service

  115

  Correspondence from Members of Parliament relating to immigration, nationality and HM Prison Service

  120

  Correspondence, including emails, from members of the public

  120

  1Working days

  A great deal of effort has been put into improving performance over the past six months following the introduction of the new Correspondence Tracking System.

  The latest available figures show that 60 per cent. of letters from hon. Members are now replied to within the target. This is an increase on the figure of 36 per cent. achieved in May 2003. Although this indicates a considerable improvement, the department is committed to improving this further.

  Cyber-terrorism
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his assessment of the current risk to British security posed by cyber-terrorism. [148761]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC) is continually monitoring the threat of electronic attack on the UK's Critical National Infrastructure. NISCC's assessment is that the overall threat from electronic attack is increasing but remains less attractive than a conventional attack. While the threat of the sort of attack that could disable a critical service is considered to remain low, less serious but damaging attacks that might deface a website or deny service from a website are assessed to be more likely.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in each police force area were charged by police with driving without insurance in each of the last five years. [148742]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of people charged is not collected centrally.

  However, the number of prosecutions for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks is given in the table from 1997 to 2001 by police force area.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the spring.
  1273W

  Total proceedings at the magistrates courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks1 total offences by persons2–England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Police force

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon and Somerset

  15,354

  16,891

  15,094

  14,609

  13,022

  Bedfordshire

  4,724

  4,449

  3,477

  3,594

  4,651

  Cambridgeshire

  3,438

  3,422

  3,056

  2,926

  2,507

  Cheshire

  4,836

  4,958

  5,458

  5,725

  4,973

  Cleveland

  3,925

  4,203

  4,330

  4,793

  4,789

  Cumbria

  4,215

  3,783

  3,596

  3,507

  3,594

  Derbyshire

  5,563

  5,135

  5,118

  5,314

  5,428

  Devon and Cornwall

  8,422

  7,231

  7,493

  9,233

  8,648

  Dorset

  5,271

  4,198

  4,776

  6,035

  5,262

  Durham

  3,989

  4,260

  5,898

  5,470

  5,394

  Essex

  7,151

  7,020

  7,333

  7,893

  7,705

  Gloucestershire

  3,574

  4,463

  4,442

  4,173

  4,681

  Greater Manchester

  30,636

  30,829

  33,203

  33,762

  37,068

  Hampshire

  11,764

  11,552

  11,545

  10,557

  10,347

  Hertfordshire

  4,575

  5,795

  4,744

  5,254

  5,815

  Humberside

  4,402

  4,278

  4,892

  5,021

  4,729

  Kent

  6,931

  6,955

  6,150

  9,032

  9,588

  Lancashire

  20,326

  18,787

  18,097

  18,348

  16,268

  Leicestershire

  9,696

  9,476

  11,053

  10,260

  10,467

  Lincolnshire

  4,589

  4,999

  5,345

  4,500

  4,083

  London, City of

  2,669

  3,127

  2,517

  1,738

  1,824

  Merseyside

  10,896

  9,741

  8,932

  10,054

  9,466

  Metropolitan Police

  42,266

  35,057

  31,269

  29,635

  32,015

  Norfolk

  3,928

  3,433

  3,467

  3,951

  4,744

  Northamptonshire

  4,997

  4,842

  5,560

  3,946

  2,027

  Northumbria

  12,469

  11,837

  13,296

  13,192

  12,503

  North Yorkshire

  3,925

  3,742

  4,001

  3,903

  3,541

  Nottinghamshire

  8,078

  8.725

  7,955

  7,748

  7,856

  South Yorkshire

  11,223

  11,551

  11,759

  12,689

  14,615

  Staffordshire

  8,175

  8,206

  8.018

  8,777

  6,023

  Suffolk

  3,254

  3,743

  4,188

  3,918

  4,119

  Surrey

  4,940

  3,908

  4,436

  4,939

  5,100

  Sussex

  9,333

  8,201

  7,413

  6,796

  6,814

  Thames Valley

  11,884

  11,945

  13,540

  12,811

  11,723

  Warwickshire

  4,315

  3,761

  3,522

  4,133

  4,204

  West Mercia

  7,075

  8,207

  7,446

  7,686

  7,784

  West Midlands

  29,862

  30,916

  27,400

  28,140

  27,000

  West Yorkshire

  23,978

  23,546

  25,769

  26,527

  27,616

  Wiltshire

  3,459

  4,818

  4,706

  4,901

  5,292

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,079

  2,852

  3,017

  3,071

  2,952

  Gwent

  4,094

  4,476

  4,451

  4,679

  4,757

  North Wales

  4,859

  4,452

  -4,101

  3,696

  3,370

  South Wales

  14,828

  16,186.

  15,403

  14,615

  13,803

  England and Wales

  396,967

  389,956

  387,266

  391,551

  388,167

  1 An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s143(2)

  2 Excludes companies, local authorities etc. One person may be proceeded against more than once on the same occasion.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147298]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Give as You Earn Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [143906]
  1274W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  Figures for staff in central Home Office and Immigration and Nationality Directorate contributing to the Give as You Earn (GAYE) scheme are outlined in the table. Figures are taken from the November 2003 payroll. Figures for other agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are currently not available.

  Give as You Earn scheme

  Number of payees contributing

  770 out of 20,162

  Percentage of payees contributing

  3.82

  Monthly amount collected

  £8,877.48

  Home Office staff can find information on how to contribute to the GAYE scheme from their personnel unit; or electronically, via our Intranet. Promotion of the scheme has recently taken place in some small areas in London. The Human Resources Policy Section is currently working on a strategy to publicise the scheme across the whole Department. This work has been suspended because of the current pay dispute, but I would envisage that the strategy will be implemented in the spring.

  Illegal Entrants (Amnesties)
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amnesties in the form of permission to stay have been offered to people who entered the country illegally during the last 15 years; and when. [148148]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been no "amnesties" targeted at people who entered illegally in the last 15 years.

  On three occasions during that time special exercises have been undertaken to grant leave to people meeting specified criteria. The administrative exercise in 1992–93 granted exceptional leave to remain to 60 per cent. of those refused asylum—possibly over 20,000. There was no announcement to Parliament.

  The exercise in 1998, announced to Parliament in 1998, granted leave to those whose claims had been subject to delay in processing.

  The focused exercise we announced last October is targeted at families who applied before reforms were made to the appeal system and who have children who are established within our communities.

  Immigration Surcharge
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he is planning to levy a surcharge on those coming to the UK(a) for higher education and (b) to take up employment; what windfall gain this charge is intended to engender; and what his Department means by the term over-cost. [148161]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Asylum and Immigration Bill includes an enabling power to introduce an over-cost charge for non-asylum applications where there are existing powers to charge. We believe it is fair that people who want to come to the UK to study or take up employment should make a contribution in return for the benefits they receive. Final decisions about the level of any additional fees for different categories of applicant,
  1275W
  and regarding the timing of their introduction, will be taken only after wide consultation with key stakeholders and other Government Departments.

  The term over-cost refers to setting a fee at a rate that exceeds the administrative cost of determining or processing such an application.

  Imprisonable Offences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many imprisonable offences have been created since 1997. [147354]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office is responsible for aspects of the criminal law, but records of all imprisonable offences enacted in any parliamentary session are not kept centrally. The following information therefore relates only to Home Office measures. 257 imprisonable offences have been created, modified or re-enacted since 1 May 1997.

  Islam
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage leaders of the Islamic faith in the United Kingdom to support the reform of Islamic law which calls for the death penalty for apostates. [147425]

  Beverley Hughes
  While the Government does not generally intervene in matters of religious doctrine, I am aware that Islamic teaching places a strong injunction on Muslims to abide by the laws of the society in which they live and that the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom are peaceful and law-abiding members of society. The United Kingdom is fortunate in having a number of wise and responsible Muslim religious and community leaders who advocate a peaceful and constructive way of life. The Government has a continuing dialogue with these leaders, as with leaders of other faiths, and shares their aim of resisting and isolating all forms of extremism.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government is taking to protect members of the Islamic faith who convert to Christianity. [147426]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is already substantial legislation to protect people who are victimised or discriminated against because of their religion. For example, the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 already contains provisions which make it a criminal offence to incite or arouse fear of racial or religious hatred. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created new religiously aggravated offences in England and Wales, under which crimes such as assault and criminal damage attract a higher maximum penalty if they are committed because of the victim's religious belief or lack of belief. We would urge any person whose safety or property is threatened because of their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs to report the matter to the police. The Home Office has recently published a response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences, in which we have indicated our support in principle for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred in England and Wales.

  Passports
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a British passport with biometric data and bar coding will be available; and at what cost. [147553]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom Passport Service and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are working on a joint programme to issue electronically enabled passports capable of supporting the applications of facial recognition software. The programme plans to start issuing this new form of passport in mid 2005 with a phased roll out through the remainder of that year. This will be a major technological change and it is important to introduce the new form of passports in a safe and controlled way. The possibility of a pilot using diplomatic passports is also being considered.

  All British passports are now issued with a machine readable zone (MRZ) in compliance with ICAO standards; some media reports have described this as a bar code.

  The cost of the new passport will depend on the method of embedding the contactless computer chip into the passport book. Four prototype methods have been developed and are subject to durability tests. Information on likely costs will be developed during the pilots.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how an applicant for a new British passport will be able to provide biometric information for the passport; and how system security will be guaranteed. [147554]

  Beverley Hughes
  The new British passport will support facial recognition and the biometric data will be provided by applicants in the form of a photograph. These photographs will need to comply with format standards and new guidance notes are being prepared.

  The current security accreditation of passport issuing systems will be maintained and the electronic information stored in the document will be secured by a digital signature at the time of issue.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the forms of biometric and bar code data that will be encompassed within the new British passport. [147596]

  Beverley Hughes
  The new British passport, which it is planned will be issued from mid 2005 onwards, will store electronically a portrait or image of the applicant of sufficient resolution to support the application of any form of facial recognition software. In addition, some of the information printed on the biodata page of the passport will also be stored electronically.

  This information will be stored on contactless computer chip and will be digitally signed when issued to prevent alteration and confirm authentication.

  All British passports already contain a machine readable zone (MRZ) which contains some of the same biodata; some media reports have described this as a bar code.

  Prisons
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to introduce an exit centre in HM Prison Leeds for people leaving prison, to link addiction, mental health, rehabilitation, education and training procedures inside prison with programmes available outside. [149034]

  Paul Goggins
  Funding has been secured for the development of a healthy living centre that will draw upon partnerships with the community to provide better opportunities for prisoners to make informed decisions about lifestyle and healthy living. Community partnerships have also been established to build upon housing and employment provision and to improve the opportunity and quality of education. I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss how these projects can help achieve the objectives he outlines.

  Female remand population in custody

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Females on remand

  383

  395

  490

  491

  538

  599

  704

  748

  700

  775

  945

  Untried

  271

  285

  351

  344

  371

  396

  426

  434

  396

  430

  496

  Convicted unsentenced

  112

  110

  139

  147

  167

  203

  278

  313

  304

  345

  449

  Convicted unsentenced1

  29

  28

  28

  30

  31

  34

  39

  42

  43

  45

  47

  1 As a percentage of total female population.

  Note:

  The components do not always add to the totals because they have been rounded independently.

  The number of female convicted unsentenced prisoners as a percentage of the total female remand population has increased since 1992; showing a similar increase to the number of male convicted unsentenced prisoners as a percentage of the total male remand population. There are many reasons for this increase. For example, arrangements for plea before venue, as made possible by the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996 and the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, were implemented on 1 October 1997. Plea before venue led to offenders pleading guilty earlier than previously and hence spending less time untried and spending proportionately more time convicted unsentenced.

  Sentencing
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) magistrates and (b) judges have sufficient information to make the most effective use of prison and probation services. [147367]

  Paul Goggins
  Pre-sentence reports prepared by the probation service provide information to the sentencing court about the offender and the offence(s) committed to assist the court to decide on a suitable sentence. The report analyses the offence; includes an offender assessment covering accommodation and employment, details of any substance misuse, mental illness, etc.; looks at patterns of offending and the outcome of any earlier court interventions. Each report contains a
  1278W
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were (i) serving a life sentence for murder and (ii) category A prisoners on 1 January. [148606]

  Paul Goggins
  At the end of November 2003, 3,546 males and 133 females were serving a life sentence for murder in prisons in England and Wales.

  At the end of November 2003, 951 males and seven females who were in prisons in England and Wales were classified as Category A prisoners.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the percentage of remand prisoners who are women convicted and awaiting sentence. [142889]

  Paul Goggins
  The number and percentage of remand prisoners who are women convicted and awaiting sentence is given in the following table.

  conclusion as to whether or not the offender is suitable for a community sentence and should make a clear and realistic proposal for sentence designed to protect the public and reduce re-offending, including for custody where that is necessary.

  The Sentencing Guidelines Council will introduce a robust and comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines to assist the courts in their task of ensuring consistent and just disposals in all cases.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [145930]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The following table provides the percentage of staff over 55 in the Department, the numbers of staff recruited in the last 12 months who are over age 55 and what percentage of the overall recruitment is over age 55 in the last 12 months.

  Percentage staff over age 55

  Number of staff over 55 recruited in the last 12 months

  Percentage of staff over age 55 recruited in the last 12 months

  Non-Agency Home Office

  8.80

  149

  3.40

  Prison Service

  14.00

  372

  6

  Forensic Science Service

  6.23

  8

  3

  UK Passport Service

  10.40

  372

  5.40

  Terrorism
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 669W, with which offences under the Terrorism Act 2001 the 94 individuals have been charged. [148923]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that this information is not currently held centrally and is being collated. I will write to my hon. and learned Friend when I have the information and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the proposed register of violent partners will be administered; and if he will make a statement. [147325]

  Paul Goggins
  We propose to create a register of domestic violence civil orders. This will give the police the information they need to be able to enforce orders properly and protect victims. It can be established through a non-legislative route, for example by using the Police National Computer.

  In terms of offenders, those who have been convicted of specific violent and sexual offences and have been given a custodial sentence of 12 months or more are already registered on the Violent and Sex Offenders' Register (ViSOR). ViSOR gives the police a way of risk-assessing and managing dangerous offenders, and covers the majority of domestic violence offenders who will be convicted of offences such as Actual Bodily Harm and Wounding with Intent.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fuel Poverty (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many fuel poor households there are in(a) Lancashire and (b) each district in Lancashire; [146968]

  (2) how many (a) children and (b) elderly people are living in fuel poor households in each Lancashire district. [146969]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Fuel poverty is defined as a household having to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on all energy use in order to maintain satisfactory heat in the home. The current published official estimates of fuel poverty are extrapolated from a sample survey of 17,500 dwellings carried out in 2001.

  Figures are not available at county level.

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money her Department has allocated to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux(a) in each of the last three years and (b) for each of the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [148529]
  1280W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department of Trade and Industry has allocated the following grant in aid payments to Citizens Advice (formerly the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—NACAB) during the past three financial years:

  £million

  2003–04

  21.24

  2002–03

  17.15

  2001–02

  16.8

  My officials are currently discussing future budgetary requirements and allocations with Citizens Advice and a final decision on allocations has not yet been made.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the head of the Insolvency Service last met the liquidators of BCCI. [149583]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service met one of the liquidators of BCCI on 4 March 2003.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received from hon. Members about the liquidation of BCCI. [149585]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In view of the period over which the liquidation of BCCI has continued, this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to receive the annual report of the liquidators of BCCI. [149586]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The next annual report on the liquidation of BCCI will cover the period 16 January 2003 to 15 January 2004.

  I would expect it to be submitted as soon as the accounting and other information can be compiled.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Michael Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to restrict the implementation of new business regulations to two specific dates each year, 1 April and 1 September; and if she will make a statement. [148601]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  From 2004 the DTI is commencing domestic employment regulations on two dates each year. This will ensure that changes to employment policy are made in a more coordinated fashion and will provide businesses, employee representatives and individuals with grater clarity and awareness about when changes will be made.

  The common commencement dates are 6 April, the start of the tax year, and 1 October, the date when the minimum wage is revised. I refer the hon. Member to the written statement I made in the House of Commons on 14 January 2004, Official Report, columns 35–40WS, listing all the employment regulations and their commencement dates on which the DTI leads and which

  1281W
  are expected to commence in 2004. This statement, which will now be published annually, is also available on the Internet at www.dti.gov.uk/er/regs2004.htm

  The Action Plan "A Government Action Plan for Small Business" published by the Small Business Service on 8 January 2004 (available on the Internet at www.sbs.gov.uk) includes the proposal for the Government to consider introducing common commencement dates to other areas of domestic legislation.

  Consumer Codes of Practice
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Office of Fair Trading intends to encourage new code sponsors to apply for OFT approval. [148901]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This is a matter for the Chairman of the OFT and I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend directly.

  Consumer Credit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's work with the Office of Fair Trading on consumer credit law reform. [148899]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department published its proposals for reform of the consumer credit regime in the recent Consumer Credit White Paper; "Fair, Clear and Competitive—The Consumer Credit Market in the 21st Century".

  The White Paper is the culmination of a major review of consumer credit law that was launched in July 2001. Our proposals have been drawn up through close consultation with all of the key stakeholders representing industry, consumer groups and enforcement agencies—including the Office of Fair Trading. We are continuing to work closely with the Office of Fair Trading on developing the detailed legislation and guidance needed to implement our proposals.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Office of Fair Trading intends to improve the fitness checking of consumer credit licence applicants through access to criminal records. [148900]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  New procedures for checking criminal records are due to be introduced by the OFT this year. The OFT is currently finalising arrangements for the introduction of these new measures which will be announced in Spring 2004.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the feasibility of capping annual percentage rates on credit cards but not on short-term loans; [149503]

  (2) when she expects the research which her Department have commissioned into the way interest ceilings work in other EU countries will be completed. [149504]
  1282W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government are not persuaded of the benefits of introducing interest rate ceilings for credit products of any type. A rate ceiling could actually encourage rates to gravitate towards the ceiling, causing detriment to consumers and competition. It might also encourage lenders to make the cost of credit more expensive to consumers in other ways (for example by introducing higher charges), or lead some lenders to exit the market, denying some consumers access to credit.

  However, the Government have commissioned research into the way these interest ceilings operate in other countries. It is anticipated the research will be published in the spring of this year.

  EU Tarrifs/Quotas
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantitative assessment she has made of the likely financial benefit to the least developed countries of the admission by Europe of non-armament imports free of tariffs and quotas. [149133]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. The loss of income for the EU budget arising from the special arrangements for Least Developed Countries of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (known as Everything-but-Arms, EBA) has been costed by the European Commission at €239 million in 2001, the first year of the scheme. The loss of income for the previous year, before the special arrangements came into effect, was €190 million.

  European Directives
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 7 January,Official Report, column 380W, on Posting of Workers Directive, what research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the wages and conditions enjoyed by migrant workers in the UK under the Posting of Workers Directive compared to permanent British workers. [148036]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government undertakes regular surveys into the wages and conditions of workers in the UK, although it does not explicitly make a distinction between migrant and non-migrant workers. In December 2002 a joint Home Office and Department for Work and Pensions report, "Migrants in the UK: their characteristics and labour market outcomes and impacts" found that migrants (defined as the foreign born) earn approximately 19 per cent. more than non-migrants.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on breaches of the Working Time Directive in the UK, with particular reference to (i) compulsory signing of opt-outs, (ii) pressure on staff to sign opt-outs, (iii) workplaces where the law is ignored, (iv) staff illegally asked to opt out of their rights to rest breaks and night work limits and (v) sending new staff opt-in and opt-out forms; and if she will make a statement. [148052]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The department has commissioned a range of research looking at the Working Time Directive in the UK. The evidence suggests that the
  1283W
  majority of UK workers are in workplaces complying with the Working Time Regulations. However, there are some areas of concern.

  A Survey of Workers' Experiences of the Working Time Regulations commissioned by the department in 2001 shows that just under a quarter of 'long hours' workers who have not signed an opt-out perceived employer pressure to work long hours. A second piece of research published by DTI in 2003, the Business Context to Long Hours Working, suggests that in establishments which had sustained long hours working, around three-quarters had no employees sign the opt-out.

  The research commissioned does not specifically look at whether staff have been illegally asked to optout of their rights to rest breaks and night work limits. However, the Survey of Workers' Experiences of the Working Time Regulations found that approximately one in 10 workers 'without full rest breaks' thought they had experienced employer pressure to work without full rest breaks, and a similar proportion of 'night workers' felt pressured to work long hours at night.

  Other research published by DTI in 2003 looking at the Implementation of the Working Time Regulations: a follow up study, reported that one case study employer, an engineering company, had made the signing of an opt-out agreement a condition of employment for new starters who worked nights.

  I am ready to look at suggestions for improving the operation of working time law, including concerns over misuse of the opt-out to make sure it works properly. I recently wrote to the CBI and TUC inviting them to discuss what we may offer to do to meet the concerns identified in the European Commission Communication on working time.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the value to UK(a) employers and (b) employees of the UK allowing an opt-out to the Working Time Directive. [148053]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The opt-out from the weekly working time limits is valuable as it provides flexibility for employers and the choice for employees to work longer hours if they want to. Without the opt-out, employers would have to reduce the hours of some of their workers. This could cause problems for both employers and employees. A recent study The Business Context to Long Hours Working published by my department in 2003 shows that employers thought the most common barrier to reducing the hours of staff was the needs of the business and workload (55 per cent. of respondents cited this), second to this was the concern that existing staff may resist the reduction in hours as it could limit their choice to work these hours and a reduction in their overtime pay (22 per cent.)

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the research document commissioned by her Department on The use and necessity of Article 18(b)(1) of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom. [149013]
  1284W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The research document in question was not commissioned by my Department, but by the European Commission. They have not published it, but I understand they can provide copies of it on request.

  Home Security Systems
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to prevent companies selling alarm systems from gaining access to homes by claiming to be carrying out a security check. [149346]

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

  Insolvency Service
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the administrative costs were of the Insolvency Service in each year since 1997; and if she will break down these costs for 2003–04 by main budget head. [147802]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Expenditure of the Insolvency Service as reported in its Annual Report and Accounts since 1997 was.

  £000

  Year

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  78,538

  1998–99

  78,159

  1999–2000

  80,512

  2000–01

  80,314

  2001–02

  81,840

  2002–03

  90,332

  Forecast budgeted expenditure for 2003–04 based on Department of Trade and Industry main budget headings are:

  £000

  Budget

  Forecast

  Pay

  48,000

  Accommodation

  10,400

  GAE

  10,600

  Programme

  16,450

  Inter Department (non cash)

  6,500

  Capital

  2,925

  Non cash accounting adjustments

  5,000

  Total

  99,875

  Note:

  The Insolvency Service merged with The Redundancy Payments Service on 1 April 2003. Figures for 2003–04 therefore include the budgeted costs of The Redundancy Payments Service whereas those for prior years do not.

  Protectionism (Labelling)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence she has collated on the use of national and regional labelling schemes as a protectionist barrier to trade. [149073]
  1285W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no central body of information listing national and regional labelling schemes. However, we work closely with the European Commission to secure the removal or amelioration of labelling schemes that are unnecessarily trade restrictive.

  Research Funding
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the funding for(a) the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and (b) the grant-in-aid funding allocated to the (i) Biotechnology and

  £000

  Allocation

  Actual

  2003–04

  2002–03

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  CCLRC

  283,447

  15,607

  9,181

  4,075

  2,000

  1,462

  1,206

  BBSRC

  267,649

  241,510

  213,874

  211,991

  195,545

  185,739

  189,022

  ESRC

  94,584

  82,963

  73,647

  71,800

  70,872

  67,506

  65,227

  EPSRC

  463,224

  473,534

  444,023

  413,552

  404,796

  379,444

  386,276

  MRC

  387,993

  365,136

  356,248

  319,651

  304,538

  284,098

  292,721

  NERC

  286,359

  205,677

  187,671

  178,850

  176,715

  173,967

  166,150

  PPARC

  259,062

  235,540

  210,282

  205,774

  186,680

  209,052

  197,869

  1 figures shown in the Departmental Report 2003 are on a resource basis and are not directly comparable with those above. Figures are not available on a consistent resource basis for the whole of the period shown.

  2 figures also reflect changes to the structure and responsibilities of CCLRC following its Quinquennial Review, published in April 2002, including responsibility for UK subscriptions to the Institut Laue Langevin and the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble.

  Steel Tariffs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the United States on steel tariffs on United Kingdom steel exports. [148217]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK ministers held regular discussions with the United States on steel in the run-up to President Bush's decision on 4 December 2003 to remove the US steel safeguard tariffs. No ministerial level discussions have taken place since then.

  Strike Action
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days have been lost to strike action in each month since January 1997. [148194]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Information is available in the following table.

  Working days lost due to labour disputes January 1997 to November 2003

  Month

  Working days lost (thousand)

  1997

  January

  25

  February

  14

  March

  36

  April

  48

  May

  36

  June

  13

  July

  11

  August

  6

  September

  1

  October

  19

  November

  14

  1286W
  Biological Sciences Research Council, (ii) Economic and Social Research Council, (iii) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, (iv) Medical Research Council, (v) Natural Environment Research Council and (vi) Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in 2003–04 as set out in her Departmental Report 2003; and what payments have been made to each council since 1997. [147796]

  Ms Hewitt
  The 2002 Spending Review resulted in the largest increases in the Science Budget for over a decade, with year-on-year growth of 10 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04. Cash1 Grant-in-Aid payments to each of the Research Councils for each financial year from April 1997 are set out in the table.

  Working days lost due to labour disputes January 1997 to November 2003

  Month

  Working days lost (thousand)

  December>

  12

  1998

  January

  16

  February

  19

  March

  33

  April

  14

  May

  7

  June

  69

  July

  59

  August

  24

  September

  6

  October

  7

  November

  18

  December

  11

  1999

  January

  9

  February

  27

  March

  35

  April

  4

  May

  50

  June

  16

  July

  8

  August

  10

  September

  22

  October

  19

  November

  22

  December

  20

  2000

  January

  11

  February

  6

  March

  18

  April

  11

  May

  14

  1287W

  Working days lost due to labour disputes January 1997 to November 2003

  Month

  Working days lost (thousand)

  June

  7

  July

  36

  August

  115

  September

  93

  October

  14

  November

  115

  December

  59

  2001

  January

  52

  February

  36

  March

  48

  April

  16

  May

  93

  June

  12

  July

  24

  August

  16

  September

  22

  October

  39

  November

  62

  December

  102

  2002

  January

  94

  February

  24

  March

  80

  April

  19

  May

  81

  June

  57

  July

  521

  August

  13

  September

  10

  October

  42

  November

  371

  December

  11

  2003

  January

  91

  February

  13

  March

  14

  April

  9

  May

  26

  June

  33

  July

  47

  August

  12

  September

  24

  October

  131

  November

  61

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Supermarkets and Suppliers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to receive the report from the Office of Fair Trading into the code of practice between suppliers and supermarkets. [R][147768]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is expected to conclude its review of the Code of Practice governing supermarkets' relations with their suppliers shortly. The OFT will then send its results to DTI for formal consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wait for the results of that review before deciding if any action is necessary.

  Trade Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy in trade 1288W
  negotiations to pursue a comprehensive approach across the board for all products and all sectors without a priori exceptions. [149148]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes, where appropriate.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy to seek bound reduction of high tariffs, particularly tariff plans, with a view to securing greater tariff harmonisation between countries. [149149]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy to seek the binding of unbound tariffs at commercially acceptable levels. [149150]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy to seek improved geographical coverage of(a) zero-duty sectoral agreements and (b) sectoral tariff harmonisation agreements. [149151]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government welcomes and encourages increased participation in such agreements.

  United Kingdom Trade
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of United Kingdom trade with each of the full members of the G20 was in each of the last 10 years. [146597]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the value of UK trade in goods, by partner country, is published by HM Customs and Excise in Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom. Each annual publication contains data for the latest two years. Business Monitors MA20 for 1994 and 1996 and OTSA for 1998, 2000 and 2002 contain the complete set of information required. These publications are available in the Library.

  Unsolicited Telephone Calls
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions she has taken to limit unsolicited telephone calls for the purpose of selling goods and services. [148822]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Individual subscribers are offered protection from unsolicited direct marketing calls under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

  The regulations state that direct marketing calls may not be made to individuals who have:
  (a) previously notified the caller that they do not want to receive such calls, or
  (b) been registered on the Telephone Preference Service for 28 days or longer.

  The Telephone Preference Service is an opt-out scheme run on Ofcom's behalf by the Direct Marketing Association.

  The Government have also committed to allowing corporate subscribers to register on the Telephone Preference Service from spring 2004.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of(a) total employees, (b) female employees and (c) male employees in the UK worked an average of more than 48 hours per week in the last year for which figures are available. [148174]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  According to the Spring 2003 Labour Force Survey 15 per cent. of employees usually worked over 48 hours per week. 6 per cent. of female employees and 23 per cent. of male employees usually worked over 48 hours per week.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Director General of the World Trade Organisation since 15 December 2003. [149070]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend last spoke to Dr. Supachai himself at the CBI Conference on 17 November 2003, but we are in regular contact with his officials in Geneva.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what general tariff reduction formula is supported by her Department. [149077]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To stimulate the expansion of trade and economic growth, the Government wants formulae that, consistent with the Doha Declaration, would substantially increase market access for all goods in all WTO member countries.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will identify technical barriers to trade which harm(a) the United Kingdom and (b) developing countries. [149078]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A major element of Government policy is the creation of fair and open markets at home and aboard. Using the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the European Community's Technical Barriers Regulation, we therefore work closely with UK industry, the European Commission and others in seeking to ensure that individual technical regulations are not unnecessarily trade restrictive and, in particular, to secure the removal or amelioration of those that harm UK exports.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the EU's stance at the Geneva trade talks on(a) industrial market access and (b) special and differential treatment. [149135]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK fully supports the EU's objective of securing an ambitious and comprehensive agreement on non-agricultural market access delivering benefits to all Members and an overall result of the 1290W
  Doha Development Agenda which reflects the needs of different WTO Members through appropriate Special and Differential Treatment.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy to seek greater use of(a) mediation and (b) resolution of trade disputes prior to formal recourse to the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement understanding procedures. [149145]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government sees the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), with a binding mechanism for resolving disputes, as one of the key pillars of the WTO and one of the great achievements of the Uruguay Round. We obviously welcome it when parties resolve a dispute without formal recourse to the DSU. We support the Communication issued by the Director-General of the WTO to the WTO membership in 2001 outlining his views on how to make better use of his power to use Good Offices, Conciliation and Mediation. We welcome in particular the use of mediation to resolve a potential dispute between the EU on the one hand and Thailand and the Philippines on the other regarding imports of canned tuna.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she had with Commissioners Lamy and Fischer before the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Cancun about the advisability of introducing new issues for which the developing countries would be unprepared to the conference agenda. [149130]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply. Ministers at the fourth WTO Ministerial Meeting in Doha agreed that negotiations on the four Singapore (i.e. New) Issues would take place after the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference at Cancun. However this was subject to the condition of a decision being taken, by explicit consensus, on the framework of these negotiations. Such a consensus was not reached by Ministers at the Cancun conference and so negotiations have not started on the Singapore Issues.

  Although I did not have any discussions directly with Commissioners Lamy or Fischler about this, since the Cancun ministerial predated my appointment as Secretary of State for International Development, UK Ministers repeatedly made clear that the New Issues were not development priorities. Therefore I welcome the fact that EU Trade Ministers agreed on 2 December that the European Community should "unbundle" the four issues and explore alternative, more flexible approaches, including the possibility of removing some, or all, of the New Issues from the Doha Round.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148983]
  1291W
  Mr. Pearson
  Of the 32,384, staff employed by the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Office, 1,277 (3.9 per cent.) declared a disability. The breakdown by disability type is:

  Type of disability

  Number

  Hearing impairment

  189

  Visual impairment

  57

  Speech impairment

  43

  Mobility impairment

  157

  Physical co-ordination difficulties

  39

  Reduced physical capacity

  326

  Severe disfigurement

  17

  Learning difficulties

  20

  Mental illness

  96

  More than one disability

  326

  Type of disability not specified

  7

  Total

  1,277

  Demography
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the size of each minority group, including Travellers, in Northern Ireland. [149226]

  Mr. Pearson
  The table gives details of the 2001 Census question relating to ethnic group, including Irish Travellers.

  2001 Census population count of ethnic group, including Irish Travellers

  Ethnic group

  Count

  Population percentage

  White

  1,670,988

  99.15

  Irish Traveller

  1,710

  0.10

  Mixed

  3,319

  0.20

  Indian

  1,567

  0.09

  Pakistani

  666

  0.04

  Bangladeshi

  252

  0.01

  Other Asian

  194

  0.01

  Black Caribbean

  255

  0.02

  Black African

  1494

  0.03

  Other Black

  387

  0.02

  Chinese

  4,145

  0.25

  Other ethnic group

  1,290

  0.08

  Total

  1,685,267

  100.00

  Development Plan, Killyleath
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be made in relation to the proposed development plan for Gocean, Killyleagh; and if he will make a statement. [148815]

  Angela Smith
  I expect to make a decision on the proposal for Gocean, Killyleagh within the next month.

  Healthy Eating
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to promote healthy eating in schools in Northern Ireland. [148764]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following criteria will be applied:

  Vision for future agri-food provision;

  Stakeholder consultation—initial and on-going;

  1292W

  Selection/targeting of proposed courses and research;

  Capital and other set-up costs; and

  Promotion and marketing of relevant courses.

  A decision is expected in early April 2004.

  Heart Defibrillators
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the need for the provision of heart defibrillators in(a) leisure facilities, (b) entertainment complexes, (c) shopping centres, (d) other public places used by large numbers of individuals and (e) public places where large numbers of individuals are likely to congregate. [148826]

  Angela Smith
  The effectiveness of public access to defibrillators is currently being assessed through a research project commissioned by the Research and Development Office, on behalf of DHSSPS, entitled "A study of the Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Public Access Defibrillation in Urban and Rural Populations in Northern Ireland".

  This three-year project forms part of a programme of commissioned research to inform policy development for the "Investing for Health" strategy.

  International Tendering Fund
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland firms have been assisted by the International Tendering Fund; and what the effect has been on winning overseas contracts. [149211]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since the inception of Invest NI on 1 April 2002 the International Tendering Fund has assisted 15 companies. Although no tenders have been won to date, many of these projects are still ongoing. The process can take up to three years for an international tender contract to be awarded, and Invest NI continue to track the progress of all fund participants.

  Planning Applications
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what he recommends as a reasonable period of time before an applicant can expect to be informed whether his or her planning application is successful. [148814]

  Angela Smith
  Planning Service is committed to processing all valid planning applications as expeditiously as possible. This is reflected in the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans 2003–04 to 2005–06. But there will be cases which, due to their complexity and scale, take longer.

  Racist Incidents (Health Workers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the number of racist incidents involving(a) nurses, (b) other hospital staff and (c) workers in health and social services in the past 12 months; and what measures are being taken by hospital management and health authorities to address this issue. [149241]
  1293W
  Angela Smith
  Information on incidents involving violence against staff employed in the HPSS is not currently held in the form which would identify attacks of a racist nature. Reports from HPSS employers indicate that the number of incidents which are perceived as racist in origin is negligible.

  The Department has issued guidance on racial harassment and violence against staff employed in the HPSS. The Department, in consultation with employing authorities, is also developing a mandatory recording and reporting system for incidents involving physical or verbal violence.

  The Department has also been involved with the Police Service of Northern Ireland in developing a joint protocol for police and HPSS employees for the reporting of incidents of verbal and physical abuse.

  Regional Cancer Centre
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on the Northern Ireland regional CAncer Centre, with particular reference to staffing. [148846]

  Angela Smith
  The Cancer Centre construction programme is on schedule for completion by December 2005 with the opening planned for early 2006. So far, significant developments have included the opening of the new Oncology and Haematology Day Hospital on 12 May 2003 and the transfer of Oncology Day Services from Belvoir Park Hospital in June last year.

  The Department's Priorities for Action require Boards and trusts to agree a service development plan for the Cancer Centre, including staffing, drugs and equipment, by 31 March 2004. Significant resources have been received to assist with the staffing of the Cancer Centre, with further allocations of funds expected in 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Road Gritting
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the cost was of gritting roads during the winter of each year since 2000–01; [148947]

  (2) how and by whom decisions are taken regarding when roads in Northern Ireland are gritted; and what flexibility there is in terms of the number treated on any particular occasion. [148951]

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

  Sheep
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve the identification of sheep in Northern Ireland. [148767]

  Mr. Pearson
  Following on from decisions reached at the EU Farm Council on 17 December 2003, my officials will shortly be consulting the industry on proposals to improve the system for the identification and registration of sheep and goats.

  Waterways (Pollution)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many convictions there have been for pollution of waterways in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [148832]

  Angela Smith
  During the last 12 months, 82 convictions were secured for water pollution offences.

  Further information on enforcement and prosecution is available on the Environment and Heritage Service website at: http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/publications/ Water_Pollution_Incidents 2001.pdf

  The Water Pollution Incident and Prosecution Statistics Report for 2002 will be available shortly and will be placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Advertising
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department has spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [149621]

  Hilary Benn
  Our expenditure on publicity, which forms a part of our effort to raise development awareness and understanding of international development issues in the UK, has been as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  568,775

  1996–97

  579,916

  1999–99

  399,755

  1999–2000

  674,531

  2000–01

  1,484,281

  2001–02

  1,286,053

  2002–03

  11,300,000

  2003–04

  2850,000

  1Estimate

  2 Provisional forecast figure

  We do not hold a separate advertising budget. The majority of advertising relates to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. Figures for the four calendar years are as follows:

  2000: 751,972

  2001: 1,208,191

  2002: 914,571

  2003: 871,246

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will take steps to send an independent international commission of inquiry to Darfur. [148543]

  Hilary Benn
  At present limited access in Darfur means that the various humanitarian agencies are unable to fully assess the situation on the ground, or to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable.
  1295W
  So we are calling on all parties to re-establish a ceasefire to allow unfettered humanitarian access. We have offered our good offices to all parties to help them reach a peaceful solution, and have suggested that there may be a role for the international community in assisting in the implementation of a peace deal.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had on human rights abuses in Darfur with the Sudanese authorities. [148643]

  Hilary Benn
  I discussed the human rights situation in Sudan with the President during my visit to Khartoum on 10 December 2003.

  We continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in the whole of Sudan, regardless of religious or ethnic background. The promotion of human rights, through advocacy with the government and support for NGOs, remains one of our priorities.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of eligible heavily indebted poor countries committed to poverty reduction have received irrevocable debt relief. [149161]

  Hilary Benn
  Of the thirty-seven countries that could potentially qualify for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries' (HIPC) Initiative, twenty-seven have reached Decision Point and have therefore received interim relief on their debt service payments. This means that they no longer have to make any repayments on a substantial portion (around two-thirds) of their debts and are able to use these resources for increased social expenditure. Of these thirty-seven countries, nine have reached Completion Point and have received an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. A further ten are expected to reach Completion Point by the end of 2004.

  Middle East
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects his Department are involved in in(a) Gaza and (b) the West Bank, aimed at improving public access to water for (i) consumption and (ii) agriculture. [148929]

  Hilary Benn
  We have had broad engagement with the Palestinian Water Authority for several years supporting the effective delivery of water services in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Four projects that have improved access to potable water, sanitation and environmental health in some of the poorest communities have just been brought to a successful conclusion. We currently fund two projects.

  Our support for the Sustainable Management of the West Bank and Gaza Strip Aquifers project will enhance the Palestinian Water Authority's understanding of the western aquifer, which is an essential source of water in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The project includes consideration of the management and allocation of water resources between various uses—agriculture, industry and domestic—to allow the implications of alternative policies to be assessed. We also support a Water Access and Storage project to enable villages in the south
  1296W
  Hebron district of the West Bank that do not have access to the networked water supply to obtain more secure access to drinking water and sustainable improved sanitation.

  Global Health Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact over the last 12 months of the Global Health Fund in tackling(a) HIV/AIDS, (b) tuberculosis and (c) malaria. [149074]

  Hilary Benn
  The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) was founded in January 2002. We recognise that the GFATM is still a young partnership and that it has just started to finance programmes within countries. The impact of GFATM is difficult to measure at this early stage but its 2002–03 annual report provides very good evidence of progress made to date on each of these diseases. Disbursement is now accelerating we expect to see more evidence of the impact of the Global Fund.

  DFID has been working closely with the Board on effective ways to measure the GFATM's performance and evaluate its processes. We are working to ensure that the GFATM has a clear poverty focus, sound financial systems in place and alignment of its activities with national programmes and processes.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the result has been of his Department's technical and financial contribution to the development and implementation of effective health programmes in the 16 African countries affected by his public service agreement target on mortality among children aged under five years; [148553]

  (2) what the result has been of his Department's engagement with health sector development in 10 of the 16 countries in Africa affected by his Public Service Agreement target to reduce mortality amongst people aged under five years. [148549]

  Hilary Benn
  Of the 16 PSA countries, six have experienced a rise in child mortality between 1990 and 2001. The other ten have made varying degrees of progress but are all generally some way below the level needed to reach the PSA target.

  Child mortality has multiple and complex causes. Economic decline and associated malnutrition is likely to have played a major role in constraining improvement in child health. Several African countries have also experienced conflict and civil unrest, which further undermine attempts to reduce child mortality. Other significant reasons for lack of progress include problems within the performance of the health sector itself and HIV/AIDS.

  However, in a number of the PSA countries some encouraging progress has been achieved against intermediate health indicators. For example, in Ghana there has been progress with immunisation rates and deployment of nurses. Tanzania has seen improved immunisation rates, significant Vitamin A and insecticide-treated mosquito net distribution, improved

  1297W
  malaria treatment and strengthened health planning and management at district level. In Uganda, use of outpatient services has increased and immunisation rates have risen. All of these improvements have the potential to improve child mortality rates.

  The Department for International Development's contribution to these improvements in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda and other countries has been provided in a number of ways, including through support for the health sector, budget support, and technical assistance. It is also important to recognise that DFID is not working alone, and that changes are due to the combined efforts of the countries concerned and other donors as well as ourselves. We will continue to work with other donors to ensure that affordable and sustainable health outcomes are given due priority and support in national planning and budgeting processes.

  Iraq
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what studies have been made of cancer rates in Iraq(a) from 1991 to 2002 and (b) since the end of hostilities on 1 May 2003. [148270]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not aware of any studies of cancer rates carried out by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Coalition Provisional Authority or other bodies. The ability accurately to measure localised increases in cancer rates—especially if there is cancer due to radiation, which can take years to develop—requires a well-developed national disease surveillance system, which Iraq does not currently have. The World Health Organisation plans to carry out a study to investigate the effects of the use of depleted uranium in ordnance used by military forces, which some individuals have claimed has caused an increase in cancer rates in Iraq, using that country as a key focus. This study will be subject to funding and to an improvement in the security situation.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department has spent on(a) secondments, (b) consultants and (c) security as part of its expenditure on humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq. [149212]

  Hilary Benn
  We have spent(a) £2.1 million on secondments, (b) £6.3 million on consultants and (c) £11.4 million on security measures in Iraq to date. In addition, we have recently contributed £3.6 million to UNSECOORD for security measures for UN operations in Iraq.

  DFID Bilateral Programme: Percentage To Low Income Countries1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Country Specific: All Recipient Countries

  Low Income Countries

  65

  73

  67

  76

  78

  80

  Country Specific: All Recipient Countries(excluding Humanitarian Assistance

  Low Income Countries

  67

  72

  75

  78

  78

  80

  Country Specific: Developing Countries only2

  Low Income Countries

  72

  78

  71

  79

  82

  84

  1 Countries are classified using 1998 GNI per capita estimates used by the DAC for aid flows up to 2002. This table covers only bilateral aid that can be attributed to individual countries. Low Income Countries are those with a GNI per capita in 1998 below $760.

  2 This includes all countries defined as developing by DAC, i.e. those on Part I of the DAC list of recipient countries.

  1298W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts his Department have made to employ Iraqis in development work in that country. [149162]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's approach is to encourage the involvement and employment of Iraqis as much as possible in all the work we fund. For some projects, this has included direct employment of Iraqi staff and sub-contracting of Iraqi firms. By way of example, the vast majority of the construction work DFID has funded in southern Iraq has been sub-contracted to local firms. One of the criteria we have set for our £20 million Essential Infrastructure Programme has been to give priority to projects that create the most employment. We are also considering funding for direct employment generation schemes in southern Iraq.

  Jharkand
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department are involved in development work in the Indian state of Jharkand. [149164]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We have agreed with the Union Government to working closely with four focus states committed to poverty reduction, including on their programmes of fiscal and public sector reform, increasing access to basic health, education, and urban services for the poor and empowerment of the marginalised. Although Jharkand is not one of DFID's focus states, through DFID India's National Programme we support the efforts of the Union Government and civil society nationwide. For example, Jharkand is covered by DFID support for basic education, maternal and child health and civil society; Jharkand is also a major beneficiary of DFID's Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme.

  Low-income Countries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of his Department's bilateral programme has gone to low-income countries in each of the last six years. [149068]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Note that it can be measured in a number of ways and the figures corresponding to the target in DFID's Public Service Agreement are those in the middle category i.e. all country specific bilateral assistance excluding humanitarian assistance.
  1299W
  Further details can be found in Table 4 of our annual publication 'Statistics on International Development', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Malaria
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the United Kingdom will give developing countries to enact the World Health Organisation's recommendation that artemisinin-based combination therapy should be used in malaria outbreaks to prevent the disease developing further resistance to treatment. [149219]

  Hilary Benn
  Artemisinin (or Artesunate) is a naturally occurring substance that has been used in China in the treatment of malaria for a long period of time. It can be used by itself, but is more useful when combined with other effective anti-malarials as it enhances their useful life by decreasing the possibility of drug resistance. The World Health Organisation and Roll Back Malaria recommend the use of combined therapies as the first option wherever possible.

  The Department for International Development has committed £48 million to Roll Back Malaria (RBM) over a four and a half year period (September 1999—March 2004). RBM provides coordinated support for sustainable action against malaria. This includes providing technical support to Governments to ensure that their anti-malarial drug policies enable those suffering from malaria to get early treatment and to access affordable and appropriate medicines. Their advice covers the use of artemisinin-based combination therapies. As an active partner of RBM, my Department works to ensure that RBM provides sound evidence based support for the effective use of resources, including those available from the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to which we have committed a total of US$280 million.

  DFID has also engaged more directly in partnerships with industry to transform research into drugs. We recently worked with GlaxoSmithKline, the WHO programme on Tropical Diseases Research and Liverpool University in the development of a cheap new drug called LAPDAP. In order to make the best use of LAPDAP, further research to combine it with artemisinin is being undertaken, managed under an umbrella organisation called the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), which DFID also supports. MMV has a portfolio of projects, which include the development of a number of artemisinin-based combination therapies using a variety of drugs. DFID is funding MMV with £1 million per year for five years. Since its inception in 1999 MMV has demonstrated significant progress towards reaching its objective of two new drugs in the next 10 years.

  Artemisinin-based therapies are, like many new treatments, relatively expensive. This highlights the need for the UK Government to work with others to reduce the cost of effective new drugs. The Prime Minister's high-level Working Group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World recommended differential pricing of essential medicines for the developing world. My Department is working with other Government Departments to secure greater
  1300W
  international commitment to affordable pricing. The Government worked with G8 colleagues at last year's Evian summit to secure commitment to action on this issue in line with the Working Group's recommendations.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made by each country in meeting the millennium development goal to halve the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day by 2015. [149062]

  Hilary Benn
  Comparable data needed to assess trends in the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day are available only at the regional level. The most recent data and estimates for 2015 are as follows.

  Regional breakdown of poverty estimates in developing countries

  1990

  2000

  2015

  East Asia and Pacific

  29.4

  14.5

  2.3

  Europe and Central Asia

  1.4

  4.2

  1.3

  Latin America and the Caribbean

  11.0

  10.8

  7.6

  Middle East and North Africa

  2.1

  2.8

  1.2

  South Asia

  41.5

  31.9

  16.4

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  47.4

  49.0

  42.3

  Total

  28.3

  21.6

  12.5

  Source:

  World Bank, Global Economic Prospects 2004

  It is clear from these figures that while the global picture of income poverty improved over the 1990s and we are likely to reach the target overall, progress across regions varies. The following table sets out the latest available information on the proportion of the population below $1 a day by country1.

  Year>

  Country

  Percentage of population below $1 a day2

  1995

  Algeria

  <2

  1998

  Armenia

  12.8

  2001

  Azerbaijan

  3.7

  2000

  Bangladesh

  36.0

  2000

  Belarus

  <2

  1999

  Bolivia

  14.4

  1998

  Brazil

  9.9

  2001

  Bulgaria

  4.7

  1998

  Burundi

  58.4

  1996

  Cameroon

  33.4

  1998

  Chile

  <2

  2000

  China

  16.1

  1998

  Colombia

  14.4

  1998

  Costa Rica

  6.9

  1995

  Cote d'lvoire

  12.3

  2000

  Croatia

  <2

  1996

  Czech Republic

  <2

  1998

  Dominican Republic

  <2

  1995

  Ecuador

  20.2

  2000

  Egypt

  3.1

  1997

  El Salvador

  21.4

  1998

  Estonia

  <2

  1999–2000

  Ethiopia

  81.9

  1998

  Gambia

  59.3

  1998

  Georgia

  <2

  1999

  Ghana

  44.8

  2000

  Guatemala

  16.0

  1998

  Guyana

  <2

  1998

  Honduras

  23.8

  1301W

  Year>

  Country

  Percentage of population below $1 a day2

  1998

  Hungary

  <2

  1999–2000

  India

  34.7

  2000

  Indonesia

  7.2

  1998

  Iran

  <2

  2000

  Jamaica

  <2

  1997

  Jordan

  <2

  1996

  Kazakhstan

  1.5

  1997

  Kenya

  23

  1998

  Korea, Rep (South)

  <2

  2000

  Kyrgyzstan

  2.0

  1997–98

  Laos

  26.3

  1998

  Latvia

  <2

  2000

  Lithuania

  <2

  1998

  Macedonia (FYR of)

  <2

  1999

  Madagascar

  49.1

  1997–98

  Malawi

  41.7

  1997

  Malaysia

  <2

  1995

  Mauritania

  28.6

  1998

  Mexico

  8.0

  2001

  Moldova

  22.0

  1995

  Mongolia

  13.9

  1999

  Morocco

  <2

  1996

  Mozambique

  37.9

  1995

  Nepal

  37.7

  1998

  Nicaragua

  82.3

  1995

  Niger

  61.4

  1997

  Nigeria

  70.2

  1998

  Pakistan

  13.4

  1998

  Panama

  7.6

  1998

  Paraguay

  19.5

  1996

  Peru

  15.5

  2000

  Philippines

  14.6

  1998

  Poland

  <2

  2000

  Romania

  2.1

  2000

  Russian Federation

  6.1

  1995

  Senegal

  26.3

  1996

  Slovak Republic

  <2

  1998

  Slovenia

  <2

  1995

  South Africa

  <2

  1995–96

  Sri Lanka

  6.6

  1998

  Tajikistan

  10.3

  2000

  Thailand

  <2

  1995

  Tunisia

  <2

  2000

  Turkey

  <2

  1998

  Turkmenistan

  12.1

  1996

  Uganda

  82.2

  1999

  Ukraine

  2.9

  1998

  Uruguay

  <2

  1998

  Uzbekistan

  19.1

  1998

  Venezuela

  15

  1998

  Vietnam

  17.7

  1998

  Yemen

  15.7

  1998

  Zambia

  63.7

  1 Countries without any internationally comparable data have been excluded from the table.

  2 The percentage of the population living below the commonly used international $1 a day standard, measured in 1993 international prices and adjusted for local currency using purchasing power parities.

  Source:

  World Bank "2003 World Development Indicators"

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the percentage change between 1990 and 2003 was in the numbers of people below the minimum level of dietary energy consumption in each country covered by the millennium development goals. [149063]
  1302W
  Hilary Benn
  The information we have ready access to relates to the percentage of people below minimum levels of dietary energy consumption not absolute numbers and is not available for all countries1. The most recent information relates to the period 1998–2000. The available information and the change over the period is given in the following table.

  1 Countries without any internationally comparable data have been excluded from the table.

  Country

  1990–92

  1998–2000

  Change over period (percentage points)

  Afghanistan

  63

  70

  -7

  Algeria

  5

  6

  -1

  Angola

  61

  50

  II

  Bangladesh

  35

  35

  0

  Benin

  19

  13

  6

  Bolivia

  26

  23

  3

  Botswana

  17

  25

  -8

  Brazil

  13

  10

  3

  Burkina Faso

  23

  23

  0

  Burma

  10

  6

  4

  Burundi

  49

  69

  -20

  Cambodia

  43

  36

  7

  Cameroon

  32

  25

  7

  Central African Republic

  49

  44

  5

  Chad

  58

  32

  26

  Chile

  8

  4

  4

  China

  16

  9

  7

  Colombia

  17

  13

  4

  Congo (Dem Rep)

  32

  73

  -41

  Congo

  37

  32

  5

  Costa Rica

  6

  5

  1

  Cote d'Ivoire

  18

  15

  3

  Cuba

  5

  13

  -8

  Dominican Republic

  27

  26

  1

  Ecuador

  8

  5

  3

  Egypt

  5

  4

  1

  E1 Salvador

  12

  14

  -2

  Eritrea

  2

  58

  Ethiopia

  2

  44

  Gabon

  11

  8

  3

  Gambia

  21

  21

  0

  Ghana

  35

  12

  23

  Guatemala

  14

  25

  -11

  Guinea

  40

  32

  8

  Haiti

  64

  50

  14

  Honduras

  23

  21

  2

  India

  25

  24

  1

  Indonesia

  2—

  6

  Iran

  4

  5

  -1

  Iraq

  7

  27

  -20

  Jamaica

  14

  9

  5

  Jordan

  4

  6

  -2

  Kenya

  47

  44

  3

  Korea Dem Rep (North)

  18

  34

  -16

  Kuwait

  22

  4

  18

  Laos

  29

  24

  5

  Lebanon

  2—

  3

  Lesotho

  27

  26

  1

  Liberia

  33

  39

  -6

  Madagascar

  35

  40

  -5

  Malawi

  49

  33

  16

  Malaysia

  3

  2—

  Mali

  25

  20

  5

  Mauritania

  14

  12

  2

  Mauritius

  6

  5

  1

  Mexico

  5

  5

  0

  Mongolia

  34

  42

  -8

  Morocco

  6

  7

  -1

  Mozambique

  69

  55

  14

  Namibia

  15

  9

  6

  Nepal

  19

  19

  0

  Nicaragua

  30

  29

  1

  Niger

  42

  36

  6

  1303W

  Country

  1990–92

  1998–2000

  Change over period (percentage points)

  Nigeria

  13

  7

  6

  Pakistan

  25

  19

  6

  Panama

  19

  18

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  25

  27

  -2

  Paraguay

  18

  14

  4

  Peru

  40

  11

  29

  Philippines

  26

  23

  3

  Rwanda

  34

  40

  -6

  Saudi Arabia

  4

  3

  1

  Senegal

  23

  25

  -2

  Sierra Leone

  46

  47

  -1

  Somalia

  67

  71

  -4

  Sri Lanka

  29

  23

  6

  Sudan

  31

  21

  10

  Swaziland

  10

  12

  -2

  Syria

  5

  3

  2

  Tanzania

  36

  47

  -11

  Thailand

  28

  18

  10

  Togo

  28

  23

  5

  Trinidad & Tobago

  13

  12

  1

  Uganda

  23

  21

  2

  United Arab Emirates

  3

  2—

  Uruguay

  6

  3

  3

  Venezuela

  11

  21

  -10

  Vietnam

  27

  18

  9

  Yemen

  36

  33

  3

  Zambia

  45

  50

  -5

  Zimbabwe

  43

  38

  5

  2 not available

  Source:

  World Development Indicators 2003

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made by each country in meeting the millennium development goals to halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. [149064]

  Hilary Benn
  Progress towards the hunger target varies between countries. According to the UN Human Development Report 2003 in 21 countries a larger proportion of people are going hungry than in 1990. Elsewhere progress is being made, such as in the three Sub-Saharan Africa countries with the highest proportions of people suffering from hunger in 1990 (Mozambique, Angola and Chad) where estimates of hunger have dropped considerably.

  I refer the hon. Member to my other answer [UIN 149063] for the most recent trend data of the percentage of people below minimum levels of dietary energy consumption.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the change was between 1990 and 2003 in the share of the poorest quintile in national consumption in each country covered by the millennium development goals. [149066]

  Hilary Benn
  Quintile shares are calculated from income and consumption surveys. Developing countries carry out such surveys relatively infrequently and the information available does not allow us to examine changes between 1990 and 2003. The following table gives the latest statistics available by country and the year to which it refers1.

  1 Countries without any internationally comparable data have been excluded from the table.
  1304W

  Latest statistics available

  Country

  Shares of income or consumption of poorest quintile

  Year

  Algeria

  7

  1995

  Armenia

  7

  1998

  Azerbaijan

  7

  2001

  Bangladesh

  9

  2000

  Belarus

  8

  2000

  Bolivia

  4

  1999

  Brazil

  2

  1998

  Bulgaria

  7

  2001

  Burkina Faso

  4

  1998

  Burundi

  5

  1998

  Cambodia

  7

  1997

  Cameroon

  5

  1996

  Chile

  3

  1998

  China

  6

  1998

  Colombia

  3

  1996

  Costa Rica

  4

  1997

  Cote d'lvoire

  7

  1995

  Croatia

  8

  2001

  Czech Republic

  10

  1996

  Dominican Republic

  5

  1998

  Ecuador

  5

  1995

  Egypt

  9

  1999

  E1 Salvador

  3

  1998

  Estonia

  7

  1998

  Ethiopia

  2

  2000

  Gambia

  4

  1998

  Georgia

  6

  2000

  Ghana

  6

  1999

  Guatemala

  4

  1998

  Guyana

  4

  1999

  Honduras

  2

  1996

  Hong Kong

  5

  1996

  Hungary

  10

  1998

  India

  8

  1997

  Indonesia

  8

  2000

  Iran

  5

  1998

  Israel

  7

  1997

  Jamaica

  7

  2000

  Jordan

  8

  1997

  Kazakhstan

  8

  2001

  Kenya

  6

  1997

  Korea, Rep (South)

  8

  1998

  Kyrgyzstan

  9

  2001

  Laos

  8

  1997

  Latvia

  8

  1998

  Lesotho

  1

  1995

  Lithuania

  8

  2000

  Macedonia (FYR of)

  8

  1998

  Madagascar

  6

  1999

  Malawi

  5

  1997

  Malaysia

  4

  1997

  Mauritania

  6

  1995

  Mexico

  3

  1998

  Moldova

  7

  2001

  Mongolia

  6

  1998

  Morocco

  7

  1999

  Mozambique

  6

  1997

  Nepal

  8

  1996

  Nicaragua

  2

  1998

  Niger

  3

  1995

  Nigeria

  4

  1997

  Pakistan

  9

  1999

  Panama

  4

  1997

  Papua New Guinea

  5

  1996

  Paraguay

  2

  1998

  Peru

  4

  1996

  Philippines

  5

  2000

  Poland

  8

  1998

  Romania

  8

  2000

  Russian Federation

  5

  2000

  Senegal

  6

  1995

  1305W

  Latest statistics available

  Country

  Shares of income or consumption of poorest quintile

  Year

  Singapore

  5

  1998

  Slovak Republic

  9

  1996

  Slovenia

  9

  1998

  South Africa

  2

  1995

  Sri Lanka

  8

  1995

  St Lucia

  5

  1995

  Tajikistan

  8

  1998

  Thailand

  6

  2000

  Tunisia

  6

  1995

  Turkey

  6

  2000

  Turkmenistan

  6

  1998

  Uganda

  7

  1996

  Ukraine

  9

  1999

  Uruguay

  4

  1998

  Uzbekistan

  9

  2000

  Venezuela

  3

  1998

  Vietnam

  8

  1998

  Yemen

  7

  1998

  Zambia

  3

  1998

  Zimbabwe

  5

  1995

  Source:

  World Development Indicators 2003

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress each country has made in meeting the millennium development goal that, by 2015, all children will be able to commence a full course of primary schooling. [149067]

  Hilary Benn
  Generally, progress towards the 2015 target has been good but huge challenges still remain. The Education For All Global Monitoring Report identifies 36 countries at serious risk of not achieving the goal, of which 22 are in sub-Saharan Africa. There is increased evidence since the World Education Forum in April 2000, that many countries now have better education sector policies for making progress. Increased international support, including our own commitment of £1 billion over the period 2002–07, is helping African Governments to improve primary school enrolment.

  A comprehensive table listing the primary net enrolment ratio for each country where comparable data is available can be found in Table 5 in the statistical annex of the recent Education For All Global Monitoring Report (www.efareport.unesco.org).

  Trade Liberalisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what input his Department has made into the(a) design and (b) implementation of the initiative by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help developing countries to overcome problems in adjusting to a more liberal trading environment. [149102]

  Hilary Benn
  One of the more positive outcomes of the WTO ministerial in Cancun was the joint announcement by the World Bank and the IMF of a new trade-related initiative. Its overall aim is to assist poor countries with the adjustment costs of transition to trade liberalisation and help them capitalise on the potential benefits. DFID, in collaboration with others, has for some time been actively encouraging the World Bank and IMF to address more systematically the 1306W
  adjustment costs of trade liberalisation and the need for trade-related technical assistance. The collapse of negotiations in Cancun allows more time for the initiative to be developed and to encourage the Bank and Fund to work together more closely in designing mechanisms.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries receive(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid from the UK Government; and how much each received from his Department in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [149158]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on expenditure by the UK Government on development assistance is given in our annual publication "Statistics on International Development', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Tables 7.1–7.5 (pages 115–152) contain the information requested for bilateral assistance in 2002–03. The column headed "Total DFID Programme" hows how much each country received from DFID while that headed "Total Gross Public Expenditure" gives total Government spend. Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Table 8 shows contributions to multilateral organisations from both DFID and the Government as a whole for 2002–03. By definition, this expenditure cannot be broken down by country as the UK contribution is pooled with those of other donors. Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  UN Microcredit Year
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what preparations his Department are making for the UN Microcredit Year in 2005. [149428]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID strongly supports the underlying principles of the UN's Year of Microcredit 2005, which seeks to increase international efforts to spread microfinance to more low income clients worldwide. Donors, including DFID, have supported policies and institutions to extend the outreach of sustainable microcredit and other financial services to the poor for many years. DFID has held several discussions with the UN organisers and has been instrumental in linking them with The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), which promotes best practice in the microfinance industry. We intend to support specific events in the UK and will announce these this autumn.

  Background

  UN Year of Microcredit 2005

  The UN General Assembly, through resolution 53/197 in December 1998, proclaimed 2005 as the International Year of Microcredit. Following consultations with Member States in the second half of 2003, a Programme of Action for the Year has been agreed. The UN Capital Development Fund and the UN Secretariat's Department of Economic and Social Affairs will jointly coordinate the preparation activities of the UN system for the Year.
  1307W
  The UK and others supported wording in the Programme of Action resolution that emphasised the wider contribution of microfinance, and financial sector development, beyond a concentration on microcredit itself. Hence the Programme of Action often refers to microfinance, in addition to microcredit, and refers to savings, asset creation, and economic security.

  The UN Programme proposes that the Year will be launched in November 2004, that Member States will establish National Committees, and that 2004 should be a year of preparation. DFID officials have met initially with UNCDF Secretariat staff, and also with Citigroup, one of the private sector sponsors. UNCDF have noted that donor funding will not be needed at the international level.

  The key to the success of the Year will be UN countries adopting the General Assembly Resolution, and signing up to active steps to enable expansion of access to microfinance at local level. Whilst UN "Years" are vulnerable to a charge of more talk and less action, the Year of Microcredit is already attracting attention from private and public sectors including Citigroup, Bank of International Settlements and others.

  The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Microfinance is very likely to take an interest in the International Year of Microcredit. The Secretary of State met with them on 21 October. DFID officials are also checking whether other Departments will have an interest in the Year (Treasury, DTI). Following further meetings, DFID will recommend a programme of action for the Year to the Secretary of State.

  DFID Support to Extend Access to Microfinance

  Current DFID-supported initiatives also include:

  The £18 million Financial Deepening Challenge Fund, using innovative mechanisms to encourage banks and other financial service providers to extend financial services for the poor (www.challengefunds.org).

  AfriCap (www.africapfund.com), specialist equity fund investing in emerging microfinance institutions in Africa.

  MicroSave-Africa (www.MicroSave-Africa.com) a programme that tests new pro-poor savings, insurance, and loan products and promotes market-led microfinance.

  In addition, country-led programmes to develop the microfinance industry are under way in Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, Tanzania, India and Bangladesh.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the United States since the breakdown of the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancun about the likely impact of the United States Farm Bill on the(a) economies of and (b) living standards in, developing countries. [149118]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government conducted intensive discussion with the United States officials and ministers when the US Farm Bill was first introduced in 2002. Since Cancun there has been continuing contact between UK and US officials about all aspects of the WTO Round, including on the question of US domestic subsidies and their potential impact on the livelihoods of producers in developing countries.
  1308W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people made up the delegations of the developing countries at the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancún. [149126]

  Hilary Benn
  According to the official list of delegates provided by the WTO Secretariat, there were over 1700 accredited delegates from Developing countries at the WTO ministerial conference in Cancun.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Government of Zimbabwe have reduced their arrears to the World Bank since December 2002. [147390]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Zimbabwe have not reduced their arrears to the World Bank since December 2002. At the end of October 2003, Zimbabwe's arrears were approximately £150 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of(a) the level and (b) the geographical distribution of food shortages in Zimbabwe. [148092]

  Hilary Benn
  The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee's survey in April last year estimated that approximately 4.4 million people in rural areas and 1.1 million people in urban areas would require food aid during the pre-harvest months of January, February and March 2004. However, it is now clear that this figure is an underestimate and is being revised upwards to 5.1 million people in rural areas. Results of a comprehensive urban vulnerability assessment are yet to be released, but are also expected to show a significant increase in people requiring humanitarian assistance.

  DFID works in close collaboration with UN agencies and other development partners to monitor the levels and geographical distribution of food shortages throughout Zimbabwe. Relevant factors include employment levels, commodity prices, income levels, agricultural activity and rainfall levels, HIV prevalence rates and alternative coping mechanisms.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the extent of political abuse by the Zimbabwe Government of food aid provided by his Department. [148093]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme and others distributing international food aid all have clear procedures and monitoring systems in place to ensure that humanitarian aid is distributed according to need. These systems are working well and there have been no significant cases of political interference with international aid, including that provided by the UK, in recent months. Along with the UN, EU and other donors, we continue to make it clear to the Zimbabwe Government that we will not tolerate political interference in the distribution of food aid.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of how much food aid is reaching the people of Zimbabwe. [148128]
  1309W
  Hilary Benn
  In December 2003, the WFP and other agencies distributed general rations to 3.5 million beneficiaries, while many other vulnerable people received food through targeted programmes. As well as being a major contributor to WFP, DFID's separate NGO programme is reaching over a million beneficiaries a month through home-based care, school and therapeutic feeding schemes.

  The level of food aid reaching the people of Zimbabwe is a credit to the logistical capabilities of the WFP and the dedication of the implementing NGOs. Incidents of political interference remain few and isolated. DFID continues to work in close collaboration with the WFP and other partners to ensure that food aid is distributed in an apolitical manner and that those in most need receive assistance.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Professor Sir Roy Meadow
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many cases in which parents were charged with causing the death of a child, was expert evidence given by Professor Sir Roy Meadow. [145032]

  The Solicitor-General
  The recently published judgment in Angela Cannings has raised concerns over the safety of a number of convictions and as such will have serious and far-reaching implications. The Court of Appeal said that in relation to unexplained infant deaths when the outcome of the trial depended exclusively or almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts it will often be unsafe to proceed.

  As soon as the Court gave its judgement that Angela Cannings' conviction was unsafe, the Attorney and I requested that all cases which potentially involve sudden infant death syndrome be identified as quickly as possible. By the time the Court published its written judgement some 258 convictions involving the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant under two by its parent had been identified.

  Those convictions will now be reviewed as a matter of urgency to establish how many were convictions that the Court of Appeal judgement in Angela Cannings indicated may be unsafe. Priority will be accorded to those persons who are still serving a sentence of imprisonment. While I cannot give any figures at present for the number of cases in which parents were charged with causing the death of a child and in which expert evidence was given, the identification and review of the 258 convictions may enable further and more detailed information to be given in due course.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) women and (b) men are serving jail sentences as a result of court cases in which expert evidence was given by Professor Sir Roy Meadow. [145033]

  The Solicitor-General
  The recently published judgment in Angela Cannings has raised concerns over the safety of a number of convictions and as such will have serious and far-reaching implications. The Court of Appeal said that in relation to unexplained infant deaths when the outcome of the trial depended exclusively or 1310W
  almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts it will often be unsafe to proceed.

  As soon as the Court gave its judgement that Angela Cannings' conviction was unsafe, the Attorney and I requested that all cases which potentially involve sudden infant death syndrome be identified as quickly as possible. By the time the Court published its written judgement some 258 convictions involving the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant under two by its parent had been identified.

  Those convictions will now be reviewed as a matter of urgency to establish how many were convictions that the Court of Appeal judgment in Angela Cannings indicated may be unsafe. Priority will be accorded to those persons who are still serving a sentence of imprisonment. While I cannot give any figures at present for those men and women who are serving jail sentences in which Professor Meadow gave evidence, the process of identifying and reviewing the convictions I have mentioned above may enable further and more detailed information to be given in due course.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) the Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147986]

  The Solicitor-General
  Headquarters was notified that 81 identity cards/access cards had been lost and five had been stolen.

  Twenty eight security passes were reported as lost in the Treasury Solicitor's Department within the last one to two months. All 28 passes were reported as lost rather than stolen.

  Five security passes were reported as lost in the Serious Fraud Office within the last 12 months. All 5 were reported as lost rather than stolen.

  Six security passes were reported as lost in HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate within the last 12 months. All six were reported as lost rather than stolen.

  No security passes were reported as either stolen or lost by my own department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, over that period.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Learning Grant
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of people in the Brentford and Isleworth constituency who will benefit from the pilot of the Adult Learning Grant. [146321]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Adult Learning Grant is being piloted in one further education college in Brentwood and Isleworth. We estimate that about 20 adults studying full-time at this college for First Level 2 or First Level 3 qualifications will benefit from the grant this academic year.

  Basic Skills
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information his Department collects on the level of basic skills. [147451]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) collates adult basic skills data at several levels. First through evaluation, research and economic analysis; second through a continuous programme of research led by the National Research and Development Council (NRDC); third through our marketing and communication strategy; and finally through the collection of factual data and information on all learners participating in programmes.

  "The Skills for Life Survey: A National Needs and Impact Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT skills" (DfES, October 2003) provides an up-to-date assessment of the level of basic skills need against the National Standards for literacy, numeracy and ICT among adults aged 16 to 65 in England. A copy of this survey has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The National Research and Development Centre lead a continuous programme of research to ensure that implementation and future development are based firmly on evidence.

  The Learning and Skills Council, Jobcentre Plus, the Prison Service and other key partners report regularly on delivery, learner participation and delivery. They provide an invaluable source of information on the people taking part and the direct impact the strategy is having.

  The DfES also collects regular information on the number of basic skills qualifications that are achieved and count towards the Skills for Life PSA targets. We are confident that we have achieved the July 2003 target of 470,000 learner achievements.

  Behaviour Improvement Programmes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 8 January (145433), if he will list the 60 Behaviour Improvement Programme local education authorities and the precise sum each will receive in the current financial year. [147690]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table provides the information required.

  Local education authorities—2003–04

  Total amount (£)

  Phase 1

  Bradford

  1,442,000

  Brent

  1,442,000

  Camden

  1,442,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,442,000

  Lewisham

  1,442,000

  Sheffield

  1,442,000

  Islington

  1.442,000

  Waltham Forest

  1,442,000

  Rochdale

  1,442,000

  Birmingham

  1,442,000

  Salford

  1,442,000

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,400,335

  Oldham

  1,442,000

  Wolverhampton

  1,442,000

  1312W

  Local education authorities—2003–04

  Total amount (£)

  Manchester

  1,442,000

  Hackney

  1,400,335

  Knowsley

  1,442,000

  Greenwich

  1,400,335

  Enfield

  1,442,000

  Lambeth

  1,400,335

  Nottingham

  1,400,335

  Southwark

  1,442,000

  Newham

  1,442,000

  Haringey

  1,442,000

  Bristol

  1,400,335

  Tower Hamlets

  1,400,335

  Leeds

  1,442,000

  Westminster

  1,442,000

  Bolton

  1,442,000

  Liverpool

  1,442,000

  Hounslow

  1,400,335

  Reading

  1,442,000

  Slough

  1,442,000

  K&C

  1,400,335

  Phase 2

  Barnsley

  1,400,000

  Blackburn and Darwen

  1,400,000

  Blackpool

  1,400,000

  Doncaster

  1,400,000

  Ealing

  1,400,000

  Gateshead

  1,400,000

  Halton

  1,400,000

  Hartlepool

  1,400,000

  Hull

  1,400,000

  Leicester

  1,400,000

  Luton

  1,400,000

  Middlesbrough

  1,400,000

  Newcastle

  1,400,000

  North Tyneside

  1,400,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,400,000

  Rotherham

  1,400,000

  Sandwell

  1,400,000

  Sefton

  1,400,000

  Solihull

  1,400,000

  South Tyneside

  1,400,000

  St. Helens

  1,400,000

  Stockton

  1,400,000

  Stoke

  1,400,000

  Sunderland

  1,400,000

  Wandsworth

  1,400,000

  Wirral

  1,400,000

  The minor variations between Phase 1 LEAs reflect successful bids for additional measures.

  Biodefence Research
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of whether universities satisfactorily ensure physical, personnel and information security in the performance of biodefence research; what assessment he has made of the case for moving such research from university laboratories to secure national laboratories; and if he will make a statement. [147541]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not comment on detailed security matters such as these but the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 provides controls on both physical and personnel security measures for premises holding dangerous substances.
  1313W
  It has conferred new powers on the police under Part 7 and Schedule 5 and was implemented 31 May 2002. These include:
  Notification Process—"the occupier of any premises" where a Schedule 5 substance is "kept or used" is required to notify the Home Office.
  Confers powers on the police to inspect such premises and give directions on protective security advice.
  Confers powers on the police to seek information and obliges laboratories to provide information to them.

  Bullying
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many incidents of bullying have taken place in schools in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three years. [148372]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on bullying are not collected centrally and there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence. However, any level of bullying is too high and we are determined to help schools to tackle the problem. Our guidance pack "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence" and the anti-bullying website: www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying offer detailed advice on preventing and addressing bullying. I have also recently launched our anti-bullying Charter, which I hope schools will sign and use. It is accompanied by a summary of effective practice to help schools review and enhance their anti-bullying policies. We are also currently running a series of England-wide regional anti-bullying conferences for schools and other partners to share good practice.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what research his Department has commissioned on bullying in schools; [148102]

  (2) what data his Department collates on bullying in schools. [148103]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In March 2003 I launched a DfES-funded report summarising recent research on children and young people's views on bullying. This is available on the Department's website at www.dfes.gov.uk/ research. Rather than collecting data from schools, which would add to their workload, we are concentrating on helping schools to reduce bullying. Disseminating good practice is crucial to this. So we have made our anti-bullying guidance pack "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence" and the anti-bullying Charter which I launched in November available to every school in England. And we are currently running a series of England-wide regional conferences for schools and other partners to share good practice. This is in addition to staff training materials on bullying which we are making available to all secondary schools through our Key Stage 3 strategy.

  Career Guidance
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the place of career guidance within the provision by the Connexions Service. [149511]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: Career guidance is a key part of the work of Connexions. All 13–19 year olds in England have access to support on making learning and career choices from Connexions. The level of support each individual
  1314W
  receives is differentiated according to need. Support is provided in a range of ways, including through: one to one and group sessions with a Connexions Personal Adviser; Connexions Direct—a telephone helpline, e-mail and web-chat facility, open from 8am to 2am, 365 days a year; and the careers information materials available in Connexions Resource centres in schools, colleges and Connexions one-stop shops.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy to ensure that(a) access to and (b) provision of careers guidance and advice is equal between young people (i) in education and (ii) not in employment and training. [149514]

  Margaret Hodge
  All young people can access Connexions services on an equal basis through their schools and colleges, one-stop shops and Connexions Direct. Provision of careers advice and guidance—as with all the services provided by Connexions—is differentiated according to need. This applies to all young people, irrespective of whether or not they are currently in education, employment or training.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what qualifications are required of Connexions personal advisers who are expected to provide careers guidance and advice. [149515]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: The Secretary of State recognises three specific qualifications for Connexions Personal Advisers who give in depth career guidance to young people in the statutory client group; these are the Qualification in Careers Guidance (QCG), NVQ Level 4 in Advice and Guidance (including specified units) and the Diploma in Careers Guidance (DCG). DfES provides funding to support the initial training of careers guidance professionals to help encourage people from a wide range of backgrounds to move into the role of specialist career guidance practitioner.

  Children Bill
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions have been held with local government representatives about the forthcoming Children Bill. [148783]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: I have worked closely with the Inter Agency Group, which brings together local government, health and voluntary sector representative bodies, to ensure that we understand their views fully in developing the Children Bill, as well as the other work the Government are taking forward following the publication of "Every Child Matters". Officials have also regularly met representatives of local government to discuss policy development. Our work has also been informed by the extensive consultation we undertook on "Every Child Matters". All areas of local government were fully represented at the nine regional consultation events and we are pleased to have received a huge response to the written consultation, including many submissions from local government representative groups and local authorities. I have also met individual local authority representatives in a number of meetings and on a range of visits.

  Connexions Service
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Connexions Service clients there were in each year since its establishment, broken down(a) by Connexions service area and (b) by (i) young people not in education, employment or training and (ii) others. [149512]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: The following tables show the number of Connexions

  Table 1: Number of clients/young people who have completed compulsory Education known to connexions

  Not in Education, Employment or Training

  Other

  Total

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  ENGLAND

  44,740

  142.328

  122,742

  506,313

  1,521,504

  1,939,517

  551,053

  1,663,832

  2,062,259

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2,333

  1,605

  24,425

  24,393

  26,758

  25,998

  Berkshire

  1,884

  1,780

  29,792

  30,660

  31,676

  32,440

  Birmingham and Solihull

  3,672

  4,000

  53,283

  50,775

  56,955

  54,775

  Black Country

  6,337

  6.914

  4,489

  39,085

  44,611

  47,387

  45,422

  51,525

  51,876

  Bournemouth Dorset and Poole

  2,019

  1,022

  24,862

  26,123

  26,881

  27,145

  Cambs and Peterborough

  2,423

  1,851

  25,784

  26,190

  28,206

  28,041

  Central London

  5,998

  3,733

  37,757

  41,588

  43,754

  45,321

  Cheshire and Warrington

  2,694

  2,978

  2,196

  33,726

  37,064

  37,318

  36,420

  40,042

  39,514

  Cornwall and Devon

  3,522

  3,798

  2,921

  60,277

  60,757

  61,690

  63,799

  64,555

  64,611

  County Durham

  2,774

  2,053

  15,652

  16,860

  18,426

  18,913

  Coventry and Warwick

  2,688

  2,854

  2,253

  26,052

  32,540

  32,880

  28,740

  35,394

  35,133

  Cumbria

  1,935

  1,789

  1,199

  18,498

  19,678

  19,867

  20,433

  21,467

  21,066

  Derbyshire

  4,407

  2,784

  38,195

  37,371

  42,602

  40,155

  East London

  8,281

  6,973

  82,871

  87,465

  91,152

  94,438

  Essex Southend and Thurrock

  5,449

  2,816

  65,974

  65,928

  71,422

  68,744

  Gloucestershire

  852

  856

  16,716

  23,687

  17,569

  24,543

  Greater Manchester

  11,073

  7,961

  109,572

  110,988

  120,646

  118,949

  Greater Merseyside

  8,918

  8,431

  6,659

  62,252

  61,931

  65,154

  71,170

  70,362

  71,813

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,684

  1,218

  26,626

  26,966

  28,311

  28,183

  Hertfordshire

  1,835

  1,521

  43,967

  38,799

  45,801

  40,320

  Humber

  3,486

  3,982

  4,049

  36,635

  33,156

  35,457

  40,121

  37,139

  39,506

  Kent

  3,788

  4,014

  76,761

  66,520

  80,548

  70,534

  Lancashire

  5,769

  4,315

  57,385

  57,348

  63,155

  61,663

  Leicestershire

  3,755

  1,753

  37,541

  36,461

  41,295

  38,214

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  1,167

  1,487

  1,332

  23,540

  27,110

  27,033

  24,707

  28,597

  28,366

  Milton Keynes Ox and Bucks

  1,625

  2,820

  2,590

  48,647

  50,046

  50,184

  50,272

  52,867

  52,774

  Norfolk

  1,523

  920

  27,222

  26,694

  28,745

  27,614

  North London

  2,971

  4,071

  2,317

  35,750

  40,711

  43,659

  38,721

  44,782

  45,976

  Northamptonshire

  1,489

  1,725

  24,325

  22,925

  25,814

  24,649

  Northumberland

  654

  12,053

  12,707

  Nottinghamshire

  2,951

  1,937

  40,886

  43,823

  43,837

  45,760

  Shropshire Telford and Wrekin

  1,122

  1,086

  736

  18,169

  17,946

  18,112

  19,291

  19,031

  18,849

  Somerset

  837

  463

  16,477

  17,758

  17,314

  18,221

  South Central

  3,065

  2,883

  83,429

  71,470

  86,494

  74,352

  South London

  4,498

  4,282

  2,107

  47,023

  47,418

  49,040

  51,521

  51,700

  51,147

  South Yorkshire

  5,604

  6,661

  4,061

  46,399

  48,121

  50,781

  52,003

  54,783

  54,841

  Staffordshire

  5,551

  3,538

  41,258

  42,724

  46,809

  46,262

  Suffolk

  2,204

  2,754

  1,332

  30,508

  27,866

  25,591

  32,712

  30,620

  26,924

  Surrey

  1,010

  1,254

  44,580

  37,174

  45,591

  38,428

  Sussex

  3,087

  1,608

  60,234

  54,453

  63,321

  56,061

  Tees Valley

  4,305

  2,374

  29,573

  29,710

  33,879

  32,084

  Tyne and Wear

  8,385

  4,481

  41,462

  43,943

  49,847

  48,423

  West London

  5,347

  3,232

  50,608

  49,118

  55,954

  52,350

  West of England

  2,057

  2,447

  2,251

  33,667

  30,921

  35,957

  35,724

  33,367

  38,208

  West Yorkshire

  9,357

  6,154

  86,292

  86,413

  95,649

  92,567

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  1,284

  937

  21,647

  23,256

  22,931

  24,192

  York and North Yorkshire

  2,310

  917

  32,497

  30,155

  34,807

  31,072

  Notes:

  1. The information compiled represents averages of monthly data provided by Connexions Partnerships from their own management information and tracking systems.

  2. The first 15 Connexions Partnerships commenced in April and September 2001. The second and third phases of Connexions Partnerships started from April 2002.

  Table 2: Number of clients/young people of compulsory education age known to connexions

  Note: This data was not collected in 2001

  2002–03

  2003–04

  ENGLAND

  1,590,390

  2,075,363

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  26,123

  26,911

  Berkshire

  26,241

  28,576

  Birmingham and Solihull

  62,480

  62,255

  Black Country

  54,111

  53,216

  Bournemouth Dorset and Poole

  24,894

  26,113

  Cambs and Peterborough

  32,435

  36,771

  1316W
  Service clients (young people aged 13 to 19 known to Connexions) for the period 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Table 1 shows those clients known not to be in education, employment and training, and other young people who have completed compulsory education.

  Table 2 shows the number of clients of compulsory education age for the operational years of 2002–3 and 2003–4. This information was not collected in 2001–2.

  Table 2: Number of clients/young people of compulsory education age known to connexions

  Note: This data was not collected in 2001

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Central London

  25,483

  34,764

  Cheshire and Warrington

  42,575

  40,953

  Cornwall and Devon

  61,797

  63,356

  County Durham

  24,065

  24,982

  Coventry and Warwick

  35,752

  38,878

  Cumbria

  25,139

  22,668

  Derbyshire

  32,739

  41,328

  1317W

  Table 2: Number of clients/young people of compulsory education age known to connexions

  Note: This data was not collected in 2001

  East London

  87,214

  90,610

  Essex Southend and Thurrock

  80,224

  81,980

  Gloucestershire

  24,131

  24,426

  Greater Manchester

  132,465

  128,915

  Greater Merseyside

  70,652

  54,292

  Hereford and Worcester

  33,774

  34,309

  Hertfordshire

  38,005

  39,812

  Humber

  40,781

  46,996

  Kent

  49,959

  62,486

  Lancashire

  56,010

  72,163

  Leicestershire

  34,106

  40,584

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  26,179

  27,985

  Milton Keynes Ox and Bucks

  51,109

  57,699

  Norfolk

  37,171

  36,928

  North London

  30,237

  40,399

  Northamptonshire

  29,769

  26,853

  Northumberland1

  11,722

  Nottinghamshire

  48,028

  45,433

  Shropshire Telford and Wrekin

  13,756

  12,959

  Somerset

  16,794

  15,653

  South Central

  59,204

  55,012

  South London

  42,835

  39,762

  South Yorkshire

  62,325

  64,015

  Staffordshire

  43,324

  35,941

  Suffolk

  31,995

  32,387

  Surrey

  22,015

  30,913

  Sussex

  41,237

  52,233

  Tees Valley

  40,033

  36,911

  Tyne and Wear

  49,471

  45,569

  West London

  38,436

  42,161

  West of England

  34,266

  36,953

  West Yorkshire

  101,715

  105,622

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  21,278

  22,955

  York and North Yorkshire

  30,284

  29,490

  1 Northumberland Connexions Partnership commenced in April 2003.

  Notes:

  The information complied represents averages of monthly data provided by Connexions partnerships from their own management information and tracking systems.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is the policy of the Connexions Service to give special attention to young people not in education, employment or training. [149513]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: It is the policy of the Connexions Service to reduce the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. It does so through preventive work with young people who are in education employment and training and targeted, individual work with those who are not.

  E-registration
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the procedures are for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the funding by the Department of schools' e-registration systems. [148745]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Before schools can be awarded Capital Modernisation funding for electronic registration they must submit plans to the Department showing how they would spend it. Departmental officials only authorise local education authorities to release funding to a school when they are satisfied that its plans comply with stringent conditions set by the 1318W
  project. Local education authorities are then expected to work with schools to ensure the efficiency of systems installed.

  We have also commissioned the University of Warwick to conduct an independent evaluation of the project. A summary of interim findings is available on the school attendance website, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ schoolattendance/. A final report is expected in February 2006.

  Gap Years
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from(a) schools, (b) parents and (c) pupils about the intentions of year 12 or lower 6th students expecting to complete A-levels in summer 2005 and considering whether to take a gap year in 2005–06. [148504]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  At December 2003 the Department for Education and Skills had received the following representations about young people's gap year intentions for 2005/06: nine from schools, three from parents and three from pupils.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he intends to have with charitable organisations in respect of the impact of his proposals for higher education funding on gap year activities in 2005–06. [149026]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 January 2003]: There are no plans for discussions with charitable organisations on the impact of the proposals for higher education funding on gap year activities in 2005–06.

  The Higher Education White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" was published on 22 January 2003 and there was an extensive consultation exercise associated with it.

  In addition, the impact of higher education funding on gap year intentions is a matter regularly discussed by officials and Gap Year Providers and representative groups at meetings of DfES' informal Gap Year Consultation Group.

  School Exclusions (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) short-term, (b) long-term and (c) permanent (i) high schools and (ii) primary schools exclusions there were in Lancashire in each of the last three years. [148373]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on non-permanent (fixed term) exclusions is not yet available centrally.

  The Department has recently started to collect information from local education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis. The first term's data are not yet available.

  The information requested on the numbers of permanent exclusions is given in the table.
  1319W

  Lancashire LEA maintained primary and secondary schools: number of permanent exclusions, 1999/2000 to 2001/02

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  2001–021

  Number

  Percentage of school population22

  Number

  Percentage of school population22

  Number

  Percentage of school population22

  Primary3

  19

  0.02

  34

  0.03

  39

  0.04

  Secondary3

  144

  0.19

  207

  0.28

  240

  0.32

  Total

  167

  0.09

  250

  0.14

  299

  0.17

  1 The 2000/01 and 2001/02 figures shown in the table are based upon the Annual Schools census returns together with LEA level amendments reported by LEAs as part of the data checking process.

  2 Number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of school population.

  3 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupil exclusions took place in each of the last three years in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [146975]

  Maintained primary, secondary and all special schools: number of permanent exclusions, 1999/2000 to 2001/02

  1999/2000

  2000/011

  2001/021

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Lancashire LEA

  Primary3

  19

  0.02

  34

  0.03

  39

  0.04

  Secondary3

  144

  0.19

  207

  0.28

  240

  0.32

  Special4

  4

  0.17

  9

  0.39

  20

  0.88

  Total

  167

  0.09

  250

  0.14

  299

  0.17

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Chorley constituency

  Primary3

  1

  0.01

  0

  0.00

  7

  0.08

  Secondary3

  8

  0.11

  13

  0.18

  17

  0.23

  Special4

  0

  0.00

  1

  0.51

  2

  0.01

  Total

  9

  0.05

  14

  0.08

  26

  0.16

  1 The 2000/01 and 2001/02 figures shown in the table are based upon the Annual Schools census returns together with LEA level amendments reported by LEAs as part of the data checking process.

  2 Number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of school population.

  3 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  4 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps have been taken to introduce a replacement scheme for individual learning accounts; when the replacement scheme will commence; and if he will make a statement. [149565]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In July 2003, we published the White Paper "21st Century Skills, Realising Our Potential" which sets out how we will meet the skills challenge. The reforms in that strategy provide the essential elements we previously sought to develop through Individual Learning Accounts (ILA). As the White Paper says at paragraph 4.31, we have decided not to introduce another stand-alone ILA scheme, separate from the mainstream support for adult learning.

  The White Paper goes on to say:
  "4.32 Instead, we have integrated those ILA elements that proved successful within the broader strategy, particularly through our proposals for a new entitlement to free learning at level 2 for those with few or no qualifications; improvements in learner support; broadening the range of training providers, so that we can bring within the scope of public funding those privateproviders who have something distinctive to offer and can
  1320W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information available for the three most recent years is shown in the table:

  meet the necessary quality standards; strengthening the range of first step and return to learn opportunities; improving information, advice and guidance for adults; and developing a Unique Learner Number."

  Microsoft Licences
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new licences for Microsoft products were purchased by schools in(a) 1999, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and what the cost was in each year of these purchases. [146854]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of, and cost of, new licences for Microsoft products purchased by schools in 1999, 2001 and 2002 is not available because of the devolved nature of the purchasing of Microsoft products under IMS arrangements.

  Information has been made available to Becta by Microsoft in respect of Microsoft's licensing sales to schools during the 2002/03 Microsoft financial year. This information is the subject of legally binding non-disclosure arrangements.
  1321W
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether, under the terms of the memorandum between Microsoft and the British Educational Communications and Training Agency, schools will continue to get licences at 20 per cent. to 37 per cent. discounts if the total aggregate number of Microsoft licences held by schools in the United Kingdom falls. [146855]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The discount levels in the memorandum between Microsoft and the British Educational Communications and Training Agency are based on thresholds derived from the estimated number of licenses purchased annually by schools in England rather than on the total number of licenses held. The discount levels are calculated annually in arrears and therefore the discount levels which apply in Year 1 of the agreement relate to purchases already made, are at the maximum level, and are therefore absolutely guaranteed. The discount applicable in Year 2 will relate to the number of licenses actually purchased in Year 1. The discount in Year 3 relates to the actual purchases in Year 2.

  The number of licences across the UK required to qualify for the maximum discount in Year 2 and Year 3 are also based on the same numerical threshold as Year 1. Therefore, no growth in the number of Microsoft licences purchased annually by schools is required to achieve the maximum discount levels.

  As Becta has a UK wide remit, it has ensured that licence volumes from the Devolved Administrations, although not taken into account in deriving the threshold, can be taken into account in meeting it, thus providing a cost advantage to schools in the Devolved Administrations, and the increased possibility that schools in England will benefit from the highest discount levels.

  In the event that the number of licenses purchased by schools across the UK does not fall below 96 per cent. of the number of licenses purchased by schools in England in the year prior to the introduction of the MOU, the maximum level of discount will continue to apply. If the total number of licences sold to schools in the UK in any year of the agreement (the annual sales) falls below 96 per cent. of the number of licences purchased in the year immediately preceding the agreement by schools in England (the base year), the 20 per cent. minimum discount will be reduced as follows:
  if the annual sales fell to 75 per cent. of the base year sales, the minimum discount of 20 per cent. would be reduced to 75 per cent. of its previous value i.e. it would fall from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent; and
  if the annual sales fell to 50 per cent. of the base year sales, the minimum discount would be reduced to 50 per cent. of its previous value i.e. it would drop from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent.

  These two 'pro rata' minimum discount points at 15 per cent. and 10 per cent. were introduced to minimise the impact of any reductions in the purchasing by schools of Microsoft products.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many licences for Microsoft products are held by state schools; and what the total cost of such licences to the schools is. [146856]
  1322W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Microsoft has been supplying licences to schools for more than 20 years. Data on the number of licences held by state schools or their total cost are not available because of the devolved nature of purchasing under LMS arrangements.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of new licences purchased in each of the last five years by schools are OEM type licences that come outside the agreement between the British Educational Communications and Training Agency and Microsoft. [146857]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the percentage of new licences purchased in each of the last five years by schools that are Original Equipment (OEM) type licences, is not available because of devolved nature of the purchasing of Microsoft products under Local Management of Schools arrangements

  Microsoft has made information available to Becta in respect of Microsoft's (non-OEM) licensing sales to schools during the 2002–03 Microsoft financial year. This information is the subject of legally binding non-disclosure arrangements.

  The Department's ICT in Schools survey provides information which can be used to estimate the year on year growth in the number of computers in schools. It is anticipated that the vast majority of these additional machines will require an OEM licence in respect of Microsoft Windows.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the savings on software licences following the recent agreement between the British Educational Communications and Training Agency and Microsoft; and what percentage of school expenditure on Microsoft licences this represents in each of the next three years for schools. [146858]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Through aggregating demand for Microsoft Licensing, Becta has been able to identify estimated savings over the next three years of up to £46 million for schools in England. These potential savings apply to all schools in the maintained and independent sectors. Additional savings will accrue to schools in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Compared to April 2003 pricing, the reduction/savings in schools' spending attributable to this deal will be between 20 per cent. and 37 per cent. depending on the actual products purchased.

  The estimate of savings for each of the next three years is:

  Year 1—£13 million;

  Year 2—£15 million; and

  Year 3—£18 million.

  Taking account of the likely mix of products purchased and the licensing programmes used, the overall percentage reduction in school spend on Microsoft licensing compared with spending levels as at April 2003 is estimated to be between 30 per cent. to 33 per cent.

  The calculation of these savings was made possible as a result of information made available to Becta by Microsoft in respect of Microsoft's most recent financial year and under legally binding non-disclosure

  1323W
  arrangements. Procedures to monitor the actual level of savings achieved have been agreed by Becta and Microsoft.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people under 22 are enrolled in or started modern apprenticeships in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [147436]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the academic year 2002/03, there were 146,000 starts on modern apprenticeships by learners aged under 22, and at the end of this year, there were a total of 194,100 learners aged under 22 on modern apprenticeships. Figures for 2003/04 are not yet available. Figures for numbers of starts and numbers in learning as at the end of October 2003 will be published by the Learning and Skills Council in March.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the total population are qualified to apprentice in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany. [147437]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of the population qualified to apprentice in the UK is 13.6 per cent. Comparable figures from France and Germany are not available.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were enrolled on apprenticeships in the United Kingdom in each year since 1995. [147440]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The numbers of learners in England enrolled on government supported Advanced Modern Apprenticeship (AMA) and Foundation Modern Apprenticeship (FMA) programmes at the end of July in each year since 1995 are shown in the table.

  Thousand

  Year

  AMA

  FMA

  Total MA1

  1995

  2.1

  n/a

  2.1

  1996

  25.1

  n/a

  25.1

  1997

  87.5

  n/a

  87.5

  1998

  109.6

  8.8

  118.4

  1999

  123.8

  41.4

  165.2

  2000

  127.3

  77.7

  205.0

  2001

  115.0

  87.0

  202.0

  2002

  102.7

  106.1

  208.8

  2003

  99.5

  119.1

  218.5

  1 Totals may not equal sum of AMA and FMA due to rounding.

  Note:

  Comparable figures covering other types of apprenticeships are not available. The figures given cover England only. Modern apprenticeships in the other countries of the UK are a matter for the relevant devolved authorities.

  Source:

  1995 to 2000—TEC management information

  2001 to 2003—LSC Individualised Learner Record

  Modern Languages
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans his Department have to train specialist primary modern language teachers. [148376]
  1324W
  Mr. Miliband
  In the current academic year, 406 people have been recruited to courses of initial teacher training for primary modern languages specialists provided by institutions in England. So far this year, there have been a further 34 recruits in primary modern languages to the Graduate Teacher Programme. In 2004–05, 580 college-based training places and 50 employment-based places will be available for primary modern languages.

  School Exclusions
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many exclusions from English primary schools there were in the last three years; [148045]

  (2) how many (a) short-term, (b) long-term and (c) permanent exclusions there were from English secondary schools for the last three years. [148104]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on fixed term exclusions is not yet available centrally. The Department has recently started to collect information from local education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis. The first term's data are not yet available.

  Information on the number of permanent exclusions in maintained primary and secondary schools is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1 number of permanent exclusions

  Academic years 1999/2000 to 2001/02

  England

  Maintained Primary

  Maintained Secondary

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population32

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population32

  1999/2000

  1,226

  0.03

  6,713

  0.21

  2000/012

  1,436

  0.03

  7,305

  0.23

  2001/02

  1,451

  0.03

  7,741

  0.24

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Permanent exclusions for 2000/01 are estimated as a number of local education authorities have not confirmed the data for their schools.

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils in primary and secondary schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were excluded from school in each local education authority in each year since 1997. [148431]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The Information requested for permanent exclusions has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Information on fixed term exclusions is not yet available centrally. The Department has recently started

  1325W
  to collect information from local education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis. The first term's data are not yet available.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged(a) between four and 11, (b) between 12 and 16 and (c) between 16 and

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1 and special schools2: Number of permanent exclusions by age group Academic years 1995/96 to 2001/02 London Local Education Authorities

  1995/96

  1996/97

  Pupils aged3

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  London

  413

  1,781

  56

  463

  1,683

  47

  Inner London

  174

  622

  15

  199

  559

  13

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  11

  39

  1

  20

  49

  2

  Hackney

  14

  23

  1

  15

  26

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15

  47

  2

  23

  49

  0

  Haringey

  8

  39

  2

  5

  42

  2

  Islington

  16

  59

  0

  13

  31

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8

  20

  1

  8

  16

  0

  Lambeth

  14

  52

  0

  13

  48

  2

  Lewisham

  26

  53

  0

  18

  40

  2

  Newham

  10

  33

  0

  9

  31

  0

  Southwark

  22

  66

  1

  26

  67

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  10

  44

  0

  12

  51

  1

  Wandsworth

  11

  86

  6

  27

  64

  0

  Westminster

  9

  61

  1

  10

  45

  2

  Outer London

  239

  1,159

  41

  264

  1,124

  34

  Barking and Dagenham

  18

  46

  3

  21

  66

  2

  Barnet

  15

  58

  4

  14

  76

  1

  Bexley

  10

  49

  2

  21

  42

  0

  Brent

  12

  101

  1

  13

  80

  6

  Bromley

  19

  84

  8

  15

  80

  4

  Croydon

  20

  98

  1

  30

  108

  0

  Ealing

  20

  69

  7

  17

  71

  3

  Enfield

  8

  81

  3

  7

  87

  8

  Greenwich

  22

  68

  0

  19

  58

  2

  Harrow

  5

  60

  0

  5

  54

  0

  Havering

  10

  61

  1

  14

  42

  0

  Hillingdon

  12

  55

  4

  13

  55

  0

  Hounslow

  17

  66

  5

  24

  69

  4

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  6

  30

  2

  7

  28

  0

  Merton

  7

  42

  0

  5

  16

  1

  Redbridge

  4

  28

  0

  4

  28

  2

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  7

  45

  0

  8

  51

  0

  Sutton

  9

  23

  0

  6

  30

  0

  Waltham Forest

  18

  95

  0

  21

  83

  1

  1997/98

  1998/99

  Pupils aged3

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  London

  422

  1,553

  52

  348

  1.402

  32

  Inner London

  201

  539

  16

  144

  487

  8

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  16

  32

  2

  3

  29

  0

  Hackney

  22

  24

  0

  15

  21

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  35

  0

  4

  41

  3

  Haringey

  10

  36

  0

  13

  30

  0

  Islington

  14

  33

  0

  11

  24

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7

  31

  0

  8

  21

  0

  Lambeth

  17

  45

  0

  13

  27

  0

  Lewisham

  28

  47

  2

  18

  46

  1

  Newham

  15

  38

  1

  15

  39

  0

  Southwark

  27

  69

  0

  21

  87

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  6

  43

  0

  2

  30

  0

  Wandsworth

  15

  61

  0

  17

  58

  1

  Westminster

  7

  45

  11

  4

  34

  2

  1326W
  18 have been excluded from school in each London borough in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [148440]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]: The available information, shown in the table, relates to permanent exclusions from 1995/96 onward.
  1327W

  1997/98

  1998/99

  Pupils aged3

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  Outer London

  221

  1,014

  36

  204

  915

  24

  Barking and Dagenham

  11

  35

  1

  15

  23

  1

  Barnet

  10

  56

  11

  7

  31

  4

  Bexley

  16

  54

  2

  20

  40

  1

  Brent

  11

  80

  6

  9

  68

  0

  Bromley

  16

  76

  1

  13

  73

  1

  Croydon

  29

  79

  0

  25

  106

  0

  Ealing

  26

  54

  2

  10

  63

  I

  Enfield

  16

  66

  5

  8

  61

  7

  Greenwich

  13

  47

  1

  20

  57

  2

  Harrow

  7

  53

  0

  9

  33

  0

  Havering

  7

  63

  0

  7

  34

  0

  Hillingdon

  5

  53

  0

  10

  56

  0

  Hounslow

  13

  54

  4

  9

  54

  4

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2

  25

  2

  2

  23

  0

  Merton

  7

  29

  0

  5

  19

  0

  Redbridge

  5

  30

  0

  8

  33

  1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2

  52

  0

  7

  38

  0

  Sutton

  8

  37

  0

  9

  28

  2

  Waltham Forest

  17

  71

  1

  11

  75

  0

  1999/2000

  2000/014

  Pupils aged3

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  London

  251

  1,021

  17

  298

  1,145

  5

  Inner London

  127

  385

  4

  121

  417

  1

  City of London

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  7

  15

  0

  11

  23

  0

  Hackney

  9

  22

  0

  11

  23

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  17

  0

  9

  31

  0

  Haringey

  10

  15

  0

  1

  29

  0

  Islington

  4

  15

  1

  1

  18

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7

  17

  0

  5

  12

  0

  Lambeth

  12

  19

  0

  13

  28

  0

  Lewisham

  26

  47

  2

  20

  63

  0

  Newham

  10

  23

  0

  10

  26

  0

  Southwark

  10

  58

  1

  19

  44

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  29

  0

  6

  40

  0

  Wandsworth

  20

  74

  0

  11

  54

  1

  Westminster

  5

  34

  0

  4

  25

  0

  Outer London

  124

  636

  13

  177

  729

  4

  Barking and Dagenham

  8

  23

  0

  9

  10

  0

  Barnet

  9

  48

  0

  7

  48

  0

  Bexley

  8

  24

  1

  21

  58

  0

  Brent

  12

  45

  0

  12

  37

  0

  Bromley

  4

  21

  3

  10

  50

  1

  Croydon

  13

  74

  0

  28

  89

  1

  Ealing

  3

  22

  2

  5

  28

  0

  Enfield

  9

  64

  0

  14

  58

  0

  Greenwich

  8

  35

  0

  13

  26

  0

  Harrow

  5

  34

  0

  11

  57

  0

  Havering

  2

  32

  0

  4

  28

  0

  Hillingdon

  5

  40

  2

  15

  50

  0

  Hounslow

  9

  43

  0

  8

  40

  1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1

  14

  1

  1

  7

  0

  Merton

  6

  17

  0

  3

  29

  0

  Redbridge

  5

  20

  4

  6

  21

  1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2

  23

  0

  4

  27

  0

  Sutton

  0

  19

  0

  2

  22

  0

  Waltham Forest

  15

  38

  0

  6

  43

  0

  1328W

  1329W

  2001/023

  Pupils aged3

  4–11

  12–15

  16–18

  London

  291

  1,154

  11

  Inner London

  115

  372

  2

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  5

  23

  0

  Hackney

  15

  18

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  32

  Haringey

  4

  28

  0

  Islington

  2

  10

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  9

  0

  Lambeth

  11

  27

  0

  Lewisham

  21

  45

  0

  Newham

  13

  37

  0

  Southwark

  13

  37

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  36

  0

  Wandsworth

  18

  45

  Westminster

  3

  24

  0

  Outer London

  176

  782

  8

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  14

  0

  Barnet

  4

  49

  1

  Bexley

  11

  49

  0

  Brent

  6

  32

  0

  Bromley

  9

  74

  2

  Croydon

  29

  116

  0

  Ealing

  13

  51

  0

  Enfield

  8

  64

  0

  Greenwich

  23

  28

  0

  Harrow

  6

  62

  0

  Havering

  3

  37

  5

  Hillingdon

  12

  31

  0

  Hounslow

  15

  44

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2

  2

  0

  Merton

  3

  20

  0

  Redbridge

  7

  25

  0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  6

  25

  0

  Sutton

  5

  30

  0

  Waltham Forest

  3

  32

  0

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  3 Age as at 31 August at start of reference year.

  4 Estimates have been made for 2000/01 and 2001/02 because the exclusion data are known to be incomplete.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what records the Government keeps on the causes for school exclusions; and whether it lists them by category. [148095]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department started to collect data on the reasons for exclusions from summer term 2003. The first term's data are not yet available.

  Pupil/Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil/teacher ratio was for each local education authority for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1997. [148429]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils entered primary and secondary schools in each local education authority 1330W
  for the most recent year for which information is available; how many appeals against admissions there were; and what proportion of appeals were (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful. [149183]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The latest available information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  School Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office's strategy and delivery units on changes to the way funding may be allocated to schools; what work he has undertaken to review the basis of distributing funds directly to schools; and if he will place copies of the papers in the Library. [147146]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: On 29 October the Secretary of State announced the arrangements for school funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06. Every school is guaranteed a minimum increase in funding—4 per cent. in 2004–05and every LEA will receive at least a 5 per cent. funding increase that year. We expect LEAs to pass on funding increases to schools. We will continue to provide some direct grants from the Government to schools, in particular the Standards Fund, and allow schools to spend these funds more flexibly to meet their needs. These measures are designed to deliver stability and certainty for schools; this is our priority.

  The Government continues to keep funding arrangements under review in consultation with other departments.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities have made representations to ministers in his Department about school funding since October 2003. [148048]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received a wide range of representations from local education authorities and I, my ministerial colleagues and my officials have had discussions with many authorities both individually and collectively. The position on school funding was set out to the House on 29 October.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills at what level Government funding per pupil will be in each of the next 10 years. [148561]

  Mr. Miliband
  Funding per pupil is set to rise by £1,000 in real terms, from £2,810 in 1997 to £3,600 in 2003–04 to £3,850 in 2006.

  The level for 2006–07 and beyond will be determined by the outcome of future Spending Reviews.

  School Trips
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 8 January,Official Report, column 473W, on school trips, if he will assess the average annual costs to schools of covering the costs for pupils whose parents are unable to contribute to the costs of school trips; and if he will reimburse such costs to schools whose pupil profile has an above average number of children from families in receipt of state benefit. [149429]
  1331W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no plans to assess either the average annual costs to schools of covering the cost of school trips for parents unable to make a contribution, or for the Department to reimburse these costs.

  School-leavers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the total population left school without basic school leaving qualifications in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany. [147438]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The exact information requested is not available. The proportion of the population in each country that had failed to achieve qualifications at the level defined by the OECD as "upper secondary" by the ages shown is, however, as follows:

  Age Group

  25–64

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  France

  36

  22

  33

  42

  54

  Germany

  17

  15

  14

  17

  24

  UK

  37

  32

  35

  39

  45

  Source:

  Education at a Glance, 2003, OECD (derived from Table A1.2, page 41)

  "Upper secondary" is defined in the UK context as attaining five GCSEs at grades A*-C or an equivalent vocational qualification (for example, a GNVQ at foundation or intermediate level).

  Schools Voluntary Assistance Scheme
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made with his plans to encourage retired professionals to assist in schools on a voluntary basis; and what programmes are in place in the North East. [148319]

  Mr. Miliband
  Working through some of our national partners and contractors, such as the NCSL, TTA and Capita, we have encouraged the increased use of retired professionals, including teachers, with our plans for remodelling the school workforce and promoting 'Keeping in Touch' and 'Return to Teach' programmes. It is however up to local authorities and schools to determine their local needs for voluntary support staff. The Department does not collect centrally information about any such local programmes.

  More specifically, for those teachers who retired on ill-health grounds from the Teachers' Pension Scheme, regulations came into effect on 1 January 2004 (The Education Health Standards England Regulations 2003) which will enable such former teachers to be re-employed, or work on a voluntary basis, in the education sector in a non-teaching capacity.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circular documents that were sent by his Department to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools between (i) 1 September 2002 and
  1332W
  31 August 2003 and (ii) 1 January and 31 December 2003; how many were on teacher workload; and how many pages each document contained. [148559]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following pages show the documents that were sent in the period 1 September 2002 and 31 August 2003 to(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. In total 37 documents were sent to all primary schools and 41 documents were sent to all secondary schools. On teacher workload one document was sent to all primary schools and all secondary schools in the period 1 September 2002 and 31 August 2003. This document contained 32 pages.

  The following pages also show the documents that were sent in the period 1 September 2003 and 31 December 2003 to (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. In total 14 documents were sent to all primary schools and 20 documents were sent to all secondary schools. On teacher workload two documents were sent to all primary schools and secondary schools in this period. The total number of pages contained in these documents were three.

  Where a document has been sent to all primary and all secondary schools it will appear in the totals for both primary and secondary above. Details of each document and how many pages each contained have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many circular e-mails were sent by his Department to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools between (i) 1 September 2002 and 31 August 2003 and (ii) 1 January and 31 December 2003. [148560]

  Mr. Miliband
  During the period 1 September 2002 to 31 August 2003, three emails were sent to all primary schools and one to all secondary schools. During the period 1 September 2003 to 31 December 2003, five emails were sent to all primary schools and three to all secondary schools.

  Skills Shortages
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the resources required to address skills shortages in former coalfield areas. [147479]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This Department recognises the disparity between levels of necessary skills in particularly disadvantaged areas such as former coalfield areas and more affluent areas. It is addressing these issues through policies and targeted measures that focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning, tackling social exclusion and providing support to families and learners.

  "The Skills Strategy", published in July 2003, announced new resources for:
  creating a new entitlement to free learning for anyone without a good foundation of employability skills to get the training they need to achieve such a qualification (Level 2);
  providing targeted support for higher level skills at technician, higher craft or associate professional level. This support will be focused on those who are developing their skills and qualifications to Level 3, in priority areas to meet sectoral and regional skill needs. The support will be provided through the new regional skills partnerships, and planned and funded by the local Learning and Skills Councils;

  1333W
  piloting the delivery of a new learning grant for adults in further education. This will be modelled on the existing education maintenance allowance for 16 to 19-year-olds. It will be aimed at adults studying full-time for their first full Level 2 qualification, and young adults studying full-time for their first full Level 3 qualification. One of the areas it is being piloted in, from September, is South Yorkshire;
  safeguarding the provision in each local area of a wide range of learning for adults, for culture, leisure, community and personal fulfilment purposes. While giving priority to better work-related skills training, each local Learning and Skills Council will have funds to work with others to support that range of learning, including learning for pensioners;
  providing better information, advice and guidance on skills, training and qualifications, so that people know what is available, what the benefits are, and where to go. To achieve this, we will combine the network of local advice partnerships with the national advice helpline provided by Ufi/learndirect; and
  Learning Communities to tackle low adult aspiration and skills and intergenerational deprivation by making a specific but strong connection between the development of a communities skills base and the contribution that it can make to meeting the regional skills needs and priorities expressed by the FRESA. The goal is not just social improvement, vital though this is. Learning Communities will add value by raising regional prosperity and productivity through raising skills because this, in itself, is a powerful way of addressing social disadvantage.

  This Department also recognises the importance of coordinating its policies effectively to make an impact in deprived areas and is working with the LSC, RDA, local authorities and Coalfields organisations such as the Coalfield Communities Campaign (CCC) to achieve effective targeting and cohesion.

  We work with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), both nationally and with each of its 47 local offices, to ensure that education, skills and employment policies all come together sensibly in communities. We have ensured that local LSCs have the flexibility to allocate their resources where they are most needed so that they can make maximum impact in disadvantaged communities, and can draw on funding from elsewhere e.g. European Social Funding (ESF).

  The nine Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) help ensure, for example, that their Regeneration and Skills Development Funds are targeted to impact on Neighbourhood Renewal areas and can set aside specific funds to address basic skills needs in their regions.

  Sure Start
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Sure Start schemes are operating in England; and how many of these are community-led schemes. [145467]

  Margaret Hodge
  All 524 planned Sure Start local programmes are now operating, serving many of the most disadvantaged communities in England. All Sure Start programmes are 'community-led' through a partnership (made up of parents, community groups, and local representatives of voluntary and statutory organisations providing services to the families in the area) that designs the programme after consultation with families and workers in the area so that services reflect the needs of the community. These partnerships, in the main, have no legal status and are not 1334W
  incorporated bodies. One of the partner organisations must act as the 'accountable body' and take the legal responsibility for receiving the grant on behalf of the partnership. 86 programmes (16 per cent.) have non-statutory organisations as their accountable body, and of these, 16 (3 per cent.) are community groups or partnerships who have taken legal status for the purpose of running the programme.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of GCSE-equivalent qualifications were vocational in each year since 1997. [147439]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The percentage of pupils that achieved 5+ grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ with the help of vocational (GNVQ) qualifications since 1997 are shown in the table.

  Academic year

  Percentage of pupils who achieved 5 + A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ with the help of vocational qualifications

  1996/97

  0.2

  1997/98

  0.4

  1998/99

  0.6

  1999/2000

  0.8

  2000/01

  1.2

  2001/02

  2.7

  2002/03

  5.6

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reduce delays in processing council tax benefit claims. [148233]

  Mr. Pond
  Local authorities generally process council tax benefit claims alongside claims for housing benefit. We have already put in place a comprehensive programme of reforms to the administration of both these benefits; our immediate priority is to reduce delays in processing times and we are making good progress.

  As part of the 2002 Spending Review, the Department invested £200 million over three years in a standards fund to help local authorities fund improvements in the service. The priority for the first year of funding was improvement in the speed and accuracy of claims processing and the prevention and recovery of overpayments.

  The need for pensioners to make renewal claims for council tax benefit was abolished in October 2003 and renewal claims for working age claimants will be abolished from April 2004. Previously claims for council tax benefit were made for a set period of up to 60 weeks.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to relax restrictions on council tax benefit eligibility for pensioners who have modest savings; and if he will make a statement. [148239]
  1335W
  Mr. Pond
  With the introduction of pension credit on 6 October 2003, the upper capital limit of £16,000 has been abolished for those pensioners who receive the pension credit guarantee. The more generous income and savings rules in pension credit also apply to both housing benefit and council tax benefit. The rate at which money is deducted from benefit in respect of capital over £6,000 has also been halved, from £1 in every £250 to £1 in every £500. Around 1.9 million households stand to get more help, or help for the first time, with their council tax as a result of the introduction of pension credit.

  Additionally, we are abolishing the council tax benefit restriction from 1 April 2004; this currently restricts the maximum amount of council tax benefit for people living in properties in council tax bands F, G or H to the maximum amount payable for a band E property. Pensioners will, of course, be among those people who benefit from this change.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to give the pension service overall responsibility for raising the take-up of council tax benefit in partnership with organisations working directly with pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [148240]

  Mr. Pond
  Promoting the take-up of council tax benefit is the statutory duty of local authorities. However we are keen to ensure that all pensioners entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming this. In particular, we want to ensure that the 1.9 million pensioners who gain, or gain more, council tax benefit on the introduction of pension credit get the extra help to which they are entitled.

  We are therefore actively pursuing ways of supporting local authorities in their duty to promote awareness of council tax benefit. Many authorities already have well developed take up strategies and we want to support these, and other authorities, to ensure that more pensioners on low income are receiving the help to which they are entitled.

  The pension service are inviting claims for council tax benefit when an application for pension credit is made, and we recently introduced a shortened claim form for pensioners applying for the benefit to make their claim easier. Everyone who calls the pension credit application line and wishes to apply for housing/council tax benefit is issued with a form.

  The local service is also working with partner organisations, including local authorities, to help reach the most vulnerable pensioners. During visits to pensioners in the local community or their homes advice on entitlement is provided and help offered to complete application forms.

  The Third Age Programme is also joining up existing service providers to offer a "whole person" service to pensioners. Joint teams (consisting of both local authority and pension service staff) are already up and running in nine local authority areas in the southwest and plan to roll these teams out nationally over the next two years.
  1336W
  The Third Age Programme are also working with the voluntary sector to help reinforce messages about take-up and funding has been provided to support innovative pilots to increase the take-up of benefits including council tax benefit.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to what extent, and for what reason he has agreed to delegate decisions over the level of housing benefit or council tax benefit to the Scottish Executive. [149645]

  Mr. Pond
  Although housing policy and local government finance are areas of devolved responsibility that interact closely with housing benefit and council tax benefit, responsibility for decisions over the level of housing benefit and council tax benefit remains with the UK Government at Westminster.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff responsible for detection of benefit fraud have been employed by his Department in each year since 1997, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [147817]

  Mr. Pond
  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system that is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means than an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments.

  The information currently available suggests that around 5,000 staff are employed nationally at any one time by the Department and its agencies in work to investigate suspicions of fraud.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to produce United Kingdom estimates of housing benefit fraud and error for 2002–03. [147827]

  Mr. Pond
  For Great Britain, we published "Fraud and Error in Housing Benefit, April 2002 to March 2003" on 11 December 2003; a copy will be placed in the Library. Social security matters in Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been convicted of benefit fraud twice within three years since 1997; how many of these have had their benefit(a) reduced and (b) withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [148242]

  Mr. Pond
  Records of second convictions before 'Two Strikes' legislation came into effect on 1 April 2002 are not available. This provision cannot be applied retrospectively and applies only to people who have committed, and then been convicted of, two separate benefit offences after that date.

  To date, 23 people have been convicted of benefit fraud against the Department on two or more occasions. Sanctions have been applied to 11 of these cases, five of which have had their benefit reduced, and a further six have had their benefit withdrawn. A further 10 individuals are not currently in receipt of benefit. Additionally, a further two individuals are due to have their benefits withdrawn after the appeal period allowed has lapsed.
  1337W
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners were in receipt of(a) full and (b) partial council tax benefit in Huntingdon in each of the last three financial years. [146446]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available. At August 2003, there were 3,700 people aged 60 or over receiving Council Tax Benefit in Huntingdonshire, of which 2,100 people were also in receipt of Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance (income-based).

  Notes:

  Data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  Totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Information is available for August 2003 only.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit quarterly 100 per cent. count.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the uptake of council tax benefit in Wirral South. [147841]

  Mr. Pond
  At August 2003, there were 33,900 people receiving council tax benefit (CTB) in the area covered by Wirral local authority.

  Estimates of CTB take-up in Wirral South are not available. Statistics on the take-up of income-related benefits are available on a national basis only, and are published in the DWP report entitled "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up"; copies of the publication series can be found in the Library.

  I announced a campaign to further support local authorities in their statutory duty to promote take-up of council tax benefit on 15 December 2003, Official Report, column 25WS.

  Notes:

  The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  The figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit management information system, quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count.

  Care Direct
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the Care Direct pilots. [149789]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The six Care Direct pilots taking place in the south west will conclude at the end of March 2004. We are in the early stages of evaluating these pilots. This research is being done by the Personal Social Services Research Unit (University of Kent) and their report will inform a Lessons Learned document to be produced in April 2004.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed disability living allowance for the financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, broken down by disability living allowance band. [147333]
  1338W
  Maria Eagle
  People claim for disability living allowance as a whole rather than for any particular part of it. Figures for the total number of claims and the number of awards, broken down by particular components, are shown in the following table.

  Number of new disability living allowance claims and awards each year

  Thousand

  2002–03

  2001–02

  Number of claims1

  407.8

  433.3

  All awards2

  252.8

  264.8

  Higher Rate Care and Higher Mobility

  36.7

  38.0

  Higher Rate Care Lower Rate Mobility

  14.4

  15.8

  Higher Rate Care only

  11.9

  12.4

  Middle Rate Care and Higher Rate Mobility

  24.7

  26.8

  Middle Rate Care and Lower Rate Mobility

  26.8

  28.9

  Middle Rate Care only

  20.6

  20.4

  Lower Rate Care and Higher Rate Mobility

  29.9

  29.1

  Lower Rate Care and Lower Rate Mobility

  14.6

  15.0

  Lower Rate Care only

  34.5

  37.6

  Higher Rate Mobility

  29.1

  31.0

  Lower Rate Mobility

  9.6

  9.8

  Notes:

  The figures for the number of claims and the number of awards for each year are drawn from different sources and are not comparable.

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  A small number of people have more than one award in the year. These people a re counted more than once as the table shows awards.

  Source:

  100 per cent. MIS data. Figures are for financial years

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample. The figures are for the number of awards at May and are closest to the financial years.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to reduce the complexity of the application process for disability living allowance. [148493]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability and Carers Service acknowledges that the claiming process for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) needs to be simplified and has been running a number of initiatives designed to improve the service to customers.

  A shorter DLA postal claim form based around the revised Attendance Allowance (AA) claim form introduced nationally on 6 October 2003 is being tested. The new DLA postal form has 23 pages and is considerably shorter than the existing claim form. The results from the first three full months of testing are currently being collated and a revised claim form is expected to be produced later this year.

  Internet based claim forms for DLA and AA are also under development following the E claim form for Carers Allowance that was launched in December 2003. These should also be available later this year.

  Since November 2002, a new interactive claiming process has been trialled in Glasgow Disability Benefits Centre. Customers who request a claim form by telephone are directed to a customer claim advisor who asks some preliminary questions to establish the broad basis of the claim. A tailored claim form is then produced by the computer system that supports the process and forwarded to the customer for completion.

  1339W
  The form generated is a maximum of 18 pages, considerably shorter than the existing 47 page form. The results of this trial and the clerical claim form tests will inform the further modernisation of the processing of Disability Benefits.

  Incapacity Benefit Appeals
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many incapacity benefit appeal cases processed by the social security office in Dundee in the last year it has taken more than two months to reach a decision on whether to challenge appeal tribunal decisions; and what percentage of the total cases dealt with in that period this represents. [148747]

  Maria Eagle
  During 2003 there were three cases dealt with by Dundee incapacity benefit section that took more than two months to decide whether to challenge the appeal tribunal decision. This represents 0.45 per cent. of the total cases dealt with by the section in 2003.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to re-consider the upper limit on the Independent Living Fund; and what implications this has for clients in need of highly complex care packages. [148273]

  Maria Eagle
  Following the recommendations of the Quinquennial Review of the Independent Living Funds in December 2001 it was agreed that the upper limit should be reviewed by the trustees of the fund every two years. In April 2002 the limit was raised from £625 to £665 per week and the trustees are currently again reviewing the limit.

  Local authorities have primary responsibility for community care provision and the Independent Living Funds supplement that role. Irrespective of the amount of the upper limit of Independent Living Funds assistance, local authorities can fund care for disabled people with high cost support packages.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the dismissal of 350 temporary staff by Jobcentre Plus London Region in February and March, with particular reference to the number who were re-employed by Jobcentre Plus within 13 weeks of their dismissal on(a) temporary contracts and (b) permanent contracts; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for their dismissal. [145351]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Andrew Dismore, dated 21 January 2004:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning re-employment of temporary staff within 13 weeks in London whose contracts of employment ended in February and March 2003. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  1340W
  Of the 350 staff on temporary contracts who left employment with Jobcentre Plus during February and March 2003, two people were re-employed within 13 weeks of the end of their temporary contract, one on a permanent contract and one on a new temporary contract.
  Jobcentre Plus employs temporary staff specifically to fill short-term needs. This may be for a variety of reasons, for example to help manage peaks of work or to facilitate the release of staff for training during the rollout of the integrated Jobcentre Plus service. Any temporary employees ending their employment in February/ March 03 were released as their contracts had ended and the services/roles for which they were engaged had also finished.
  While there will be an on-going need to employ a small percentage of temporary staff for the reasons I have set out above, it remains the intention in London to reduce reliance on temporary employees and to recruit and maintain a stable permanent workforce.
  I hope this is helpful and clarifies matters.

  Low-income Families
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the equivalent thresholds to the absolute low income threshold of £210 per week for a couple with one child under 16 published in Measuring Child Poverty, of December 2003 are for(a) a couple with two children, (b) a couple with three children, (c) a couple with four children, (d) a lone parent with two children, (e) a lone parent with three children and (f) a lone parent with four children. [147423]

  Mr. Pond
  To measure whether the poorest families are seeing their incomes rise in real terms, we will monitor the number of children living in families with incomes below a particular threshold, which is adjusted for inflation. The level for a couple with one child under 14 published in Measuring Child Poverty is fixed as equal to our absolute low income threshold for the baseline year of 1998–99 expressed in today's prices.

  Equivalent information for different family types is in the table.

  Number of children under 14

  £ per week

  Lone parents

  1

  153

  2

  188

  3

  223

  4

  259

  Couples

  1

  212

  2

  247

  3

  282

  4

  317

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1.

  2. The £210 figure published in "Measuring child poverty" was rounded to the nearest £10. The amount for a couple with one child is presented here as £212, is rounded to the nearest £1 to allow clearer comparison to other family types.

  3. Figures were arrived at using the current prices (mid year 2003–04) cash equivalent for these family types of the 1998–99 60 per cent. median income level, before housing costs and using the OECD Modified equalisation scale.

  New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have gained sustained, unsubsidised employment on(a) their first time, (b) their second time and (c) their third or more

  1341W
  time on the New Deal for Young People programme; what these figures represent as a proportion of the total number gaining sustained unsubsidised employment on the programme; and if he will make a statement; [148243]

  (2) how many people have gained sustained unsubsidised employment on (a) their first time, (b) their second time and (c) their third or more time on the New Deal 25plus programme; what these figures represent as a proportion of the total number gaining sustained unsubsidised employment on the programme; and if he will make a statement. [148244]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table.

  People into sustained1, unsubsidised employment

  Number of times on the programme

  Number

  Percentage

  New Deal for Young People

  Once

  298,550

  80.5

  Twice

  60,450

  16.3

  Three or more times

  12,090

  3.3

  New Deal 25 plus

  Once

  87,110

  81.6

  Twice

  15,370

  14.4

  Three or more times

  4,340

  4.l

  Note:

  1. Employment is classed as sustained if no claim for Jobseeker's Allowance is made within 13 weeks.

  2. Figures are to the end of September 2003.

  3. Percentages do not sum to exactly 100 per cent due to rounding.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate

  The New Deals have been successful in helping nearly one million people into work including more than 460,000 people thorough New Deal for Young People and nearly 165,000 people through New Deal 25 Plus.

  In a dynamic labour market, it is inevitable that some people will re-experience unemployment after leaving New Deal, however, the skills and experience they acquire after finding work through the programme will make it easier for them to find employment in the future.

  We have also introduced other measures to help people facing additional barriers to work, for example the StepUP pilots, which build on the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus by providing transitional jobs for those who have not secured sustained employment through New Deal.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have benefited from the New Deal in Chorley since 1998. [149167]

  Mr. Browne
  The New Deals have been successful in helping nearly 1 million people into work, including 1,410 people in the Chorley constituency. Information on numbers helped into work by each New Deal programme is in the table.

  Programme1

  People gaining a job

  New Deal for Young People

  540

  New Deal 25 plus

  180

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  480

  New Deal 50 plus2

  210

  Note:

  1. All figures are up to the end of September 2003 apart from New Deal 50 plus which is up to the end of March 2003.
  1342W
  2. People in receipt of the New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit.

  3. Information on the other New Deals is not available broken down by constituency.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the implications of recent and proposed EU Directives on funding levels in occupational pension schemes for pension provision in the United Kingdom. [149172]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The impact of all Directives relevant to occupational pensions are assessed with regard to the impact on business including any costs they may impose, although additional costs may not directly impact on the funding of a scheme. Such assessments are set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessments that are published with the legislative measures which implement the requirements of these Directives.

  The Directive on the Activities and Supervision of Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provisions contains Articles which directly relate to funding and we have recently consulted on its implementation in the UK. We are currently considering those consultation responses but believe our proposed reforms of funding arrangements, as set out in 'Action on occupational pensions' (Cm5835) are broadly compatible with the requirements of the Directive.

  Direct Payment
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Angus constituency have changed their method of receiving payment of their retirement pension from pension book to direct payment into bank account in each of the last six months. [147462]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, information available is supplied in the table. The table shows the breakdown of pensioners (women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over) in the Angus constituency that have changed their state pension method of payment from pension book to direct payment into a bank account in the last six months broken down into periods available.

  More pensioners in the Angus constituency are now paid directly into an account than by Order Book.

  Number of pensioners changing their state pension method of payment from pension book to direct payment into an account

  Number

  14 June-26 July 2003

  73

  26 July-6 September 2003

  151

  6 September-25 October 2003

  177

  25 October-29 November 2003

  250

  Total

  651

  Note:

  An account includes bank, building society or Post Office card account

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, Information & Analysis Directorate (100 per cent. sample).
  1343W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Angus constituency received their retirement pension by means of(a) pension book and (b) direct payment into a bank account as at 1 January. [147463]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available for the date requested.

  However, the table shows the breakdown of pensioners (women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over) in the Angus constituency that received their state pension by means of pension book and direct payment into a bank account, at 29 November 2003, which is most recent data available:

  More pensioners in the Angus constituency are now paid directly into an account than by order book.

  Method of payment

  Number of pensioners

  Pension book

  5,751

  Direct payment into an account

  8,315

  Total

  14,066

  Note:

  An account includes bank, building society or Post Office card account

  Source:

  Benefit

  Accounts paid by Direct Payment into a bank or building society account

  Accounts paid by Direct Payment into a Card Account at the Post Office

  Accounts paid by order book

  Accounts paid by other methods

  Working age benefits

  Jobseeker's allowance (JSA)

  373,931

  17,891

  0

  377,609

  Income support (IS)

  648,895

  39,515

  1,454,416

  37,222

  Incapacity benefit (IB)

  583,742

  15,931

  674,821

  11,743

  Severe disablement allowance (SDA)

  43,045

  1,035

  70,296

  5,432

  Industrial injuries (II)

  152,837

  9,073

  277,035

  0

  Widow's benefit (WB)

  86,549

  1,137

  77,591

  270

  Bereavement benefit (BB)

  32,807

  91

  11,116

  13

  Working age benefits total

  1,921,806

  84,673

  2,565,276

  432,289

  Disability and Carer Benefits Directorate

  Disability living allowance (DLA)

  1,052,318

  14,992

  1,029,434

  87

  Attendance allowance (AA)

  356,014

  1,780

  169,633

  107

  Carer's allowance (CA)

  111,001

  405

  298,086

  0

  Disability and carer benefits directorate total

  1,519,333

  17,177

  1,497,153

  194

  Pensioners

  State pension

  5,048,649

  68,665

  4,025,027

  45,527

  Pension credit

  562,249

  4,754

  1,478,766

  10,242

  Pensioners total

  5,610,898

  73,419

  5,503,793

  55,769

  Grand total

  9,052,037

  175,269

  9,566,221

  488,252

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to a snapshot of live accounts in payment on the following dates:

  Income support—28 November 2003

  Jobseeker's allowance—28 November 2003

  Industrial injuries—21 November 2003

  Pensions (state pension, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, widow's benefit, bereavement benefit)—29 November 2003

  Attendance allowance—15 November 2003

  Disability living allowance—15 November 2003

  Carer's allowance—30 June 2003

  Pension credit—14 November 2003 (rated to end November)

  Carer's allowance—30 June 2003

  Pension credit—14 November 2003 (rated to end November)

  2. Please note this is payload and not caseload therefore if a claimant is receiving more than one benefit e.g. pension credit (PC) and state pension (SP) but only receives one combined payment through the PC system they will only be shown as having a pension credit account and not a SP account.

  3. Figures quoted are for GB only.
  1344W
  DWP Information Centre, Information & Analysis Directorate (100 per cent. sample).

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to how many pension and benefit claimants his Department will write to invite them to move to direct payment. [149181]

  Mr. Pond
  We are in the process of issuing approximately 14.25 million invitations for pension and benefit customers to move to direct payment. We are making good progress and have so far issued almost 60 per cent. of these invitations.

  Key figures on the progress of conversion to direct payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) working age benefits, (b) disability and carers' benefit, (c) retirement pension, (d) child benefit and (e) war pensions claimants are paid by (i) direct payment into a bank or building society account, (ii) direct payment into a post office card account, (iii) order book and (iv) other methods. [145975]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 6 January 2004]: The figures in the table have been compiled from data available on 29 November 2003.
  1345W
  4. The Post Office Card Account has only been available since 1 April 2003. The numbers of customers being paid into a Post Office card account are expected to increase in the coming months as 20 week order books begin to expire and customers begin to receive payment direct into their card accounts.

  5. Many bank and Building Society accounts allow access to cash at Post Offices, for benefits and pension customers who wish to collect their payment this way.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, Information & Analysis Directorate (100 per cent. sample).

  War pensions and child benefit accounts are not included in the reply because they are now the responsibility of Ministry of Defence and Inland Revenue respectively.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension and benefit claimants who were sent letters inviting them to move to direct payment have indicated that they cannot open or operate a bank account or Post Office card account; and what assessment his Department has made of the number of people who will use the exceptions service method of payment. [146746]

  Mr. Pond
  Research has shown that 87 per cent. of all our customers and 90 per cent. of pensioners already have an account suitable for Direct Payment.

  Almost three and a half million customers have provided their bank account details, and around two million have requested a Post Office card account. However information on the number of customers replying that they could not specifically open or operate a bank or Post Office card account is not available in this format.

  We will be further contacting all customers who continue to be paid by order book. Any customers, who cannot open or operate a bank account before order books are no longer available in 2005, will be paid by another method. In the meantime they will continue to receive their payments by order book.

  We have always recognised that there will be a small number of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. Our plan is to design an exceptions method of payment to properly meet the needs of these customers. Detailed arrangements for this method of payment are not finalised yet, but it is likely that it will be a cheque-based solution. Payment outlets will include Post Office branches.

  The move to Direct Payment is progressing well. Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice he is offering to local authority social services departments on direct payments with a view to encouraging each authority to adopt a clear strategy on take-up. [148272]

  Mr. Pond
  We have discussed the move to direct payment widely with customer representative groups including Local Government Association representatives.

  The Department's primary objective continues to be to pay benefit and pensions direct into the chosen account of every customer who is able to manage their own affairs, or into a third party account nominated by the customer.
  1346W
  Customers are supplied directly with information that clearly sets out their account options and enables them to decide which account is right for them.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls to the Pension Credit Helpline since April were completed with a successful claim of the Pension Credit. [146040]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Between 7 April and 31 December 2003 the Pension Credit application line received approximately 1.84 million calls. By 31 December approximately 590,000 application forms had been returned to Pension Centres since the start of the campaign and approximately 377,000 had already been successful. Not all applications for Pension Credit originate from a call to the application line. Customers can obtain paper application forms in a number of ways, for example by returning a tear-off slip or through one of the external organisations with whom we are working at local level.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Buckingham constituency(a) have applied for, (b) are eligible for and (c) have received the pension credit in 2003. [149189]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 31 December 2003 there were 1,666 pensioner households (2,007 individuals) in the Buckingham constituency receiving pension credit. Information on the number of people who have applied for or are eligible for pension credit is not available in respect of individual constituencies. However, we estimate that approximately 350,000 pensioner households in the South East region are eligible for pension credit.

  Pensioners (Hemsworth)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Hemsworth constituency receive benefits at the Post Office. [145918]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of Pensioners in the Hemsworth constituency receiving at least one benefit which can be collected at the Post Office is 10,911. This information has been compiled from data available on 29 November 2003.

  War Pensions accounts are not included in this reply as they are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

  Poverty
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on poverty levels in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in the last five years. [145682]

  Mr. Pond
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex and multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of peoples' lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of their environment and not just low
  1347W
  income. The fifth annual 'Opportunity for all' report (Cm 5956) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the many different indicators used to measure progress against this strategy.

  The Scottish Executive also publish their own annual report on poverty and social exclusion. The latest of which, 'Social Justice…a Scotland where everyone matters' sets out their long term strategy for tackling poverty in Scotland.

  Specific information regarding low income for Great Britain is available in 'Households Below Average Income 1994–95—2001–02'.

  All publications listed are available in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications were made by lone parents to the Social Fund in England in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what proportion of those applications were successful. [144485]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of decisions made on Social Fund applications from lone parents in England for December 2002 to November 2003

  Application type

  Decisions

  Proportion of decisions which were successful (per cent.)

  Community Care Grant

  117,900

  43.7

  Budgeting Loan

  572,100

  79.8

  Crisis Loan

  185,400

  79.3

  Sure Start Maternity Grant

  63,600

  89.3

  Funeral Payment

  4,200

  Not available

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available on the total number of applications made by lone parents.

  2. Data refer to initial decisions only and do not include review decisions or awards made after review.

  3. The numbers of decisions have been rounded to the nearest 100 and the proportions of decisions which were successful to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional expenditure resulting from large scale voluntary transfers and the formation of arm's length management organisations for council housing has been incurred on housing benefit previously paid out of housing revenue accounts on a cumulative basis in each year since 1997. [147224]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available. To determine such a figure would require detailed assumptions about the rents each authority might theoretically have charged had it retained the stock.1348W
  However, the potential impact on housing benefit where stock is transferred to registered social landlords is considered as part of the overall value-for-money assessment of transfers.

  Stock managed by an arms length management organisation (ALMO) remains owned by the council and subject to national rent restructuring policy. The formation of an ALMO does not therefore affect rent levels or housing benefit entitlement.

  Third Age Service
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress his Department have made in respect of the Third Age Service. [149788]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions is in the early stages of developing a Third Age Service which is seen as a network of service providers providing improved access to a range of more integrated services. In this respect, we are working with partners, in particular the Partnerships Against Poverty Group and the Third Age Working Group which DWP chair and which include representatives from Age Concern, Help the Aged, Better Government for Older people and other key stakeholders.

  We have already made progress in developing the main aspects of a third age service e.g. Joint Financial Assessment & Benefit Teams with local authorities. Experience and research evidence indicate that this is the right approach to integrated services. Already, nine joint teams are operational and plans are in place to roll out nationally over the next two years.

  This, together with the work we are doing to enable partner organisations to take benefit claims and verify evidence (on which guidance has been issued), and the work on the Partnership Fund (which will be published in spring this year) shows that we are already delivering on the Government's Manifesto commitment which was 'to build on Care Direct to provide integration of health, housing, benefits and social care for older people'. We await the Lessons Learned report on Care Direct pilots (April 2004) before developing further building blocks.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the winter fuel payment to severely disabled people under 60. [149097]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Help is already available through disability benefits and the disability premium in Income Support in recognition of the extra costs, including heating, which disabled people may have. There are no plans to extend the winter fuel payment scheme to disabled people under age 60.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Building Regulations
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he has collated on the ways in which other EU governments intend to implement Article 7.3 of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. [149365]
  1349W
  Phil Hope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 723W.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to report on the review of Part M of the Building Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [149611]

  Phil Hope
  The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2692), which amend the non-domestic elements of Part M of the Building Regulations, were laid before Parliament on 27 October 2003 and come into force on 1 May 2004. The revised Approved Document M (2004 Edition), which gives guidance on the application of the amended Regulations, was published on 5 November 2004 and announced in a press release from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003/0229).

  Fire Services
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans there are to replace green goddesses with more up-to-date firefighting equipment. [149060]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering alternatives to the green goddess (reserve) fleet. Drawing down the lessons from recent experiences, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to have in place appropriate and effective emergency firefighting capabilities.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the newly-appointed Chief Executive of Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, will be in post. [149055]

  Phil Hope
  An open competition to appoint a new chief executive will be announced shortly. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to make a permanent appointment by early summer.

  Government Office for London
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much Government money was distributed by the Government Office for London in each year since 1999–2000; and what is forecast to be distributed in 2003–04. [149601]

  Yvette Cooper
  Government Office for London (GOL) Programme expenditure is as follows:

  £ million

  Programme expenditure

  1999–2000

  2,202

  2000–01

  1,605

  2001–02

  2,094

  2002–03

  2,530

  2003–04

  2,689

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the running costs of the Government Office for London were in each year since 1999–2000; and what the forecast is for 2003–04. [149602]

  Yvette Cooper
  Government Office for London (GOL) running cost expenditure is as follows:
  1350W

  £ million

  1999–2000

  16.0

  2000–01

  13.2

  2001–02

  13.2

  2002–03

  14.1

  2003–04

  16.6

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff were employed by the Government Office for London in each year since 1999–2000; and how many are forecast to be employed in 2003–04. [149603]

  Yvette Cooper
  Approximate full time equivalent posts from April 2000 are as follows:

  Number

  April 2000

  370

  April 2001

  240

  April 2002

  260

  April 2003

  288

  The forecast for 2003–04 is 310.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the projects managed by the Government Office for London in 2003–04. [149604]

  Yvette Cooper
  Programmes managed by Government Office for London (GOL) in 2003–04:

  Community Chest

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Community Learning Chest

  Public Order and Community Cohesion

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  Estate Action

  Greater London Authority General Grant

  Greater London Authority Preparation Costs

  Housing Action Trusts

  Housing Investment Programme (HIP)

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Neighbourhood Renewal—Skills and Knowledge

  New Deal for Communities

  Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  Street Wardens

  Street Crime Wardens

  European Regional Development Fund (Objective 2)

  Greater London Authority Transport Grant

  Sustainable Development Publicity Budget

  Community Champions

  Community Champions Pathfinders

  Connexions Grant Funding

  Connexions (Drugs Education)

  Positive Action for Young People

  Transforming Youth Work (Development Funding)

  Special Educational Needs/Disability Act

  Vocational and Work Related Learning

  Learning Partnership Networking

  London Development Agency Grants

  New and Renewable Sources of Energy

  European Structural Fund (ESF) Objective 2

  1351W

  European Structural Fund (ESF) Objective 3

  Anti Social Behaviour Fund

  Basic Command Unit Fund

  Building Safer Communities Fund

  Communication Funding

  Gun Crime

  Home Office Directors' Allocation Fund

  Neighbourhood Renewal Capacity Building Fund

  Drugs Team Strategic Grant

  Recovered Assets Fund

  Time Limited Development Fund

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas

  Vehicle Crime

  Violence Against Women

  Housing (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the difference is between the housing capital allocation for local authorities in(a) Yorkshire and (b) Humberside for 2005–06 and 2004–05; what the basis is of the new allocations; what account they take of (i) the state of the stock, (ii) decent housing targets and (iii) repair backlogs; and how any money still to be allocated is to be made available. [149220]

  Yvette Cooper
  £76.110 million is being allocated to Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities for 2004–05 from the Single Regional Housing Pot, and £81.059 million for 2005–06. Resources for 2004–05 are fully allocated. £22.555 million remains to be allocated for 2005–06. Allocations made to date to authorities in(a) Yorkshire and (b) Humberside are as follows:

  £ million

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Yorkshire

  63.413

  48.896

  Humberside

  12.697

  9.608

  Allocations for both years comprise a formulaic element (fully allocated) plus the outcome of Regional Housing Board (RHB) commissioning of proposals for private sector renewal, low demand (in specified areas), and 'transformational proposals' (2005–06 only). Proposals for the remaining resources have been commissioned, and will be considered by the Board at meetings up to September 2004.

  Stock condition is an element in the indicator used for the formulaic element. Additionally, decent homes were taken into account through a Government Office survey of expenditure commitments.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with additional information.

  Liveability Fund
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities which have been successful in bidding for the Government's Liveability Fund; and what criteria were used to determine which authorities were successful. [148727]

  Yvette Cooper
  The 27 Liveability Fund pilots will be announced early next month.
  1352W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's key selection criteria sought to secure a good regional balance (i.e. three pilots per region) and a cross-section of local authorities in terms of:
  urban, rural, suburban and coastal location; and
  levels of achievement in the Comprehensive Performance Assessments (where appropriate).

  It also sought to ensure a range of areas with very different levels of deprivation, but with a greater number of local authorities in deprived areas, reflecting the higher incidence of poor quality spaces there.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many tenants of registered social landlords there are(a) in England. (b) in each housing authority area and (c) in each region. [148732]

  Yvette Cooper
  As at 31 March 2003:

  (a) The estimated number of RSL tenancies in England was 1,684,500.

  (b) The estimated number of tenancies by Government Office Region were as shown in the following table:

  Government Office Region

  Total occupied RSL stock

  North East

  98,500

  North West

  294,300

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  116,000

  East Midlands

  94,900

  West Midlands

  213,700

  East

  154,300

  London

  303,300

  South East

  253,300

  South West

  156,200

  England

  1,684,500

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  Source:

  Primarily the Housing Corporation's Regulatory and Statistical Return for 2003 but with minor adjustments to reflect two late transfers of stock within the local authority areas of North Hertfordshire and Forest of Dean.

  (c) The numbers for local authorities (housing authority areas) are available in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Operation Global Mercury
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what lessons have been learned from Operation Global Mercury; whether identified failings have been addressed; and if he will make a statement. [147539]

  Mr. Hutton
  The evaluation report and a summary are available on the Department of Health website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/exerciseglobalmercury/ index.htm, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Work is underway to implement all of the recommendations identified in the report.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the vacancy(a) rates and (b) numbers for NHS ambulance staff, broken down by grade, in (i) England and (ii) each ambulance service in each of the last six years; [147934]

  (2) how many ambulance staff have been employed in the NHS in (a) England and (b) each ambulance service for each of the last six years, broken down by grade. [147935]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number and rate of vacancies lasting three months or more in each year since 1999, the first year the data was collected centrally, and the number of ambulance staff employed in the national health service since 1996 has been placed in the Library.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the guidelines given to NHS trusts in reporting cancelled operations, with particular reference to guidelines on the use of stand-by lists of patients who may be operated on that day if capacity allows; [146338]

  (2) what proportion of hours per week operating theatres were used on average in (a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each NHS trust, in the latest week for which figures are available; [146341]

  (3) what research his Department has commissioned on links between ward bed availability and cancellation of scheduled operation lists. [146342]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on reporting last minute cancelled operations is made available to the national health service through the Department of Health NHS web. A copy has been placed in the Library. No national guidance exists on the use of stand-by lists. The operation of stand-by lists is a matter for individual NHS trusts in consultation with their commissioners.

  In addition, the Modernisation Agency's operating theatre and pre-operative assessment programme is supporting NHS trusts to implement good practice guidance on tackling cancelled operations and effective utilisation of operating theatres.

  The programme has published good practice such as the "Step Guide to Improving Operating Theatre Performance" published in June 2002 which sets out four key steps, or stages, to improving operating theatre performance and reducing cancelled operations. It contains diagnostic tools and common sense, practical solutions for trusts to increase theatre utilisation and improve patient care.

  Information on the usage of operating theatres is not collected centrally by the Department.

  As part of a larger project, the Department of Health commissioned York University to carry out some modelling of bed occupancy. Findings from the study were published in the BMJ: "Dynamics of bed use in accommodating emergency admissions: stochastic simulation model"—Adrian Bagust et at BMJ vol. 319, 17 July 1999, pages 155–158, a copy of which has also been placed in the Library.
  1354W
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rules relating to the time of cancellation for acute hospital trusts to record operations as cancelled for non-clinical reasons. [147189]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health collects data on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons (i) at the last minute (that is, on the day patients are due to arrive, or after arrival in hospital, or on the day of their operation), and (ii) the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of a 'last minute' cancellation as part of the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee.

  The NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee introduced in April 2002, states if a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days, or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

  Care Homes
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of elderly patients in care and residential homes who are(a) malnourished and (b) assessed as being at risk of becoming malnourished; [147313]

  (2) if he will introduce mandatory screening for malnutrition for people in care homes; and if he will make a statement. [147314]

  Dr. Ladyman
  According to the "National Diet and Nutrition Survey: people aged 65 years and over", published in 1998, 16 per cent. of men and 15 per cent. of women living in care homes were classified as underweight. The more recent Health Survey for England 2000 gave figures of 8 per cent. for men and 11 per cent. for women. In both cases, underweight was defined as a person with a body mass index of less than 20. We do not have figures estimating people at risk of becoming malnourished.

  We have no plans to introduce mandatory screening for malnutrition for people in care homes. A number of measures and strategies are in place to manage, monitor and screen people for under nutrition in care homes. Before going into a home every resident should have a detailed needs assessment. This includes nutrition and screening for malnutrition. The assessment should be revised at regular intervals. The home should draw up a care plan for each resident based on his or her needs assessment. The care plan should be reviewed at least once a month to monitor changes in the resident's needs.

  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) regulates care homes in accordance with statutory regulations and national minimum standards to ensure they provide for the needs of their residents. The Care Homes Regulations require homes to provide adequate quantities of suitable, wholesome and nutritious food for service users; and to maintain records of the food provided for service users in sufficient detail to enable inspectors to determine whether the diet is satisfactory, in relation to nutrition and otherwise. Standard 19 of the national standards for care homes for older people sets out what care homes are expected to do to ensure

  1355W
  residents are properly fed. This includes giving people assistance with eating where necessary. The NCSC will take swift action where it has concerns about the welfare of residents.

  Dentistry
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the change in full-time equivalents in post in the dental workforce as a result of early retirement was in each year since 1990. [147501]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information shown in the table from the NHS Pensions Agency is for the number of pensions awarded where a national health service pension has been claimed prior to the scheme's normal retirement age. These will include pensions paid on the grounds of ill health, premature retirements following redundancy and voluntary early retirement before age 60 (introduced from 6 March 1995). Since 1997, the number of dentists working in the NHS general dental service (GDS) in England has increased from 16,728 to 18,500, but dentists can vary the amount of dental work they do and the proportion carried out in the GDS.

  Early retirement of dentists

  Total dentist pension awards

  1997

  197

  1998

  179

  1999

  161

  2000

  152

  2001

  191

  2002

  173

  2003

  170

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees were expelled in each of the last five years. [148945]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which inspectorate (1)(a) has responsibility and (b) will have responsibility after 1 April for (i) registering and (ii) inspecting independent diagnostic and treatment centres; [148681]

  (2) how clinical governance in independent diagnostic and treatment centres will be (a) inspected and (b) audited. [148683]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: Currently, the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) has responsibility, under the Care Standards Act 2000, for registering and inspecting independent treatment centres in England against the National Minimum Standards and Regulations issued by the Secretary of State in February 2002.

  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) also has powers, under the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002, to inspect the clinical governance arrangements of treatment centres providing healthcare for national health service bodies.
  1356W
  From 1 April 2004, responsibility for these functions will transfer from the NCSC and CHI to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI, under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. CHAI will also publish an annual report to Parliament on the state of healthcare, which will include a section on what it has found as the registration authority of independent health care providers.

  E-auction
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what further plans he has for the use of e-auction as a method of purchasing clinically prescribed equipment in the NHS [R]; [149051]

  (2) what plans he has to regulate the use of e-auction by NHS bodies.[R] [149052]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: E-auctions have been used extensively in the private sector and have resulted in significant savings.

  The national health service Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) is conducting pilot e-auctions to establish if they will provide best value for money for the NHS and in which areas they are most effective.

  Five e-auctions had been carried out up to the end of December 2003, which had resulted in savings to the NHS of £16 million pounds. PASA will fully evaluate the results of these pilot exercises from March 2004, and make recommendations on the future use of e-auctions in the NHS.

  Hospital Beds (Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change in the number of beds available for NHS treatment in Pilgrim Hospital, Boston there has been in each year since 1995. [148476]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the average daily number of beds is collected annually from each national health service trust. Information is not collected for individual hospital sites.

  The number of available beds from 1995–96 to 1999–2000 for Pilgrim Health NHS Trust is shown in table 1. In April 2000, Pilgrim Health merged with two other NHS trusts to form United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust. Information on available beds for this trust is shown in table 2.

  Table 1: average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight, Pilgrim Health NHS Trust, 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Total beds

  Change from previous year

  1995–96

  576

  —

  1996–97

  575

  -1

  1997–98

  587

  12

  1998–99

  564

  -23

  1999–2000

  586

  22

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.
  1357W

  Table 2: average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight. United Lincolnshire NHS Trust, 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Year

  Total beds

  Change from previous year

  2000–01

  1,560

  —

  2001–02

  1,575

  15

  2002–03

  1,556

  -19

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of the computer contract signed between his Department and BT; what the contract covers; what time period is covered by the contract; whether this technology will be available to help the roll-out of broadband in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [147917]

  Mr. Hutton
  Two separate contracts have been awarded to BT under the national programme for information technology in the national health service in England:1. to set up and run a core database or "spine" for the national care record service (NCRS), worth a total of £620 million. This will provide access to key summary information on a patient and their condition/treatment for healthcare professionals who are authorised and have a need to use it; and
  to provide local systems and services to integrate, access and use the NCRS in London. This includes providing IT support at a local level, delivering essential infrastructure and connection/ compatibility to existing systems in the NHS in the London cluster. This contract is worth a total of £996 million.

  Depending on the proof of solution, successful rollout and ongoing performance, both contracts will run until 2013.

  Qualified nursing staff and practice nurses employed by unrestricted principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 per 1,000 of the population—England

  Number (headcount)

  19922,4

  19932,4

  1994

  19953

  19963

  England

  Population

  47,996,067

  48,100,501

  48,222,889

  48,364,999

  48,496,224

  Practice nurses

  16,635

  17,517

  16,500

  18,243

  17,898

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.35

  0.36

  0.34

  0.38

  0.37

  Qualified nursing staff5

  301,253

  293,379

  289,284

  298,650

  297,351

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  6.20

  6.10

  6.00

  6.17

  6.21

  of which:

  North West Government Office Region

  Population

  6,866,001

  6,867,220

  6,854,423

  6,840,280

  6,818,344

  Practice nurses

  2,175

  2,110

  1,862

  2,166

  2,226

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.32

  0.31

  0.27

  0.32

  0.33

  Qualified nursing staff5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46,895

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.88

  of which:

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA

  Population

  2,394,912

  2,393,143

  2,387,016

  2,380,168

  2,372,525

  Practice nurses

  805

  713

  576

  713

  726

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.34

  0.30

  0.24

  0.30

  0.31

  Qualified nursing staff5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,166

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.39

  of which:

  St. Helens's and Knowsley HA

  Population

  333,706

  332,623

  331,630

  330,392

  329,915

  Practice nurses

  100

  95

  97

  104

  106

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.30

  0.29

  0.29

  0.31

  0.32

  Qualified nursing staff5

  1,594

  1,578

  1,530

  1,561

  1,642

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  4.78

  4.72

  4.61

  4.72

  4.98

  1358W
  The contracts do not cover the provision of new national networking services and broadband capacity for the NHS. This is the subject of a separate procurement exercise and is expected to be concluded in the first quarter of 2004. The delivery of new systems across the NHS will be dependent upon network provision.

  Kidderminster Diagnostic and Treatment Centre
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the delay in opening the Kidderminster diagnostic and treatment centre; and whether the contractors are subject to penalty payments. [148698]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Kidderminster Treatment Centre has changed significantly from the project as it was originally envisaged. There has been extra investment in services and facilities, including an additional operating theatre.

  The contract was agreed on a fixed price basis, which has both protected the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals national health service trust from unexpected financial pressures, and removed the need to impose penalty payments on the contractors.

  Nurses
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the proportion of nurses per head of population was in(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside, (c) the North West and (d) England in each year since 1992. [147169]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1359W

  1997

  19984

  19994

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  Population

  48,635,908

  48,789,240

  48,986,999

  49,166,627

  49,389,736

  49,558.821

  Practice nurses

  18,389

  18,894

  19,495

  19,200

  19,846

  20,983

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.38

  0.39

  0.40

  0.39

  0.40

  0.42

  Qualified nursing staff5

  300,467

  304,563

  310,142

  316,752

  330,535

  346,537

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  6.18

  6.24

  6.33

  6.44

  6.69

  6.99

  of which:

  North West Government Office Region

  Population

  6,800,318

  6,793,833

  6,770,152

  6,769,483

  6,767,217

  6,770,981

  Practice nurses

  2,261

  2,335

  2,566

  2.411

  2,602

  2,616

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.33

  0.34

  0.38

  0.36

  0.38

  0.39

  Qualified nursing staff5

  46,213

  46,901

  47,672

  48,395

  48,821

  53.373

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  6.80

  6.90

  7.04

  7.15

  7.21

  7.88

  of which:

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA

  Population

  2,365,631

  2,361,200

  2,350,901

  2,349,300

  2,349,581

  2,347,088

  Practice nurses

  690

  682

  794

  782

  849

  905

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.29

  0.29

  0.34

  0.33

  0.36

  0.39

  Qualified nursing staff5

  14,874

  15,319

  15,766

  16,473

  17,150

  19,091

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  6.29

  6.49

  6.71

  7.01

  7.30

  8.13

  of which:

  St. Helens's and Knowsley HA

  Population

  329,194

  328,976

  327,852

  327,592

  —

  —

  Practice nurses

  101

  115

  114

  110

  111

  —

  Practice nurses per 1,000 of population

  0.31

  0.35

  0.35

  0.34

  —

  —

  Qualified nursing staff5

  1,637

  1,607

  1,652

  1,682

  1,795

  —

  Qualified nursing per 1,000 of population

  4.97

  4.88

  5.04

  5.13

  —

  —

  1 UPEs includes GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried Gps.

  2 Figures for 1992 to 1994 may not be fully comparable with other data due to under-reporting of fundholding practice staff by FHSAs.

  3 Includes estimated data for Buckinghamshire.

  4 Headcount practice nurse figures are estimated for these years.

  5 Refers to qualified nursing staff in the hospital, public health and community health service sectors.

  Notes:

  1. Data as at 1 October 1992–99 and 30 September 2000–02.

  2. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  3.'—' Accurate comparable information is not available.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  2001 ONS Population Census

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 203W, on nurse recruitment, if he will list the countries from which his Department has received written representations regarding the recruitment of nurses; and if he will make a statement. [148050]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government has nurse recruitment agreements with Spain, the Philippines, India and Indonesia. A memorandum of understanding has recently been signed with the Government of South Africa.

  The Chinese Government has recently written to the Department to ask for a meeting to discuss opportunities for nurse recruitment.

  Oxfordshire Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposal to amalgamate the South East Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust with the South West Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust. [148477]
  1360W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is currently no proposal for a formal merger of the two primary care trusts (PCTs). The South East and South West Oxfordshire PCTs have been exploring ways of working more closely together in the delivery of services to their populations. This has included the appointment of a single chief executive and management structure, while retaining separate boards.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average annual cost of prescription fraud has been in the last five years. [148834]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Health Service Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (NHS CFSMS) has an ongoing programme of highly accurate risk measurement exercises—accurate to plus or minus one per cent.—designed to reveal levels of losses and, through repeated exercises, reduction in such losses, where they take place.

  The latest available data on pharmaceutical patient fraud is shown in the table.
  1361W

  £ million

  Year data selected

  Fraud losses

  1998–99

  117

  1999–2000

  69

  Point of dispensing checks were introduced in all community pharmacies on 1 April 1999 to help deter this type of fraud. The check requires pharmacists to ask patients who are claiming free prescriptions to produce evidence to support their claim to exemption from prescription charges. Later data will be produced shortly.

  Private Contractors
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will ensure that private contractors in the NHS will not be able to recruit NHS staff indirectly through private agencies. [148462]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: New treatment centres run by the independent sector will be precluded as part of the contracts they sign from poaching National Health Service staff. The recruitment of NHS staff indirectly through private agencies would breach this contract.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the staff required by private contractors are expected to come from if they cannot be recruited from the NHS; and what proportion of recruitment is expected to be from abroad. [148463]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The procurement of independent sector treatment centres (IS-TCs) is designed to contribute to a genuine increase in workforce capacity to treat national health service patients. This is why bidders have been asked to provide as many non-NHS staff as possible: primarily from overseas. In some circumstances, it will be appropriate for NHS staff to work in independent sector treatment centres but this will only be done under a structured arrangement that is agreed between the NHS and the ISTC provider. The number of professional staff Working in these new units and the proportion from overseas will be finalised during the stage of negotiations leading to contract close.

  Private Contractors (Netcare)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether, over the long-term, Netcare will employ staff that would otherwise have been employed by the NHS. [148464]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: As part of its contract, Netcare is required to provide an additional workforce.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the change in the number of health professionals from South Africa working in the UK as a result of the award of contracts to run fast-track surgery centres to Netcare; and what assessment he has made of the effect of this change on the South African health service. [148465]
  1362W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: Clinical teams working in the independent sector treatment centres from abroad will work on a rotational basis. The exact amount of time spent in the United Kingdom will depend on the contractual agreements made between the provider and its staff. This programme will not recruit clinical staff from existing hospital facilities.

  The new memorandum of understanding between South Africa and this Government recognises the benefit for the South African health care system by offering South African and English healthcare professionals the chance to go on time-limited placements to the other country.

  Scrutiny Committees
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum number of local government overview scrutiny committees is that a national service within the NHS could have to report to under the terms of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. [148811]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  If a National Health Service body is proposing a variation in or development to its services it must consult all the overview and scrutiny committees of those local authorities for which the proposal represents a substantial one.

  A NHS organisation which provides services to the whole country must first establish which of the 150 overview and scrutiny committees (those committees with the powers to scrutinise health services) believe the proposal is substantial for their populations. The NHS body involved need only consult those committees that specify that the proposal is substantial for their own populations. Those committees must form a joint committee to respond to that consultation; and that only joint committee may respond.

  Student Nurses
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of student nurses who enrolled for courses in(a) general nursing, (b) paediatric nursing, (c) midwifery and (d) psychiatric nursing successfully completed their course in each year since 1973. [148647]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for England on the percentage of pre-registration student nurses who have completed their course is shown in the following table. Data is not held before the 1994–95 financial year and has not been collected since October 2001. It is therefore only accurate for cohorts up to 1997–98, most students on subsequent cohorts had not completed courses by October 2001.

  Pre-registration student nurses who have completed their course Percentage

  Percentage

  Year of cohort

  Midwifery

  Adult

  Mental health

  Learning disability

  Child

  1994–95

  75.27

  78.18

  76.51

  70.73

  77.43

  1995–96

  78.13

  76.67

  74.14

  72.67

  74.31

  1996–97

  73.48

  75.32

  73.05

  67.59

  74.29

  1997–98

  74.33

  72.27

  70.31

  65.28

  70.42

  Note:

  This data is based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort(s) and therefore each year there will still be students who have yet to complete their course.
  1363W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the drop-out rate was in England for student nurses studying(a) general nursing, (b) paediatric nursing, (c) midwifery and (d) psychiatric nursing in each year since 1973. [148648]

  Mr. Hutton
  Most recent information for England on the percentage of pre-registration student nurses who have left their course is shown in the table. Data is not held before the 1994–95 financial year.

  Pre-registration student nurses who have left their course

  Percentage

  Midwifery

  Adult

  Mental health

  Learning disability

  Child

  1994–95

  22.08

  18.87

  19.91

  25.64

  19.66

  1995–96

  17.43

  17.75

  20.56

  20.29

  19.46

  1996–97

  21.84

  18.91

  19.58

  24.44

  20.05

  1997–98

  18.23

  18.82

  20.05

  21.67

  21.95

  1998–99

  17.17

  17.61

  16.18

  19.74

  16.99

  1999–2000

  14.59

  12.45

  12.63

  14.6

  15.86

  2000–01

  6.7

  5.98

  6.47

  6.48

  6.75

  1364W
  Note:

  This data is based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort(s) and therefore each year there will still be students who have yet to complete their course. The last data collection was October 2001 so the attrition rate for the later cohorts is incomplete.

  Worcestershire Royal Infirmary
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the unitary fee for the Worcestershire Royal Infirmary increases each year; and whether this annual increase was specified in the contract. [148699]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The annual uplift in the unitary fee for Worcestershire Royal Infirmary is specified in the contract.

  The unitary fee is uplifted by the General Index of Retail Prices (RPI) each year, unless the Whitley council pay increase for ancillary staff exceeds this level. In this case, the uplift for pay on the soft service element of the contract (eg., catering and domestic services, etc.) is as per the Whitley council agreement and the non staff costs associated with these soft services is uplifted at RPI less 1 per cent.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  UK Passports (Birth Certificates)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I have decided that the shortened form of birth certificate, which omits names of parents, will no longer be acceptable evidence of nationality for the purpose of applying for a British passport in the United Kingdom. This will help with our aims of combating identity fraud and in ensuring the integrity of the British passport. It will also bring practice in the UK into line with that at British consular posts overseas, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

  Since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983, British nationality has not automatically been acquired by the fact of birth in the UK or a British Overseas Territory. The Act provides that a child born in the UK will be a British citizen if one of the parents is a British citizen or is settled in the UK. Equivalent provisions apply to the overseas territories. A short birth certificate, which establishes only the place and date of birth, is therefore not sufficient to establish eligibility for a passport. The practice introduced on 1 January 1983 was to accept the passport applicant's own declaration on the application form as to the identity and nationality of the parents upon whom the child's British nationality depended. This was a satisfactory interim measure, but is no longer appropriate over 20 years after the change in the law.

  The new requirement will introduce an important safeguard against false claims of British nationality and will make identity fraud more difficult. I am aware that although over 75 per cent. of new parents obtain a full standard certificate when registering a birth, many people only have a short birth certificate and will therefore face a small additional expense in obtaining a passport. However it is in everyone's interest that British passports are issued only on production of adequate evidence of British nationality. The change, which will normally affect only those applying for their first passport, will be implemented on 4 May 2004.

TREASURY

  Commemorative Crown
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a commemorative crown should be issued in 2004 to mark the 100th anniversary of the entente cordiale between Britain and France.
  60WS
  Collector versions of the coin will be released at a premium above face value and, during the course of the year, the coin will also become available at its face value of five pounds from banks and post offices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Desulphurisation Plant
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Rugeley Power Limited for the construction of flue gas desulphurisation plant at the 1,000 MW coal-fired power station at Rugeley in Staffordshire. Planning permission for the plant has also been deemed to be granted, subject to 47 planning conditions agreed with the Staffordshire County Council, the Cannock Chase District Council and the Lichfield District Council.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  I am pleased to announce that, after a two year period of consultation and consideration, we propose to seek Parliament's approval for regulations, under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, to enable people conceived by donated sperm, eggs or embryos in future to know the identity of their donor.

  We propose that donors who donate from 1 April 2005 will do so on the understanding that any child born as a result of their donation will be able to obtain from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority identifying details about them when the child reaches the age of 18. This will not apply to people who have donated before that time. It means that the first donor-conceived people to receive identifying information about their donors would do so in 2023.

  I must stress that removal of anonymity will not lead to the donor having any responsibility, parental, financial or otherwise, for the child.

  In addition, as we announced on 28 January 2003, the regulations will provide for non-identifying information about donors to be given, on request, to donor-conceived people who were born after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's register came into effect in 1991. This will be available to 18 year olds in 2010. The non-identifying information will be standardised so that, from 2022, all donor-conceived people who request it will be able to receive the same categories of information.
  61WS
  The decision that it is right to remove donor anonymity has been informed by a public consultation on the provision of information to donor-conceived people; a programme of work with clinics and donors; consideration of the position in other countries; and a comparison with the information available to adopted people. We have also listened to the voices of donor-conceived people. Our conclusion is that the interests of the child are paramount, and that the position of donor-conceived people should be aligned more closely with that of adopted people, with access to identifying information about their donor when they reach age 18.

  We intend to use the opportunity of the removal of anonymity to encourage a change in the culture of sperm, egg and embryo donation. By bringing more openness to it, we want to see wider recognition of the value and importance of such donations, and greater public appreciation of the dramatic difference that the donors can make to lives and families. To support the transition to identifiable donors we will raise consciousness of the need for donors and the contribution they make to our society through a campaign for public awareness.

  The regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

  We have also considered developments that are taking place more widely in the assisted reproduction area. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act has been in force since 1991. It was landmark legislation at the time, setting up the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and introducing the first regulatory regime in the world specifically for the newly developing field of assisted reproduction. Since then, over 73,000 babies have been born in the UK as a result of treatment procedures regulated under the Act.

  Bearing in mind the speed at which new technologies in the fertility field develop, and the complex ethical issues often associated with them, the Act has stood the test of time remarkably well.

  However, any cutting-edge legislation, no matter how successful, at some stage needs to be reconsidered and any necessary readjustments made to ensure that it continues to be effective. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is no exception. Developments in new technologies, changes in public perception of ethical issues, and the effect of international developments all have an impact and need to be considered.

  I have concluded, therefore, that it is time to review the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The review will begin in 2004 and will include a full public consultation exercise in 2005. The review will be carried out by the Department, and will include taking account of the work of the Science and Technology Committee, which is considering human reproductive technologies and the law and plans to report later this year. We welcome the work of the Committee.
  62WS
  The review will be wide-ranging, but will exclude certain issues such as embryo research, stem cells and cloning which have been extensively and conclusively debated in Parliament in recent years. The issues that we envisage the review addressing include the range of procedures covered by the Act, checking the safety and efficacy of techniques, ethical considerations and effective regulation.

  The Act has been very successful landmark legislation. We believe that it is right to review it to ensure that it continues to be effective in the 21st century.

TRANSPORT

  Rural Bus Challenge
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I am pleased to announce today the results of the 2003 rural bus challenge competition. A total of £20 million pounds has been awarded to 33 local authorities for 42 schemes which will provide improved local transport in rural areas.

  This announcement brings to £110 million the sum awarded under the rural bus challenge scheme, supporting a total of 300 projects. A list of the 2003 awards will be deposited in the Library of the House.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Sound Insulation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  I have decided to allow robust details, as developed by the House Builders Federation (HBF), to be used as an alternative to pre-completion testing to demonstrate compliance with Part E of the Building Regulations. This applies only to the sound insulation between new houses and flats. The HBF's proposals have been subjected to public consultation with a generally favourable response. They have also been considered by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC) who have recommended acceptance, subject to a monitoring procedure, and a review of the situation in three years. I anticipate that the option to use robust details will come into force on 1 July 2004, and I propose to publish amendment regulations before then.

  Future development, maintenance and monitoring of the robust details will be carried out by an independent company set up for the purpose called Robust Details Ltd. This company will be run by a management board whose members represent industry (building and product manufacturers), building control, and consumer interests. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be represented by an Observer.

  I am confident that use of robust details will result in significantly improved standards of sound insulation, while imposing much less of a burden on industry than pre-completion testing.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Wassenaar Arrangement
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  Hon. Members will wish to be aware of the outcome of the plenary of the Wassenaar arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies which took place in Vienna on 10–12 December 2003.

  The arrangement is the only multilateral export control forum dealing with conventional arms. Its purpose is to prevent de-stabilising accumulations of conventional weapons in sensitive parts of the world by promoting transparency and responsibility in transfers of arms and dual-use goods. The Government believe the arrangement has an important role to play in improving arms exporting practices amongst its current participating states, and can help to spread good practice to other countries.

  The plenary meeting concluded a year-long review of the arrangement, which has agreed a number of important changes to its operations, including:
  enhanced controls on conventional arms with special emphasis on strengthening capabilities of participating states to combat the threat of terrorism;
  increased transparency with the addition of mandatory reporting for all small arms and light weapons (SALW) exports;
  strict controls on man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) transfers;
  guidelines on arms brokering;
  and adopting end-use oriented controls encouraging member Governments to impose export controls on certain unlisted items when necessary to support the United Nations arms embargoes.

  The question of admission of new participating states was discussed, although no decisions in this area were taken at the plenary. The plenary also agreed on the importance of work to explain the arrangement's merits to non-participating states.

  A ministerial statement was agreed in the name of Ministers from all Wassenaar arrangement states and released at the end of the plenary. The purpose of this statement was to reaffirm the importance participating states attach to the Wassenaar arrangement as a forum for the promotion of peace and stability, as well as to raise the arrangement's public profile. It reads as follows:
  "Ministers of the thirty-three participating States in the Wassenaar arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies are pleased that the quadrennial assessment of the functioning of the Arrangement has concluded with several important agreements to advance further the Wassenaar arrangement's non-proliferation and international security and stability goals.
  We wish to affirm the importance of the Wassenaar arrangement as one of the pillars of multilateral efforts towards peace and stability. We believe agreements reached in the context of the Wassenaar arrangement can play a critical role in preventing the diversion of legal arms transfers and in promoting responsible national export control policies for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. In this context, we strongly endorse multilateral efforts to develop strict controls on the transfer
  64WS
  of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) that continue to pose one of the most serious threats to the safety of international civil aviation.
  As we look at ahead and consider the future threats to international security and stability, we are convinced that countries committed to a stable international order must work together closely to prevent conventional weapons and sensitive dual-use technologies from being used to perpetrate terrorist acts. Terrorists must be stopped from diverting weapons from legitimate channels. Building upon the momentum developed during the 2003 assessment, we believe that continued collaboration between the participating states of the Wassenaar arrangement will make a significant contribution to global security"

  The Government will continue to work for further changes to the arrangement so that it becomes an even more effective forum for the promotion of responsible and transparent exporting practices for strategic goods.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Postal Elections (Pilot Regions)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  In December it was announced that, subject to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections Pilot Bill achieving Royal Assent, the north-east and east midlands regions would pilot all postal voting at the combined European Parliamentary and local elections in June 2004. I can today announce it is our intention that two further regions will also hold all-postal pilots. These regions will be Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west.

  I am pleased to be able to announce these further regions so that the important work of preparing for the pilot elections can begin in earnest. We have identified Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west after discussion with electoral administrators and look forward to those regions, alongside the north-east and east midlands, helping us to progress our electoral modernisation agenda.

DEFENCE

  UK Gulf Veterans' Mortality Data
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  As part of the Government's commitment to investigate Gulf veterans' illnesses openly and honestly, data on mortality of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict are regularly published. The most recent figures, for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2003, were published on 15 January 2004. The key tables from that publication are set out below. Table 1 gives the causes of death to UK Gulf veterans over that period; table 2 shows the deaths due to malignant neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans. As with previous information, the data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group, known as the Era cohort, which is made up of armed forces personnel of a similar age, gender, service, regular/reservist status and rank who were not deployed.
  65WS

  Table 1: Deaths to UK Gulf veterans1 1 April 1991–31 December 2003

  Causes2

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  All deaths

  632

  643

  0.98

  (0.88–1.09)

  All cause coded deaths

  619

  627

  0.98

  (0.88–1.10)

  1–XVI

  Disease-related causes

  265

  321

  0.82

  (0.70–0.97)

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  6

  3

  1.99

  (0.43–12.30)

  II

  Cancers

  115

  130

  0.88

  (0.68–1.14)

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  6

  0.17

  (0.00–1.37)

  V

  Mental disorders

  13

  16

  0.81

  (0.36–1.79)

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  10

  11

  0.90

  (0.34–2.35)

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  88

  113

  0.77

  (0.58–1.03)

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  11

  8

  1.37

  (0.50–3.92)

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  16

  20

  0.80

  (0.39–1.62)

  IV, X–XVI

  All other disease–related causes3

  5

  14

  0.36

  (0.10–1.04)

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  354

  306

  1.15

  (0.99–1.35)

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  (0.39–196.03)

  Motor vehicle accidents

  124

  101

  1.22

  (0.93–1.60)

  Water transport accidents

  5

  1

  4.98

  (0.56–235.34)

  Air and space accidents

  26

  19

  1.36

  (0.73–2.60)

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  1

  0.00

  (0.00–38.81)

  Accidental poisoning

  14

  15

  0.93

  (0.42–2.06)

  Accidental falls

  8

  8

  1.00

  (0.33–3.04)

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  2

  0.00

  (0.00–5.30)

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  (0.07–13.73)

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  17

  7

  2.42

  (0.95–6.89)

  Other accidents

  32

  30

  1.06

  (0.62–1.81)

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  (00–5.30)

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  113

  108

  1.04

  (0.79–1.37)

  Homicide

  6

  5

  1.19

  (0.30–4.95)

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  (0.11–4.41)

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  9

  12

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  4

  4

  Notes:

  1 Service and Ex-Service personnel only.

  2 Causes have been coded to the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD-9), 1977.

  3 Includes cases with insufficient information on the death certificate to provide a known cause of death.

  Table 2: Deaths due to Malignant neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans 1 April 1991–31 December 2003

  Major anatomical sites and specific sites with at least 5 deaths in one of the cohorts

  ICD Chapter

  Anatomical site

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  140–149

  Malignant neoplasms of lip, oral cavity and pharynx

  6

  4

  1.49

  (0.35–7.19)

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs and peritoneum of which:

  25

  31

  0.80

  (0.45–1.40)

  150

  Malignant neoplasms of oesophagus

  9

  4

  2.24

  (0.62–9.95)

  153

  Malignant neoplasms of colon

  4

  11

  0.36

  (0.08–1.22)

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasms of respiratory and intrathoracic organs of which:

  17

  26

  0.65

  (0.33–1.25)

  162

  Malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung

  15

  24

  0.62

  (0.30–1.24)

  170–175

  Malignant neoplasms of bone, connective tissue, skin and breast of which:

  16

  14

  1.14

  (0.52–2.52)

  172

  Malignant neoplasms of skin

  7

  6

  1.16

  (0.33–4.18)

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasms of genitourinary organs

  4

  7

  0.57

  (0.12–2.24)

  190–199

  Malignant neoplasms of other and unspecified sites of which:

  23

  31

  0.74

  (0.41–1.31)

  199

  Malignant neoplasms of brain

  15

  15

  1.00

  (0.45–2.18)

  200–208

  Malignant neoplasms of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue of which:

  21

  14

  1.49

  (0.72–3.17)

  200–202

  Lymphomas

  10

  8

  1.24

  (0.44–3.63)

  204–208

  Leukaemias

  9

  6

  1.49

  (0.47–5.10)

  235–239

  Neoplasm of uncertain behaviour or unspecified nature

  3

  3

  1.00

  (0.13–7.43)

  66WS

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock:The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark

The Lord Bishop of Southwell
George Henry, Lord Bishop of Southwell—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Courts Martial
2.40 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether courts martial have been abolished in the Armed Forces and, if so, what is intended to replace them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have no plans to abolish courts martial. Indeed, the Government welcome the recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that, as a whole, the court martial system, with its safeguards to guarantee its independence and impartiality, is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not true that, at present, courts martial have been abolished in the Royal Navy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is not true that courts martial have been abolished in the Royal Navy or anywhere else. It is true that in January there will not be courts martial held in the Navy, but I understand that they will begin again in February and will continue as before.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, is it not the case that in the European Court, to which my noble friend the Minister referred, the proceedings of courts martial were upheld in general but there was criticism of Royal Navy courts martial, as distinct from those in the other armed services, because the Judge Advocate was an officer in the Royal Navy, not an independent civilian?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Court concluded that the position of a Judge Advocate did not provide a strong guarantee of the independence of naval courts martial for two main reasons: first, the use of a serving naval officer in that role and, secondly, the appointment of judge advocates to individual trials by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate—a serving naval officer. We have
1020
accordingly decided that the first should cease. Regarding the second, a remedial order was laid before both Houses on 15 January 2004, under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to deal with the problem, which is provided for by statute.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, I find that conclusion by the European Court of Human Rights somewhat hard to follow, especially given the evidence of there being no suspicion whatsoever of any bias in the review of courts martial in the Navy over the past 10 years. The ruling is a bitter blow to naval lawyers, whose dedication to the administration of justice in the Royal Navy is highly regarded, not just in the Navy, but by the highest courts in the land, and to the huge number of people who turn to naval lawyers for their assistance and advice. The conclusion also undermines the executive in the maintenance of good order and service discipline. We should regret that trend and the lack of recognition that there are areas where the Armed Forces are, by necessity, different from other walks of life. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do everything possible to arrest the trend, or, at the least, safeguard the pre-eminence of the presidents of courts martial?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who speaks with great experience on this issue. While we welcome that the Court ruled that, as a whole, the service courts martial system is compliant with the convention on human rights, we are disappointed that the Court concluded that the use of uniformed judge advocates did not constitute a sufficiently strong guarantee of independence. However, I stress that the Court did not find any actual bias in the operation of naval courts martial. I should like to take the opportunity which the noble and gallant Lord has afforded me to pay tribute to the work of naval judge advocates in the maintenance of the disciplinary system. I have been most impressed by the professional response to the Court's judgment and by the speed and efficiency with which the necessary amendments to the courts martial system have been implemented.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, am I right in saying that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was of the Grand Chamber—that is to say, a very large number was unanimous—and that the central holding was that the pivotal role of the judge advocate deprived naval courts martial of one of the most significant guarantees of independence enjoyed by the other services' courts martial, the Army and Air Force courts martial systems, being the same for all relevant purposes? Does the Minister agree that it would be very strange if justice were in some way less robust for the admirable members of the Royal Navy than it was for the other two armed services?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that there could be any serious suggestion that, in practice, as shown over many years, discipline and courts martial are more robust in terms of independence and impartiality in one of the services than in another.

1021
However, I pay tribute to the noble Lord's undoubted expertise in this field. He is right that it was indeed the Grand Chamber and that it was indeed unanimous. There has been a difference between the courts martial systems in the Royal Navy on the one hand and the Army and the Royal Air Force on the other. As soon as we can possibly find parliamentary time for it, from 2005–06 onwards—I say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, as the matter is of great interest to him—we intend that there should be a tri-service Act to sort out this matter once and for all.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say when he first became aware of the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and why an opportunity was not taken in the quinquennial review of 2001 to rectify these difficulties?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I think I replied to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, we regret that the Court found as it did. We believe that the system worked perfectly well. However, we have been signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights for many years now, under governments of both parties, and when the Court rules, of course we take the necessary action.

United Nations Security Council
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the modernisation of the United Nations Security Council.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Security Council is at the heart of the international system, having the primary responsibility for dealing with threats to international peace and security. The Government believe that it performs that function well. There is scope, however, to improve the composition and functioning of the council. In particular, the Government are a long-standing supporter of enlargement of the council, in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, in order to ensure that it better represents the modern world.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Can she confirm that Her Majesty's Government would not support the membership of any country that had an unacceptable human rights record, had no respect for the United Nations and did not implement UN resolutions? Can she also tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will support democracy, accountability and the rule of law at the United Nations Security Council?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. We judge all candidates for Security Council membership against the criterion laid down in the UN charter—the contribution that a country makes to the maintenance of international
1022
peace and security and the other purposes of the UN. I should also like to make it clear that implementation of the obligations under Security Council resolutions and respect for the fundamental principles of the charter, such as human rights, obviously forms a key part of the judgment. We would urge all countries to fulfil the obligations under the charter and under the relevant Security Council resolutions. That continues to form part of our bilateral dialogue.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the UN Secretary-General, who said, in his very impressive speech in September, that the great priority is to fit the Security Council to deal with the threats and challenges of the 21st century, which it has unfortunately been somewhat frustrated in doing in recent years, and that it is to that aspect of the Security Council's work that priority must be given?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords; I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, in the way that he sets out the challenges that the Secretary-General put forward last year. I am delighted to take this opportunity to say that the noble Lord is a member of the Secretary-General's new high-level panel on reform. I agree with him. Noble Lords might be asking themselves, "What does an effective UN system look like?" It is a system that can tackle the full range of insecurities faced by its members: poverty; disease; environmental change; abuse of human rights; and more recently, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government consider that changes are needed in the size and composition of the Security Council and in its method of working, which was largely laid down in the United Nations Charter? My interest is that I was a member of the United Kingdom permanent delegation in its early days: 1948 to 1952.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer the noble Lord's question in the context of his great experience at the United Nations. The UK has put forward a model of Security Council enlargement that would increase overall membership from 15 to 24 additional permanent members and four additional non-permanent members. We support Japan and Germany as candidates for permanent seats, in recognition of their major contribution to the work of the UN. We have suggested that three further permanent seats should go to representatives of the developing world from Africa, Asia and the Latin American countries, so that the UN reflects the modern world and its needs.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in any reform of the Security Council it is to become more representative of the world of the 21st century, as distinct from 1945? There are anxieties to be addressed about the attitude of the rest of the world to European representation. At the moment, there are

1023
two permanent Security Council members from Europe. It is suggested that Germany might well become a member, and some people are advocating that the European Union should also have a seat on the Security Council. What is the Government's position towards resolving this issue?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the charter states that only member nations should become members of the Security Council. The charter would have to be amended to include the EU as a composite member. Even if the charter was amended to allow that, it would not be in the interests of either the EU or the UK to replace current representation on the Security Council with a single EU seat. The European Union currently has four of the 15 members of the Council, and a fifth member, Romania, usually aligns itself with positions agreed under the common foreign and security policy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I remind the Minister that Romania is not yet a member of the European Union. Will the Minister recognise that many of us, on these Benches at least, support a stronger authority for the United Nations and are deeply sorry to see how much its authority has been damaged in the past two years? Will the Government take on board that when the high-level panel to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, belongs, reports to the Secretary-General, many of us would like to see a British Government response and have the opportunity to debate that response in this Chamber?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, yes, I am aware that Romania is not a member of the EU. That is why I said that it also agrees with EU members. I spent much of the weekend reading the noble Lord's thinking on UN reform in the publication The World Today. It was a rainy weekend. He urges European governments to combine their weight in global institutions to grapple with the agenda on UN reform. I agree with him. I hope to reassure him that the United Kingdom Government support the high-level panel, are looking forward to working closely with it, and will eventually enjoy reading its report when it arrives.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, would the Minister approve of additional members of the Security Council having a veto?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, this is a tricky one. At the moment, we do not take a firm position. While it is obviously not attractive to create two classes of permanent membership, it also seems unlikely that an extension of the veto to new members will be acceptable to the majority of UN members. The status quo is therefore the most likely outcome.
Lord Desai: My Lords, would it not be better if we replaced the veto with the qualified majority voting system?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I will certainly think about that.

Higher Education: Middle Eastern and Asian Language Studies
2.56 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to encourage British students in United Kingdom universities to study Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the numbers of students taking Chinese, Japanese, other Asian and Middle Eastern languages, literature and culture courses in the United Kingdom's higher education institutions increased by 29 per cent over the past two years. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has provided £3 million more over the past three years to fund minority subjects at risk. The Government launched a strategy promoting modern foreign languages in England in December 2002. Through that, we are promoting language learning to students and pupils choosing A-level courses.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on his new job. That is the best Answer that I have ever heard him give in this House. Given his expertise in British higher education, and given that language acquisition is the best weapon of mass instruction, how does he expect Britain's military, intelligence and diplomatic services to recruit the vital linguists that they need to do their jobs when so few British universities teach Arabic, and important languages like Berber and Pushtu are taught in none of our universities? Will he address the important question of postgraduate studies in Islamic studies and Middle Eastern studies? There is a severe imbalance in the number of British students as opposed to foreign students pursuing such studies. In 2001, of 737 postgraduate students, only 12 were British. When it comes to Britain's security, are languages not matters of life and death?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for his kind comments about my first Answer. He is right that it was the best answer that. I have given, and I hope that this one will not be too bad either.
I accept the point that languages are vital to conducting a successful foreign policy and to intelligence community work. Nothing compels any student to study any subject. All that can be done is to try to make it as attractive as possible to students to pursue a subject, so that they can make informed choices. Happily, this is a story that at least has some signs of green shoots. After a period in which language applications to universities declined considerably, I have already made the point that there has been a sizeable movement in the past couple of years.
I am happy to say, looking through the statistics, that in relation to Middle Eastern languages, literature and culture, there was a 22 per cent increase in the number of people going into undergraduate courses in the past year. I do not want to overstate the case, but

1025
that is an encouraging sign. That was set against the background of a decrease of 6 per cent when one takes all of the modern European languages, which shows a contrast.
At postgraduate level, the latest figures that I have been able to get from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that there are roughly 250 students enrolled in the relevant courses pertinent to this Question. Eighty-five of them are from the United Kingdom, and 30 are from the EU. I am not convinced that that will be adequate for all the needs about which the noble Lord asked, but it is certainly a move in an encouraging direction.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that it would be desirable to have more study of these languages. However, how can the Government claim to encourage any student to study anything when they propose to load on young people starting in life the highest levels of debt ever known? When those people graduate, the Government will then tax them at higher marginal rates than millionaires.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know from questions asked in the House in even the past couple of days that there is not much evidence of anyone being put off from the pursuit of any course at the moment. In present circumstances, there are no proposals for up-front fees. Better support is being proposed for those who currently receive support as students, and repayment will take place only when people earn above a certain threshold. If the occupation is now in great demand and the supply of students far too limited, as the debate may indicate, that should push up their wages and make it easier to reach the threshold. Those are the economics of the matter.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I note the Minister's optimism about language take-up but, given that school and university students still show very little interest in even such neighbouring languages as German, I do not think that many of us could have much hope about the take-up of more exotic languages, despite the 22 per cent increase that the Minister noted. Yet there are thousands of native speakers of such exotic languages in this country. Might the Minister reflect on the possibility that our now flourishing specialist language schools might tap into the immigrant community and, perhaps through the setting up of leisure language clubs, might interest and excite pupils into exploring some very different languages—Turkish, Pashto, Farsi, Arabic and so on—and their writing systems? That might have an effect on not only language learning, but community relations.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that there is a very good case for tapping into all those sources. In a rich and diverse cultural community there are such resources, and it will repay some effort to make sure
1026
that we are in touch with them. In the strategy that I mentioned in my first response, Languages for All: Languages for Life, the Government have set about a programme of stimulating much more language acquisition from relatively young ages, all the way through to students taking A-levels. That is an exciting programme. The Pathfinder element of the programme shows tremendous reasons for encouragement. Many cities are beginning to develop it across a number of schools and with a great many specialists who have not been involved before. Although that is a long-haul answer—no one acquires languages instantly or gets to university level in a few weeks—it is certainly the start that is needed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister has given us reassuring figures in terms of the increase over the past year. However, how many university departments have closed centres of teaching of modern and Middle Eastern languages in the past 10 years? Has the number of students risen in that time?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the numbers in the areas to which I have referred have risen, although there has been a decline across languages as a whole, certainly over the past five years for which the statistics are more precise. The only university department closing of which I am aware is the University of Durham's department of east Asian studies, which closed in September 2003. That generated a good deal of publicity at the time. Universities are, of course, wholly independent organisations. They make their decisions about which courses they should run without reference, quite rightly, to any considerations other than whether they can attract the students, sustain the courses and offer an acceptable level of research.
The University of Durham is currently investigating how best it can reintroduce at least part of its teaching programme in Chinese and Japanese at a higher level. That suggests that the market is moving back again in a positive direction.

Foot and Mouth: Payments to Contractors
3.5 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to settle the £100 million in outstanding payments to contractors who worked during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, in each of the past three financial years, Defra has achieved prompt payment of more than 90 per cent of all valid invoices submitted, with agreement and payment within 30 days. Defra is withholding some £53 million in dispute with

1027
businesses in connection with charges arising from the provision of goods, services and works during the foot and mouth outbreak. Those disputes are being resolved through negotiation, mediation, formal investigation and, where necessary, litigation.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, is not the fraudulent case rather a red herring as only 1 per cent of the contractors involved in the foot and mouth epidemic are being investigated for fraud? Indeed, earlier this month, one such case was lost in the High Court at a cost of £2.3 million. With some contractors owed payments for more than 700 days and at least one liable to go into liquidation, I ask the noble Lord what Defra's terms of payment are when entering into a contract.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Defra is governed by the same terms of payment as anyone else. If the invoice is not in dispute we by and large meet it, and we will continue to improve our performance in that respect. As for invoices in dispute, clearly a period of negotiation, sometimes with mediation and legal proceedings, has to take place in defence of government money. Of all the contractors who operated on behalf of the Government during foot and mouth—there were 1,200 or more— there have been serious disputes with only 50, and the vast majority of those cases have been resolved one way or the other. However, there are some outstanding cases, and it is the job of the Government to protect public money in that respect.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given that it is two years since foot and mouth was declared over, will the Minister indicate what legal costs his department has borne in contesting the 50 cases that he mentioned? What has been the cost to the Exchequer?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the total amount of money involved in all the contracting was £1.3 billion. Legal costs covering the whole matter, which includes some of the cases in dispute, amount to about £20 million. Of the 50 that I referred to as being seriously disputed, 29 have been resolved relatively straightforwardly, with 16 resolved through more formal proceedings such as mediation or formal negotiation. Five large outstanding cases are going through legal proceedings, mainly in the High Court.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, how much compensation has the United Kingdom Government received from the European Union? How much was expected by the United Kingdom Government originally?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot answer that because we are still in discussion with the Commission. It is certainly the case that our original expectations in relation to the amount that the EU would pay are not likely to be met. However, we are not at the point where those negotiations have been completed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to that question, is a newspaper article by Christopher Booker incorrect in suggesting that the figure that has not been claimed and that we are likely to lose is £1 billion? I gather that there are only 12 outstanding cases. As other noble Lords have said, two years have passed. Either Defra is inept in handling the matter or there must be some problem. Perhaps the Treasury is unwilling to loan money from its black hole, which gains in size each day.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not follow the noble Baroness's argument at all. In the first place, it behoves every department to pay out taxpayers' money in accordance with claims that are validated. Regrettably, in such a situation, there are queries about many invoices, most of which have been resolved, but some of which appear to represent serious overcharging of one form or another—whether or not they amount to criminal fraud. We must query those. By and large, we are using negotiation and mediation services to resolve them, but we are resolving some of them through legal proceedings.
The issue of money from the European Union is an entirely different part of the large expenditure that the Government incurred during the foot and mouth epidemic. The only compensation money that might—and will in part be met by the European Union is direct compensation for loss of animals. The money we are discussing is money that falls entirely to the Exchequer and is money for contractors for clean-up, disinfection, and so on, not money paid in compensation to farmers. So we are discussing two large but different amounts. None of the delay is due to ineptness, it is due to the Government—Defra in particular—safeguarding the public purse.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will Defra pay interest on the outstanding claims that are eventually proven not to be fraudulent?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are rules governing interest. Defra will cover those in some respects; clearly, if there is a court order, it may well cover that point.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in one case, Cumbria Waste Management Ltd has been chasing its overdue money for more than two years. The company is owned by Cumbria County Council. Is Defra concerned about a serious overcharging in that case?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be wrong to comment on any particular case, especially if it may result in legal action. Many cases have been partly settled with some parts still outstanding, even as regards the 50 to which I referred. However, that does not mean that they have not received any money. Such cases give rise to serious queries about the nature of the invoices submitted.

Trademarks and Origin Marking
3.12 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of any proposals to abolish national trading marks and replace them by a European Union-wide trademark.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, no proposals have been made to abolish national trading marks and replace them by a European Union-wide trademark. The European Commission has produced for discussion with member states and other interests a working document setting out options in considering possible EU origin marking for EU products. The working document does not suggest abolition of national markings such as "Made in Britain", but raises the possibility of an additional label.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the Financial Times has carried extracts from the working document that suggest that there are proposals for an EU-wide label of origin. Does the Minister agree that in a zone as disparate as an EU of 25 countries, a label, "Made in the EU", would be about as useful as a label saying, "Made in Asia"? Does he further agree that any such proposal might help manufacturers of Welsh whisky or dress designers in Barnsley hoping to be confused with designers in Milan, but would seriously undermine German, French and British manufacturers that rely on national characteristics to build brand and quality differentiation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The trouble with any EU marking would be that it was not sufficiently specific. The representations that we have received from industry and consumer organisations make exactly that point. One wants to know that one's Parma ham comes from Italy, not other parts of the EU.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, while we are on the subject of unnecessary EU interference in British industry, what progress has been made on defeating the proposed hallmarking directive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted to say that there was a lack of agreement in the working party on the hallmarking directive, so it did not go through to COREPER or the Council. It has run out of time under the Italian presidency and is unlikely to be taken up by either the Irish or the Netherlands during their presidencies, so we can assume that it is effectively shelved.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister has said that national trademarks will continue to be granted and existing ones will continue
1030
to be effective, what steps will be taken to resolve any differences that may occur between the reports from the Community trademark office and the British trademark office if they disagree about any product or trademark?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Baroness gets a bit ahead of the issue. There is only a discussion, not even a proposal. If it goes forward in any way—there appears to be little enthusiasm for it across Europe—that may become an issue, but it is not one at present.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many consumers would like products, especially in supermarkets, to indicate as local an origin as possible—not just British or UK but within the region in which the supermarket is located—so that people can enter supermarkets in Northern Ireland and see that products are made in Northern Ireland and in the West Country that they are of West Country origin? That would give consumers maximum confidence in the products available.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, noble Lords will appreciate that the system of trademarks in this country is at present entirely voluntary. If there is demand, it is likely that manufacturers will respond to it by making that a point of advantage for their products.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the use of the words, "any proposals" in the Question carries concern with the symbolism of the issue to the point of giving the appearance of total indifference to the content?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the general thrust of that question. I can only repeat that there are no proposals, there is simply a discussion document. It clearly has some symbolism by suggesting that there is some interest in the matter, but we are consulting on the content and will respond in due course.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, just for clarity, can the Minister confirm, on the basis of what he said, that British Government representatives will be instructed to oppose the proposal if it is advanced?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I made clear, it is not a proposal, it is simply a discussion document that sets out three possible ways forward. We have consulted; the consultation has ended; we are now analysing the responses; we are rather sceptical about the whole proposal.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said, will he at least rule out a ridiculous EU compromise, which would be typical, that we should have both EU and national marking? That would be absurd.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, ruling out EU compromises before we have even reached them would be folly. As I said, there is no proposal to get rid of national trademarks, so, by definition, if any proposal were made it would be for an additional label. That would not be a compromise; that is the nature of what is in the discussion document.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as the Minister remarked, the proposal was in a discussion document and was not a formal proposal. As I understand it, it concerned the textile industry, where there is much concern about the fact that the majority of textiles sold within the EU are now being produced outside the EU. Some within the textile industry thought that the proposal would be helpful. Does the Minister expect that, during the five months between now and the next European elections, there will be more stories from obscure discussion documents blown up into large stories about how dreadful the EU is?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the proposal—or discussion—arose from general comments by industry, MEPs and others. I do not think that it was restricted to the textile industry; it was a general proposal. No doubt other discussion documents will be discussed in similar terms in this House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, too often, discussion documents become proposals, then they become directives, and then they are agreed by qualified majority vote? In this instance, would it have to be decided by qualified majority vote? Under those circumstances, would the Government not be able to do anything about it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in EU processes, discussions tend to lead to proposals that are then voted on. In this case, there seems very little enthusiasm to continue with that process after the initial stage.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.20 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Judd set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Pendry to two hours. — (Baroness Amos)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Filkin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 4,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 5 to 10,

Schedule 3,

Clause 11,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 12 to 13,

Schedule 5,

Clause 14,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 15 to 28.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 19th January be now considered, and that a committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3rd December 2003 (Cm 6058);
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Addington,

L. Carter,

L. Rix,

L. Swinfen,

L. Tebbit,

B. Wilkins;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and
That the committee do report on the draft Bill by the end of April 2004. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

House Committee: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees rose to move, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee, Session 2002–03, Freedom of Information:Members' Expenses, be agreed to (HL Paper 176, Session 2002–03).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a year ago the House agreed that information relating to Members' expenses should be published from this autumn. This report follows up that decision by setting out details of what information is to be published and how it is to be published.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I began by setting out what the House has already agreed: the information to be disclosed should be published annually; it should be broken down by the main categories of expenses available—travelling expenses, day subsistence, night subsistence, office costs and the pre-paid envelope scheme; and it should include an indication of the location of each Member's main residence. The House has also agreed that the information initially to be disclosed should include that relating to the three financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. The House of Commons has come to a similar decision. This House has also decided to publish information about the costs of Select Committee travel, parliamentary delegations to international parliamentary assemblies and financial assistance to opposition parties.
We must now decide on the detailed points involved. The report sets out our recommendations, and we have set out in the appendices the form in which information will be published if our recommendations are agreed. I stress that, in discussing the details of how that should be done, the committee was particularly keen to keep in step with the House of Commons, and where the two Houses have the same or analogous allowances, we propose to publish information in the same way.
I will not go through all our detailed recommendations, but the main ones are: claims for the same type of expense—in practice, travel expenses and office costs—should be aggregated; information about claims by spouses or on account of disability should not be published; and information should be published about former Members.
Once the House has agreed to the form of the information to be published, the Accountant's Office will begin to send out to each Member details relating to 2001–02 and 2002–03. That will be done on a rolling basis to iron out any administrative difficulties. Then, once the claims for this financial year are received and paid, details will be sent to noble Lords of those figures, too. The purpose of that is to enable noble Lords to see the information relating to themselves before it is published and to verify that it is correct.
As noble Lords will be aware, claims should be submitted within three months, so the latest claims for this financial year should be received by 30 June 2004. The committee also decided that information about the nature and costs of Select Committee visits should
1034
be published each financial year; that we should join with the Commons in their system of publishing the costs of parliamentary delegations; and that the annual sums paid to opposition parties under the Cranborne money scheme should be published by the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the 5th Report from the Select Committee, Session 2002–03, Freedom of Information: Members' Expenses, be agreed to (HL Paper 176, Session 2002–03).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Following is the report referred to:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: MEMBERS' EXPENSES
The House agreed on 14 January to the recommendation of the House Committee that information relating to Members' Expenses claims should be published, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with effect from the autumn of 20041. The committee at the same time undertook to return to the House following its detailed consideration of the categories of expenses to be disclosed and the form in which the information should be published. This report fulfils that undertaking.
Background
The House has agreed that the information to be disclosed:

—should be published annually;

—should be broken down by the main categories of expenses available: travelling expenses, day subsistence, night subsistence, office costs, and the pre-paid envelope scheme;

—should include an indication of the location of each Member's main residence.

The House also agreed that the information initially to be disclosed should include that relating to the three financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. The House of Commons has come to a similar decision.
In addition, the House agreed that information should be published about the expenses incurred by Members travelling on Select Committee business (these expenses being met by the House administration rather than being claimed by Members under the Members' Reimbursement Allowance Scheme) or as part of an official parliamentary delegation (the expenses of which are met initially by the House of Commons' Overseas Office). It also agreed that details held by the House of claims for Financial Assistance for Opposition Parties ("Cranborne money") should be published.
There are two separate classes of information involved. The first is the claims for expenses of individual Members. The second is the publication of information about the costs of committees, delegations and opposition parties. They are dealt with separately here.
Members' expenses
The committee makes the following detailed recommendations about the information to be published:

a. Following the Lord Chairman's undertaking made in the House on 14 January, there should be an opportunity for Members to give an indication of the location of their main residence if they so wish. The indication should be expressed by reference to county or equivalent region.

b. The number of days each Member attended the House or a committee of the House should be published along with the data on expenses claims.

c. All claims for the Office Costs allowance should be aggregated and a single figure published of the total sums claimed under this head.

1See First Report for 2002–03 of the House Committee (HL Paper 19), HL Deb, 14 January 2003, cols 136–141.

d. Information about reimbursement of Members' travel costs should be given on a single aggregated basis encompassing all the three schemes: travel from the principal place of residence to Westminster; UK travel on parliamentary business; and EU travel on parliamentary business.

e. Information about claims for travelling expenses by spouses of Members or Office Holders should not be published.

f. Information about additional expenses incurred by disabled Members in attending the House and reimbursed on account of their disability should not be published.

g. A simple indication should be given whether or not a Member is provided by the House with IT equipment on loan. This should he accompanied by a general description of the support available.

h. The information to be published should include that relating to Members of the House who have died, retired or otherwise left the House during the year in question.

A table indicating the form in which the information would be published if the committee's recommendations are adopted is in Appendix 1 to this report.
Other Expenses
Committee visits and delegation expenses
The House of Commons has for some time published separate sessional breakdowns of the costs of committees, including costs relating to committee visits. Details of such costs have been collated in the Lords with effect from 1 April 2003, and we recommend that the total costs of each committee visit, together with details of its duration, purpose, and the numbers of Members and staff attending, should henceforth be published annually in respect of each financial year.
No details have previously been published of the costs of parliamentary delegations to international Parliamentary assemblies. The relevant delegations are those to the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The House of Commons has now begun to publish the total expenditure incurred by each delegation, at six-monthly intervals, and has offered to include Lords Members of such delegations within that publication. The committee recommends the adoption of this arrangement.
Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties ("Cranborne Money")
The total sums available from the House to the Opposition parties and to the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers in carrying out their parliamentary duties are published in the Annual Report. The committee recommends that the House should publish for each party the aggregated figure of claims actually paid (see Appendix 2).
Information about the data to be published
Early in 2004 the Accountant's Office will begin to send to Members information relating to their own claims over the years 2001–02 and 2002–03. Members will have the opportunity to correct any errors in the data.

Members' Expenses Claims

LORD

Location of main residence (county or equivalent)

No of days attended

Overnight Subsistence £

Day Subsistence £

Office Costs £

Travel Costs £

Free Postage Costs £

Minister's and Office holder's Secretarial Expenses £

It equipment (YES/NO)

Lord A

Edinburgh

Lord B

Hertfordshire

Lord C

London

Lord D

Co Antrim

Expenses of Members of the House of Lords 2001–04: explanatory notes

Description

Maximum amount payable

Main Residence

This column shows the location of each Members' main residence, by county or equivalent region. Entries in this column are voluntary.

Information relating to the current year will be sent to Members as soon as practicable after the year end. As Members have three months in which to submit claims, the deadline for submitting 2003–04 claims will be 30 June 2004. Given the tight timescale to ensure publication of the figures in the autumn Members will be given a maximum of one month in which to correct any errors, from the date on which the data were sent to them by the Accountant's Office.

APPENDIX 1

  Members' Expenses
  ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM

  A. Members of the House of Lords, except those in receipt of a salary as a Minister, Office Holder or Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, are entitled to recover travel, subsistence and office costs incurred in connection with their parliamentary duties.

  B. Ministers and Office Holders are able to recover Secretarial Expenses incurred in respect of their Parliamentary duties. In addition, the Chairman of Committees, the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Chief Whip are paid personal travelling expenses from home to the House of Lords.

  C. Lords of Appeal in ordinary are eligible for reimbursement of travelling expenses alone.

  ATTENDANCE
  Expenses payable to Members within category A above are linked to attendance at:

  —sittings of the House (excluding attendance at the State Opening of Parliament and sittings for judicial business);

  —meetings of committees and sub-committees of the House (except judicial business);

  —meetings as a member of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST);

  —meetings as a member of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL).

  Costs incurred in respect of an attendance at any other meeting, whether held at Westminster or not, cannot be recovered unless the Member attends a meeting as defined above on the same day.
  SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BODY (SSRB)
  Facilities for free travel to enable Lords to attend the House for the purpose of their parliamentary duties were introduced in 1946. Lords were first able to claim limited reimbursement of other expenses in 1957. The current structure was broadly put in place following the recommendations of the then Top Salaries Review Body in 1979. Since 1994, allowances have been annually uprated by reference to the Retail Prices Index. The last report by the SSRB was in 2001 (Report No 48); its recommendations were accepted with effect from 20 June 2001. Subsistence and office costs allowances are up-rated with effect from 1 August each year, the travel allowances with effect from 1 April.

  Expenses of Members of the House of Lords 2001–04:explanatory notes

  Description

  Maximum amount payable

  Overnight Subsistence

  For each day of attendance:

  Members who do not live within reasonable daily travelling distance of Westminster, and incur the expense of overnight accommodation in London while away from their only or main residence for the purpose of attending sittings of the House may claim for such expenses. A Member whose main residence is outside Greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the house may claim this allowance towards the cost of maintaining such a residence.

  August 2000–19 June 2001 £84.00 per day

  20 June 2001–July 2001 £120.00

  August 2001–July 2002 £122.00

  August 2002–July 2003 £124.00

  August 2003–July 2004 £128.00

  Day Subsistence

  For each day of attendance:

  Members may claim day subsistence and incidental travel costs not separately recoverable. This allowance is intended to cover such items as the cost of meals and incidental travel costs.

  August 2000–19 June 2001 £37.00 per day

  20 June 2001–July 2001 £60.00

  August 2001–July 2002 £61.00

  August 2002–July 2003 £62.00

  August 2003–July 2004 £64.00

  Office Costs

  For each day of attendance:

  Members may recover certain office costs including the cost of secretarial help, research assistance and here appropriate the cost of providing necessary equipment, together with the cost of certain additional expenses (eg domestic costs, purchase of books, periodicals, and professional subscription charges that arise out of parliamentary duties).

  August 2000–19 June 2001 £36.00 per day

  20 June 2001–July 2001 £50.00

  August 2001–July 2002 £51.00

  August 2002–July 2003 £52.00

  August 2003–July 2004 £53.50

  In addition, office costs incurred on days when the House is not sitting or a Member does not attend may be claimed up to an additional 40 days per year.

  Description

  Maximum amount payable

  Travelling Expenses

  Travel to Westminster

  Members may recover, subject to certain rules, the costs of fares incurred in travelling between their principal residence and Westminster for the purposes of attending a sitting of the House, or (subject to the limits set out below) the costs of travel by private car or bicycle.

  UK Travel

  In addition to the normal travel arrangements, the cost of journeys made on parliamentary business elsewhere within the United Kingdom may also be recovered.

  European Travel

  From 1 April 2003 Members are able to recover the costs of two return journeys per year, travelling on parliamentary duties, between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of a European Union state or a candidate country.

  Motor Mileage Allowance

  2001–up to 20,000 miles per year at 53.7p per mile and over 20,000 at the rate of 24.8 per mile 2002–03: 54.4p or 25.1p 2003–04:56.1p or 25.9p

  Bicycle Allowance

  2001–02:6.9p per mile 2002–03:7p 2003–04:7.2p

  Free Postage Costs

  Prepaid envelopes and postcards are available for use by Members for correspondence on House of Lords' business. The costs shown include the postage and envelope costs.

  Ministers' Secretarial Expenses

  Ministers and other paid Office Holders in the House of Lords are able to recover expenses for secretarial assistance certified as incurred by them in the performance of their Parliamentary duties.

  August 2000—July 2001 £4,460 per year

  August 2001—July 2002 £4,531

  August 2002—July 2003 £4,599

  August 2003—July 2004 £4,742

  IT Equipment

  Members are entitled to the loan of up to two PCs (one of which must be a laptop) and printers for use on Parliamentary business. House of Lords policy is for PCs to be replaced every three years. From November 2003 the costs of a broadband installation and line rental may also be paid by the House.

APPENDIX 2

  Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties
  A scheme for providing financial assistance to the Opposition and second largest opposition party in the House of Lords to assist them in carrying out their Parliamentary business was introduced in October 1996. This was extended to cover the Convenor of Cross Bench Peers in October 1999. Under the scheme, the parties and Convenor are responsible for ensuring that the expenses claimed are incurred exclusively in relation to their Parliamentary business. At the end of each financial year they provide a certificate from an independent professional auditor to confirm this.
  The maximum amounts payable are uprated annually in line with the retail prices index.

  Total Payments made£

  Official Opposition

  Liberal Democrat

  Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers

Development Aid
3.25 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to call attention to the role of development aid in tackling world poverty and the part played by the United Kingdom's aid programme; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and VSO, and as a trustee, past and present, of NGOs concerned with overseas development and international security matters. My thanks go to the Overseas Development Institute and Saferworld, which, together with Oxfam, have been particularly helpful in the preparation of my thoughts for this debate.
It is significant that my noble friend the Leader of the House will herself reply to the debate. That encouragingly underlines the priority given to overseas development by the Government. The war on poverty has not yet been won. The millennium development goal agreed at the United Nations in 2000 is to reduce poverty by half by 2015. Although the latest estimate by the World Bank is that the target will be met, other agencies are more dubious, not least because of the continuing adverse effect of debt on some of the poorest countries, despite the imaginative and outspoken lead given by our own Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to mobilise the international will and effort to put that right.
The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in his 2003 progress report to the UN, reminded us that still 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day; 800 million are undernourished; 153 million children under five are underweight; and in sub-Saharan Africa and western Asia the proportion of people living in poverty has increased since 1990. Nearly 11 million children under five die every year, most of them from easily preventable diseases or treatable causes. In sub-Saharan Africa there was no significant progress on child mortality between 1990 and 2001, and there is little indication anywhere in
1040
the developing world of sufficient progress to meet the MDG on improved maternal health. All that is alongside the devastation of AIDS.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us today what are now the Government's forecasts on each of the sectoral MDG targets and what can be done to ensure that they are fulfilled. It would also be helpful to hear her observations on the debt burden of the poorest countries in this context.
Greatly to the Government's credit, aid expenditure has grown by 93 per cent in real terms since 1997. It is expected to reach 0.4 per cent of gross national income by 2006 as compared with its lowest-ever level of 0.24 per cent of gross national product at the end of the 1990s. Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that, when the government in which I served went out of office in 1979, aid stood at 0.51 per cent of gross national product. As long ago as 1970, following the much respected Pearson Commission report, the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for aid was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and the United Kingdom signed up to that. In 1979, we were making significant progress towards the target, but the successor government went into reverse.
In 2002, Norway had reached 0.89 per cent of gross national income, and is committed to reach 1 per cent by 2005; Sweden stood at 0.83 per cent, the Netherlands at 0.81 per cent and Luxembourg at 0.77 per cent. Ireland is now evidently committed to reach 0.7 per cent by 2007, and Belgium has made a legal commitment to reach 0.7 per cent by 2010.
It would be immensely encouraging if my noble friend could tell the House today when we expect to reach our 0.7 per cent target. Such a commitment, when we next take on the presidency of the European Union in 2005, would greatly enhance the United Kingdom's influence with other members of the Union in this sphere of policy, and would similarly strengthen our position when we host the G8 in the same year. It would also be a powerful lever to mobilise international support behind the Chancellor's proposed international finance facility.
Of course it is not quantity alone that matters; here the evidence is positive. With the end of all the East/West politicking of the Cold War, aid is becoming more effective, and, in many ways, the British Government lead on that. United Kingdom aid is well targeted on low-income countries and is more poverty-focused than that of most other donors. This poverty focus has been given legislative endorsement by the International Development Act.
The present Government have played a leading role in untying aid. In 2002 the UK was one of only two government donors whose aid was 100 per cent untied. The United Kingdom is notable among donor governments in having a single department of Cabinet-level status wholly focused on international development. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that that will remain the position.
The Department for International Development has a proactive, cross-Whitehall remit on policy affecting international co-operation and development and I

1041
hope that this will develop. It is indispensable. If the battle is to be won it will inevitably involve financial policy, trade policy, debt policy, environment policy, transport policy, defence policy, foreign policy, immigration policy and much else besides aid itself.
Internationally, the United Kingdom has played a lead role in DAC efforts to increase donor co-ordination and thereby reduce the burden on aid recipients. I believe that in everybody's estimate, DfID has high quality, deeply committed staff who have enjoyed under successive Ministers successful, strong, determined and visionary leadership. The positive, principled personal engagement of the Chancellor on Third World issues has made for a powerful and invaluable alliance between DfID and the Treasury.
In the end, the battle to contain global terrorism will be won in hearts and minds. That is why Guantanamo Bay and comparable arrangements elsewhere are not only profoundly wrong but disturbingly counter-productive. We must always be careful about simplistic assumptions concerning a link between poverty or deprivation and terrorism. The overwhelming majority of poor people in the world would never contemplate an act of terrorism. In my own direct experience I have been repeatedly humbled by the value systems of the poor. They would be horrified if they witnessed an act of terrorism in their neighbourhood. But in the midst of their struggle to survive and to find the next meal for their families, that does not mean that every morning when they awake their priority is the hunting down of extremists capable of terrorist action. Sometimes, in their pain and struggle, they may be tempted to wonder whether, however unforgivable terrorist action may be, the extremists are not perhaps on their side. It is in this constituency of ambivalence that the cynical and manipulative extremists thrive. It is hard to find in history evidence of extremist activities initiated by the poor. They are usually masterminded by the relatively well endowed playing on the disadvantage of the oppressed.
Social and economic progress are not therefore only morally right—and that must always be the driving motivation—they are essential to reduce the number of desperate people open to exploitation. If we want to strive for a viable, peaceful world, redistribution of wealth, redistribution of power, justice and human rights are not just value options, they are inescapably vital. We have effectively to address exclusion and the concentration of power. Order cannot be imposed: that is a self-deception destined to disaster. Order has to be built; it has to be an order in which increasingly everybody has a stake.
Aid and development must never be about buying people for our system. It must be about building a system which belongs to everybody. That is how the rejectionist extremists—and they are there—will be marginalised. In trade policy we have to be certain that the agendas at the World Trade Organisation or wherever, are agendas which belong to the poor as much as to the rich and that they are not at best patronising agendas to which the poor, in what we arrogantly tell them is their own best interests, are being asked to respond.
In environment policy it is a matter of ensuring that we face up to how the poor will once more suffer the worst penalties for the self-indulgence of the rich. Global warming is set to kill very many more people prematurely than terrorism ever will and to displace countless others. In population policy, however essential, it is necessary to be honest about patterns of consumption as much as concerned with patterns of population growth.
As regards migration, it is imperative to recognise the gigantic flaw in the global market by which we set so much store, when we have the free movement of capital and investment, the free movement of goods, but no free movement of people. That is not to argue that the free movement of people is a practical possibility, but it is to accept that its absence presents policy challenges in terms of global, economic and social justice which the flawed market cannot meet.
From Afghanistan we hear calls for more resources for security. These must be answered. But if the obstacles to security are not to be multiplied we have to redouble our efforts and expenditure for economic and social progress, otherwise we shall be like a bad doctor frantically prescribing more and more palliatives to treat the symptoms while failing to come to grips with the disease. If new and hopeful political arrangements are to work, the widest cross-section of people throughout Afghanistan must experience better health facilities, better schools for their children, better water, reliable food supplies and improved housing and transport. To welcome political developments while failing sufficiently to underwrite them with our commitment to development, could quickly prove cynically hollow in effect.
A charge of cynicism could apply in another sphere as well. We speak of justice and the rule of law. These cost a lot of money, for facilities, training and personnel. Whenever we advocate the rule of law we must ensure the wherewithal, and this applies to prisons as well if there is to be any chance of rehabilitation.
The priorities for Iraq are urgently similar. I was frankly disturbed by an Answer to a recent Written Parliamentary Question. The Treasury informed me on 18 December that,
"The Ministry of Defence has drawn down £1 billion in last year's spring Supplementary Estimate from the £3 billion set aside to cover the cost of operations in Iraq. The Chancellor in his pre-Budget Report Statement confirmed that £2 billion has been carried forward into the Special Reserve for 2003–04 and in addition prudently set aside a further £800 million over two years; £500 million in 2003–04 and £300 million in 2004–05 for our international commitments in Iraq and the war against terrorism".
The Answer continued,
"At the Madrid Donors Conference in October the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, announced the Government's pledge of £544 million to support the reconstruction of Iraq over the three years from 2003. Of this, £296 million will be for the next two financial years, including bilateral funds and the UK's share of proposed EU contributions to Iraq". —[Official Report, 18/12/03; col. WA 190.]

1043
There is more than £3 billion for military operations but only £544 million for reconstruction. Do we or do we not want to win the peace as well as the war? Furthermore, there is the worrying evidence that funds are already being withdrawn from important humanitarian development projects elsewhere to finance relief and development in Iraq.
Many of us remain deeply concerned about the degree to which the sense of international community and the commitment to the international rule of law were damaged by the way in which war was waged in Iraq. There has been less discussion about the problems faced by the UN in the aid field where funds have stagnated and are becoming increasingly hobbled by special earmarking. In effect, donors who are not happy with the governance of programmes of individual agencies are avoiding the required structural reforms and cherry-picking the projects and programmes they like. The FAO is one such example. This is obviously wrong. We need the UN more than ever to set standards, build consensus, co-ordinate policy and deliver programmes. Kofi Annan has set aside the so-called "quiet revolution", setting up instead the new high level panel on threats, challenges and change. It would be extremely interesting to hear the observations of my noble friend this evening on how the Government are responding to all this and what their priorities are.
There are of course already a number of relevant initiatives. These include the World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalisation and the Helsinki Process. Can my noble friend tell us more about the Government's part in these and similar initiatives? Can she at the same time tell us where the Government stand on new proposals for a United Nations-sponsored international treaty on the arms trade, a trade which constantly thwarts development and hampers the fulfilment of NBG goals?
In January last year, the Prime Minister said:
"there can be no new consensus, no new order, no stability, without tackling the appalling poverty that afflicts nearly a half of the world's population. Action to deal with this—possible with the right vision and imagination—is the best investment in its own future the developed world could make".
I, for one, wish the Government well in their commitment. I urge them to accelerate and maximise the momentum that they have generated. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I know that I speak for all on the Benches opposite in congratulating him on initiating this debate and for his very powerful speech. I calculate that this is now the 43rd year during which the noble Lord has been speaking with great energy, passion and authority on the subject of international development. I hope that he will continue to do so for many years to come.
I cannot hope to match the noble Lord's experience or knowledge, but I agree with what he said about the concern that the targets for alleviating world poverty by 2015 by a measurable degree may not be met. The
1044
noble Lord was right to raise that concern. Therefore, all noble Lords should be reinvigorating not only in challenging the Government but also in supporting the Government in helping us to meet those targets. This is not a matter of partisan politics. The Conservative Party as a whole—certainly the Conservatives who take an interest in the subject—congratulate the Government on what has happened over the past six or seven years. With increased prosperity in this nation, we have been able to increase the proportion of Government expenditure and GDP spend on aid. The initiatives on debt relief, which I have seen at first hand in a number of countries, have brought real and tangible benefits. This is not a matter of beating up the Government; it is a matter of congratulating the Government on sensible moves in the past few years.
I shall speak briefly about two countries in sub-Saharan Africa where I have practical experience. I hope that my comments will complement the philosophical approach taken, in some respects, by the noble Lord. I speak from an unpaid—disinterested in an economic sense—perspective about both countries. But I deeply care about both Uganda and Sierra Leone, which are good examples of the effectiveness of aid and its shortcomings. Sadly, both countries have experienced very severe civil wars during the past two decades, causing great disruption to their economies and great poverty. Measured by United Nations criteria, Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world, with the lowest gross national product per head in Africa. To see the poverty, particularly the rural poverty, in Uganda, close to the war zones in, currently, the north-east of the country but in previous years in the north-west, and in Freetown in Sierra Leone, causes anyone who has been to those two countries great distress and a determination to do something about it.
I believe that there are three conditions for effective international aid. The first condition is security; that is, the nation itself must be secure and free from war, conflict, corruption and bad government. The second condition is that the aid that is provided must be focused. I pay tribute to the practice of the British Government's aid programme over the past 20 years, and, in particular, over the past five years. The third condition is that we must have a fair world economic system involving tariffs as well as direct investment and trade, which is compatible with and supplementary to our aid programme.
I turn first to security. Perhaps I may take Sierra Leone as a good example where there are still 13,500 soldiers drawn from mainly Nigeria, Kenya and Bangladesh, but with a significant contribution by the British Armed Forces. I say to the Minister that, from first-hand experience, I very much hope that the United Nations, on the encouragement of the British Government, will not take a precipitous view of the withdrawal of all those troops before the end of this year. If that should happen, the army and police in Sierra Leone will not be sufficiently trained—nor will they have sufficient numbers—to provide internal security.

1045
It is important to have governments who are not corrupt. The British Government should provide the examples from our democracy as to how that should be observed and properly policed. I think that your Lordships will wish to pay credit to President Museveni in Uganda and to President Kabbah in Sierra Leone for setting an excellent example. But it is more important that there is a lack of corruption and distrust throughout society. Part of the problem is the unfair wages that are too low and which are paid, certainly, in local government and in certain industries. In the mining industry in Sierra Leone, poverty wages undoubtedly were a contribution to the export of illegal diamonds to Liberia and thence on to unsuitable—perhaps even terrorist—hands. It will be very difficult in some of these poor countries, but an attempt to raise the wage level should make a real contribution to eliminating corruption and improving good governance.
Secondly, I turn to the focus of aid. The United Kingdom has a good record. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will know, with more experience than I have, where the examples lie; but it must be said that as regards the international agencies, and even the charities, the aid programme is unfocused. It is bureaucratic. A smaller proportion of the aid than one would wish reaches the poor and helps to develop the economies and societies of these countries. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who mentioned a number of examples where focus should continue to be made. The British Government should be encouraging our colleagues in the European Union—let alone international agencies—to encourage an emphasis on health.
The standard of some hospitals in some of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa is an absolute disgrace because people treat life so cheaply, when they should not. Some simple, basic investment in some of those hospitals is essential. There need to be schools for basic literacy. There should be employment for the young men and women who have been involved in conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, many of whom are now without jobs because either they are physically disabled or there are no jobs available. There should be roads to transport agricultural produce to the ports or airports, which many African countries have relied on in the past for exports. Finally, of course, there should be electricity.
I strongly believe that fair world economic trade is absolutely essential. The sooner that all the parties in this country can unite in calling for a dramatic end to the scandal of the common agricultural policy and the agricultural subsidies the better. I have seen first-hand examples, and the Vice-President of Sierra Leone, who was in the British Parliament last week, underlined the fact that without the unfair subsidies provided by European funds, agricultural output—exports, such as rice, tea, coffee, fruit and vegetables—would increase tenfold if there could be fair trade.
Economic investment is appropriate in certain areas; that is, investment by the United Kingdom and Europe in agriculture, mining and civil engineering.
1046
The nations themselves must present sensible and viable suggestions where that can be directly linked to a reduction in poverty because there is an increase in prosperity and jobs. Nations should co-operate, particularly in Africa, more on a regional basis. The markets can be bigger and the economic prospects for European companies can be more attractive.
I conclude by emphasising that good business investment and trade—not all businesses take a jaundiced and unfair view of investment in developing countries—should march, and can march, hand in hand with good development aid. The practices of both complement each other, which I am sure that your Lordships would want.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating the debate. He spoke to the House with his usual passion and conviction but, above all, with knowledge of the subject. I have a modest declaration of interest to make as a fellow patron of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, of which I was the first chairman.
I wish to concentrate on the importance of educational co-operation as a vital element in our total aid strategy, particularly within the Commonwealth. The arrival of two new Ministers, Hilary Benn for development aid and Charles Clarke for education, provides an opportunity for a fresh appraisal of the pattern of priorities. I warmly welcome Charles Clarke's statement at the recent meeting of Commonwealth education ministers in Edinburgh that education must be at the very heart of the Commonwealth.
That conference went on to agree an action plan for Commonwealth education, which was put before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nigeria. After the conference, I was grateful for the assurances from the Leader of the House to your Lordships' House that, despite the many divisive political preoccupations in the Commonwealth, the Government took the Commonwealth dimension in education seriously.
I hope that the Government will now take a lead in maintaining the momentum of those initiatives from the education Ministers and from CHOGM. It is important that DfID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Education and Skills work closely together in their educational aid strategy. In the past, the Department for Education and Science was too insular and isolationist about the international dimension of education and DfID, for all its worthy work, has been too narrow and ideologically dogmatic in relation to the degree of priority given to primary education and poverty.
The role of universal primary education is, of course, absolutely fundamental, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, in winning the battle against poverty. If that battle is to be won, educational aid is needed on many fronts, apart from the primary schools of the poorest in the world. Action from

1047
technical education through to post-graduate projects, such as the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, is needed.
To make Britain's aid strategy fully effective we need the three key Ministers in the Government to back a common vision of the role of education in our overseas aid policy. That vision must recognise that ending poverty is not an end in itself, but a means to a more decent society with civilised values. It is here that the educational element in aid policies not only contributes to the ending of poverty, but also contributes to the making of a decent and better society. Of course, for their policies, DfID, the DES and the FCO have to compete for scarce resources within educational aid, whether for poverty and primary education, for Commonwealth fellowships, or for the FCO's Chevening Scholarships, but the Government have a special responsibility to ensure a more coherent educational balance between those various claims.
For historical reasons the Government have a special responsibility to lead the Commonwealth in that area. The FCO's Chevening Scholarships hang on year by year. I would be grateful for any information that the Minister can give the House about their likely future. I understand that the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan has been guaranteed until 2006. I welcome that, but would be glad to have absolute confirmation to that effect. The CSFP, which was, in some ways, the origins of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth that I mentioned, and which has lasted for nearly 50 years, is a success story. I believe that within the Government a directory has been drawn up of the 20,000 holders of the fellowships and scholarships over the years. It makes an impressive list of achievements.
An active profile has been made of 5,000 of the scholarship and fellowship holders and they have made a positive contribution to poverty reduction and to cultural ties. That is something for which Her Majesty's Government and governments of all parties can accept a great deal of credit. The United Kingdom alone has made £12 million available, which exceeds the entire budget of the Commonwealth Secretariat. That is a very striking figure.
On the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat, we welcome the re-election of Don McKinnon as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. We wish him well in his work during his new term of office. While the education section in the secretariat seems fairly secure for the time being—a welcome change from the clouds overhanging it a year or so ago—it is badly under-resourced. Currently in that section there are only four secretariat finance posts, one of which has been deliberately left unfilled for the moment to save money. The staff have only three professionals working on the main budget, which surely is grossly inadequate to carry out all the mandates from Edinburgh and CHOGM; it contrasts ill with the situation of 10 years ago when there were as many as nine professional posts in education. That is an area where, because of Britain's special position within the Commonwealth, the Government can give a lead.
1048
In world affairs the Commonwealth remains a very remarkable organisation that bridges the gaps between all the various economic groups in the international community from the richest to the poorest. As a former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, I am bound to say that, as the years have gone by, the Commonwealth has not been at its most successful in dealing with historical legacies of empire and colonialism. The Commonwealth is at its best when it uses its common language—a tremendous asset in terms of a more peaceful and decent world—in other fields of co-operation and particularly in the area of education.
I hope that the Government will be able to take a lead in building on the education action programme of the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and at the follow-up conference in Nigeria. I also hope that they will be able to report positive progress when the education Ministers meet next in Malaysia and when CHOGM meets next in Malta.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I follow other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend most warmly on the vigour and passion with which he introduced the debate. I declare an interest as the honorary chair of the council of the Overseas Development Institute, on which council my noble friend served with great distinction for many years. I am very grateful to him for raising issues in the way that he has. He is right that in recent years the United Kingdom has had a very good record in international development. We have made good progress both financially and institutionally at home and on the ground in developing countries.
My special interest as chairman of the Overseas Development Institute, and indeed, through my work in HIV/AIDS, has been recently in southern Africa, and I shall be visiting there again next week. It is clear that, however strong our record has been in the past, we need to do even more with even greater vigour. After all, in sub-Saharan Africa half the population still lives on less than one US dollar a day, and only half of all primary school children attend a school, even when it is there. Even in South Africa, which is formally and technically described as a middle-income country, 3 million people live on less than one US dollar, and 10 million people—23 per cent of the population, or almost a quarter—live on two US dollars a day.
We now know a great deal about the huge health care, economic and other impacts on those countries of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, although unfortunately we know too little about how to deal with them. We are beginning to understand the long-term social, psychological and community problems that are being thrown up by the enormous impact of HIV/AIDS. I shall illustrate that, to make it possible to understand in human terms.
A small research project in which the Overseas Development Institute has been involved in rural KwaZulu-Natal shows that in one village 66 per cent

1049
had experienced more than one family member death from HIV/AIDS in the past three years. Tragically, of the 178 children who were included in the village survey, more than 100 played a role as the primary care giver in families in which the adults were already dead.
The consequences of that kind of social and community disaster will clearly resonate for many generations, however generous and well directed the aid programmes of this country and others may be. That kind of stark prediction must not deter us from being ambitious today. That is why I congratulate the Government on their determination. They must go ahead with raising expectations with our allies and friends in other countries on what strong leadership, the right vision and the necessary resources can achieve. We must use our hard-won influence with countries, especially the United States, to ensure that they understand our vision and our expectations of what we should all do.
As my noble friend Lord Judd has already said, next year the United Kingdom will hold both the presidency of the European Union and the chair of the G8, which are both positions from which we can exert our considerable influence. I am sure that the Government are considering how to use those opportunities, and I want to make two suggestions.
First, we need to infuse the donor commitment to Africa with a more concrete vision of how poverty is to be dealt with. We see our own political commitment from the evident leadership of the Prime Minster, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, of course, my noble friend Lady Amos. We must congratulate her on her roles in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and on her short tenure as Secretary of State in the Department for International Development. Her leadership in this area has been enormous, and it is splendid that we can continue to hear her speaking from the Front Bench on these issues, even though she is now Leader of the House.
I raise a note of caution for my noble friend and other colleagues in the Government, which, again, is one to which my noble friend Lord Judd referred. We must be careful not to allow our current and understandable concern with security to become so dominant that other development issues take second place. I do not think either that we must consider giving poverty reduction a very high profile and high priority only when we think it may help to reduce international security risks.
It would be helpful to have an assurance from my noble friend that development issues will remain high on the agenda that will be established and created in the international fora in the next 18 months. It is important that worthwhile aid budgets to countries such as South Africa, which are regarded technically as middle-income countries, are not threatened by the huge additional expenditure that the Government are undertaking in security and defence.
It is true that after the Monterrey meeting on financing for development in 2001, and the Canadian summit of the G8 in the same year, the long-term
1050
decline in global world aid has begun to be reversed. DfID has pledged £1 billion for Africa by 2006, and other donors have been similarly forthcoming. The Bush Administration's Millennium Challenge Account is currently underfunded, but in my view the existence of the account is an example of a new commitment from what some of us might consider a surprising quarter. US aid to Africa as a whole is expected to double in 2004, and sub-Saharan Africa already receives some 20 US dollars per capita in aid. None the less, we must remember the context of that against the extremely low incomes of that region. There is absorbable capacity for more aid and, collectively, we should be striving to provide it. My noble friend Lord Judd was right to raise the question of whether there will be a new initiative on debt relief.
We are all aware that the issues of development go well beyond financial assistance. The problem, and our concern about how to address it, is how to achieve economic growth in Africa, since growth—growth with equity and growth with human development—is necessary to achieve sustainable development for the African population.
Again, the UK Government have a good record. We have rightly highlighted good governance, and have embraced those countries that are committed to democracy and the rule of law. Our important support in these areas to NePAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—is admirable. Again, the leadership of my noble friend Lady Amos, has been particularly good. The United Kingdom has emphasised health and education as underpinning development, in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested was important. We have strongly supported those governments committed to the universal access goals of the Millennium Declaration.
We have also encouraged participatory processes and the preparation of poverty reduction strategy papers—the main vehicle for debt relief and the framework for disbursing additional funds in the poorest countries. All of those policies that the United Kingdom has developed support appropriate development, and the Government should be congratulated on pursuing them. However, we still need to look clearly, carefully and with great energy at the continuing difficulties in the productive industries, such as agriculture. Africa still finds many barriers to trade, which also exist in industrial areas.
My second concern is about European development co-operation, which is another topic on which the Overseas Development Institute is engaged, and on which this House is currently conducting an inquiry in Sub-Committee C of the European Select Committee. If we look to 2005, which will be during our presidency of the European Union, a decision must be made as to the shape of the new Commission. I hope that the Government will exert pressure to influence, and ensure, that one senior commissioner is responsible for development policy that is independent and separate from foreign policy within the EU. The current balance of responsibilities between the Commissioner

1051
for Development and Chris Patten, the Commissioner for External Affairs represents a compromise that does not necessarily work.
The other key outstanding issue in the run-up to and during the UK presidency will be the settlement of the financial perspective, which will fix European budget spending from 2007 to 2013. I hope that we can work to ensure that the European Development Fund provides that the funds destined for the poorest countries are protected, and that we do not simply, through the European Union, concentrate entirely on those countries where we have primarily strategic interests. If we can use our influence internationally to achieve collaborative work—I echo the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in focusing on the Commonwealth activity in this field, and through our presidency and interests in the European Union—I am sure that the Government's very good record will continue.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on introducing this subject. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who brought together the financial and non-financial aspects of aid, as well as her experience on HIV/AIDS in Africa and her tremendous commitment in doing something about it.
The debate is about development aid, and in particular, its relationship with tackling world poverty. It comes at a time when globally—not only in the UK—we have seen a tremendous increase in aid. In the latter half of the 1990s there was an initiative to reduce or forgive debt in developing countries. Then, in 2002 there was the Monterrey meeting from which we had a commitment, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, from the US and Europe to increase aid by some 16 billion US dollars a year by 2006. If aid amounting to roughly 50 billion dollars a year is moving from the rich to the poor countries, that represents an increase in the order of 30 per cent.
In addition, we have had the proposal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one which I have publicly supported on a number of occasions from these Benches, to use the private international capital markets to raise funds and supercharge the process of giving aid in order to meet the 2015 millennium development goals.
However, I should tell noble Lords that a great deal of scepticism is being expressed in the circles in which I move on exactly how aid reduces world poverty. That is because aid is simply money given by the UK Treasury to the treasuries of developing countries. Either that money can be consumed with little resultant increase in growth or it can be invested, with the potential of producing a high yield. In making the case for aid, the World Bank has stated that:
"Over the last 40 or 50 years, aid has been highly effective, highly ineffective and somewhere in between".
So it is not obvious that higher levels of aid are automatically effective.
1052
Let us look at the statistics for aid given to sub-Saharan Africa over the past 30 years. Aid as a percentage of the GDP of sub-Saharan countries has risen from around 5 per cent to more than 15 per cent. The rates of growth in those countries have reduced from 2 or 3 per cent annually to zero or even negative rates. Last month the respected economic think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, expressed its scepticism about this:
"Ultimately aid fails miserably owing to its corrupting psychology and politics. It inculcates the belief that development comes from outside and not through sustained domestic effort. It focuses energies on distributing the spoils of politics rather than on productive wealth creation. It allows elites to extract funds through beggary or blackmail while perpetuating damaging policies at home. Aid delays rather than promotes much-needed policy reform".
I fundamentally disagree with that and I want to use my time this afternoon to explain why I do so and why there is a sound basis for using aid to reduce poverty.
The starting point is to acknowledge that the only way to reduce world poverty is through an increase in world economic growth. The dramatic examples of the past 10 to 15 years are China and India. For more than a decade China has achieved an economic growth rate of 8 per cent and has seen the percentage of its people living on a dollar or less per day falling from 33 per cent in 1990 to 16 per cent in 2000. India has achieved a less dramatic growth rate of just over 4 per cent, which has resulted in a noticeable reduction of poverty. If economic growth is the key to reducing poverty, how do we achieve it?
I turn to the Treasury proposal for an international finance facility and the chapter headed, A New Approach to Aid, and reports from the World Bank. Both argue that growth in developing countries depends fundamentally on the policies that they follow: macro-economic stability, transparency in government, a sound investment climate, trade liberalisation and the local ownership of reform programmes. I offer one statistic to support those observations. The World Bank has looked at low, middle and high-income countries to see how many days it would take to start up a business. In the low-income countries the average is 70 days; in middle-income countries it is 50 days, while in Canada and New Zealand it is two days. Against the background of economic growth causing poverty reduction and growth arising from the policies adopted by developing countries, we can argue the case for aid.
I believe that aid is particularly effective in two areas: first, in helping poor countries to build up capacity in public administration and in the private sector so that they can operate market economies, generate economic growth and attract foreign investment; and, secondly, when countries are moving in that direction, we should acknowledge that it will he decades before they have clean water, universal primary education, public health and a proper transport infrastructure. At this stage, laissez-faire is not enough. A strong case can be made for giving financial aid to those countries which have chosen reform because it will yield a high return.

1053
This is a very different case for aid from that made in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when aid was linked to market failure, protectionism, state planning and expanding public sector corporations. Along with other speakers, I strongly believe in the case for aid. The reason I do so is that if we can encourage developing countries to introduce reforms in the direction I have indicated, we shall see a high pay- off. As I have said, against that background laissez-faire is not enough.
But we still have a trusteeship responsibility to taxpayers in our own countries. We must ask whether we can do more to ensure that aid is used effectively. I should like to suggest three things that we could do. First, where possible, development aid should be allocated on the basis of measurable outputs and not just on the money given. I realise that that may not be possible in certain areas such as capacity building, but we could do more to specify performance criteria such as the number of children vaccinated, reading and writing targets met in schools, miles of roads built, kilowatts of electricity generated and the ease with which new businesses can be created. That would build on the criteria already set out in the Treasury and DfID paper I mentioned earlier. Further, the International Financing Initiative has made the position clear by stating that recipient countries are expected to pursue anti-corruption policies, to improve transparency in public sector management and to lay out their poverty reduction strategies. However, I believe that we could go one step further.
Secondly, in terms of the delivery mechanisms in recipient countries, the private sector and the institutions of civil society rather than simply government could and should be asked to do more.
Thirdly, development aid needs to be the subject of greater external scrutiny. The effectiveness of funds given should be verified by independent external auditors and their reports published. Too often there is a lack of post-aid donation auditing and publication.
In conclusion, the scale of global poverty outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in opening the debate remains a scandal. We cannot simply stand back and adopt a posture of laissez-faire. Reducing world poverty demands a substantial additional boost in development aid. For those countries which choose to reform, it will yield high returns. But we in the rich countries must also act responsibly. The challenge is this: do we have the political will to act, and to act now? I sincerely hope that we do.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I join in the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Judd for initiating this debate and for having spoken with his usual authority based on a great deal of experience in this issue. I should also declare an interest in that I have served as a trustee of or on the committees of a number of development agencies.
I find it deeply shocking that one and a half billion people in the world live on less than two dollars a day. Many of them are in Africa, although desperate
1054
poverty is also found on other continents. The disparity between the affluent West and the poverty in particular of sub-Saharan Africa presents a challenge to us all. It lays on us an enormous responsibility to act decisively and, as the noble Lord just observed, to show proper political will.
Looking at it in the round, the UK has a good record. Not long ago the Prime Minister expressed a passionate commitment to tackling poverty in Africa, and in DfID we have an excellent department, one of the best among the richer countries of the world in dealing with these issues. We have taken the initiative by writing off the debts of the poorest countries of the world. We have also initiated schemes whereby our aid is not tied to trade. So, all in all, our record is good.
As my noble friend Lady Jay said a moment ago, by 2005 we will have increased our bilateral aid to Africa to £1 billion per year. And yet we still have not reached our target of 0.7 per cent of GDP. I join my noble friend Lord Judd in asking my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government can give an indication of the year by which we will feel able to meet that target.
Of course, it is not an issue just of aid in isolation. We must also achieve fairer trade. It is no good just giving aid to poor countries and helping them to improve their infrastructure for developing and selling more products if we then slam the door on our markets while subsidising our own producers. That does not make sense and it is not right. In the fullness of time, we must properly appreciate that trade and the opportunity to earn more money are essential if poor countries are to raise their living standards.
We were all desperately disappointed at the failure of the WTO talks in Cancun. We had hoped that further talks and initiatives would be possible by December, but I fear that that has not been the case. It has been quoted on many occasions that the average EU cow receives more financial support than 1.5 billion people—perhaps even more—in the world today. We simply cannot go on accepting a system where we subsidise agriculture through the CAP. I know that British government policy is against the CAP for that reason, but the CAP continues to have that major flaw. We cannot go on supporting a system that penalises poor countries by denying them markets in the West and making it difficult for them to compete, unsubsidised, against subsidised western producers.
It is not only subsidies through the CAP, but also market forces that work against poor countries. We will all have read at great length in the newspapers how coffee producers are receiving ever-smaller returns, while coffee prices in restaurants and coffee houses in the West continue to go up. That disparity is not to do so much with subsidy as with an imbalance of market forces. That also works to the detriment of the poor.
I shall refer briefly to the EU aid programme. It has improved in recent years, but I would still like to see it as focused on tackling poverty as is the British aid programme. Too much of the EU aid programme is still disbursed on political issues rather than on poverty.

1055
It is important that any programme to eradicate poverty focuses on children. Every year, more than 10 million children under five die of preventable illnesses. That is 30,000 children per day. More than 500,000 women a year die in pregnancy and childbirth. Such deaths are 100 times more likely in sub-Saharan Africa than in high-income, OECD countries. That is a scandal.
Children need more support and help. I was assisted in visiting Bangladesh by a leading development agency, Plan UK, to look at programmes to improve the health and education of children in Dhaka and in some poor villages. I was impressed by the effectiveness of a development agency programme aimed at involving children themselves in tackling their own situation. Initially, I was a little sceptical, but having seen the programme in action in the field, I was most impressed. Both in an urban slum in Dhaka and in villages, the programme was helping to improve the health and education of children and, through children, of the families themselves.
I visited a village school where the children were particularly concerned. They called an emergency meeting because one of the children had been taken out of school to get married at the age of 14. The children were developing a programme to alert families in the area that that was not a good idea. I also saw an enterprising way of improving educational attainment among children by running a supplementary education programme alongside that in the state schools.
My noble friend Lady Jay spoke about AIDS in Africa. She covered that topic well. I understand that AIDS is now the biggest single threat to African development. In some areas, the infection rates are as high as 30 per cent. It is estimated that 2.3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. That is a tragedy not only for the families that are directly affected; the HIV/AIDS epidemic is also cutting economic growth by more than 1 per cent a year, because some of the most productive members of the workforce are affected. Another problem results from the epidemic; that is, the social crisis caused by the large number of children orphaned by AIDS and the need for programmes to help them and their families as their parents reach death.
Although the figures in some sub-Saharan African countries are very high, there is hope to be gleaned from the situation in Uganda. Largely due to prevention programmes, HIV prevalence there has fallen to 8 per cent. I understand that that is the best record in Africa.
I shall conclude by repeating what I said a moment ago. The support of children who have become AIDS orphans is a particular problem in many parts of Africa. I am pleased both that DfID has accepted that as part of its work and that many development agencies working with children are making a particular point of supporting those unfortunate children and helping them to develop their lives.
I give the Government a great deal of credit for their work in development aid. I would like them to promise to meet the 0.7 per cent target.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for giving it the opportunity to debate an important issue. I congratulate him on his forceful speech.
Other noble Lords have painted broad pictures of the AIDS situation and of the need for action. I shall concentrate on three issues that are part of the overall poverty situation: malaria; HIV/AIDS, to which reference has been made; and agriculture, especially livestock agriculture. We are part of a global village and we should take care of our poorer neighbours in it.
Malaria is one of the major problems of the developing world. I shall focus particularly on sub-Saharan Africa, but it is a major problem throughout the world. The vast majority of deaths occur in Africa, with 300 million new cases occurring every year and 1 million deaths. Ninety per cent of all malaria occurs in children in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria is a disease of poverty and a cause of poverty. It is estimated to cost Africa more than 12 billion dollars per year, and yet it could be controlled for a fraction of that cost by using insecticide-impregnated bed nets and insect control. Economists estimate that malaria is responsible for a growth penalty of up to 1.3 per cent per year. When that is aggregated over a period of years, it makes a major difference to the GNP in malaria-affected countries when compared with those without malaria.
Apart from its lethal effects, malaria has the indirect. effect of sapping the energy of the workforce. It also saps initiative, hampers schooling and damages the social structure of a country.
Malaria comes with other major problems such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Those three diseases form the major health problems for mankind in the poverty world. I shall not touch on tuberculosis but I would like to identify HIV/AIDS as a problem—not only because of the medical difficulties it causes but for its fundamental effect on the workforce, agriculture and the fight against poverty.
The growing political commitment of African leaders to action against malaria is boosted by the "Roll Back Malaria" programme, a partnership developed in Abuja in Nigeria. A declaration was signed in 2000 endorsing a strategy of halving the number of cases of malaria by 2010. The strategy will include simple measures such as the use of insecticide-impregnated bed nets, vector control, prevention and management programmes and an increase in education.
However, the resources needed to reach that goal by 2010 cannot be provided from the local countries alone—only 20 per cent can be provided in that way—and there is a major need for donor assistance to help the sub-Saharan countries to achieve it. One hopes that the United Kingdom will be able to help.
The problem of HIV/AIDS has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and other noble Lords. It is of course a major issue. It was effectively reviewed by POST in December 2003. It is a stark fact that in sub-Saharan Africa 28 million people are living with

1057
HIV/AIDS, with new infections running at 3.5 million per year—and the infection rate is growing. In Nigeria, for example, it is projected that 10 million to 15 million cases will occur by 2010 and in Ethiopia up to another 10 million.
There is a desperate need for anti-viral drugs. The current ones are expensive—costing between 10,000 and 15,000 US dollars per completed course—and the emergence of drug-resistant viruses complicates the whole issue. Education is woefully inadequate—only one in four people have access to AIDS education—and only one in 20 have access to anti-AIDS drugs which would prevent the transmission of the AIDS virus from mother to child.
The amount of aid for HIV/AIDS is substantial. The US Congress is asking for 15 billion US dollars over a period of five years to deal with the problem. The United Kingdom is following closely on the USA in donor funding through the Global Fund, donating £3 million in 2003 and £6 million in 2004. So we are playing our part. In addition, DfID is funding anti-viral and vaccine research to the tune of £16 million per year. Although these are substantial sums, they are still not enough and more needs to be done. I repeat, the issues of malaria and HIV/AIDS are problems for the global village to which I referred. They are "next door" problems and they need to be attended to.
Finally, much of the agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa is made up of small rural farmers, who are beset with poverty and disease. If we are to improve the whole of agriculture—which has massive potential—in sub-Saharan Africa, there must be a change in the per capita reward of farming. Over the past 30 years, there has been only a 4 per cent increase in productivity in rural farming in Africa compared with 20 to 30 per cent in other parts of the world.
In recent years, much of this has been due to the change in the population profile as a result of the AIDS epidemic. The people who would normally work on the farms are no longer there or are suffering severely from the AIDS epidemic. There has been a depletion in the workforce, a depletion in food productivity and an increasing dependence on older people.
Much of agriculture is dependent on animals and the role of animals in the provision of draught power. I am particularly supportive of a DfID initiative to bring together Canadian, British, United States and Australian scientists to develop vaccines and anti-viral and anti-infectious disease drugs for the treatment of livestock diseases affecting farmers in Africa under what is known as the Global Alliance for Livestock Vaccine. It is a very good example of international co-operation and action. I hope that similar programmes will be encouraged by DfID in the future.
Rural agriculture has a particularly important part to play in curing the massive problem of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Much will depend upon our handling it in a most effective way.
4.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing the debate and for the wealth of information contained in his speech. With his long involvement with NGOs it might be appropriate for me to concentrate today on the part that voluntary agencies, such as Church-related groups, play in supplying aid to developing countries.
The strengths of voluntary agencies are many. They can respond swiftly to need; they can raise funds directly from the general public; their overheads are small as much of the work is carried out by individuals; they can use networks developed for other purposes, such as local church congregations around the globe, so that there is a network of both information and delivery.
There are, however, related difficulties. The general public are notoriously fickle in giving money to good causes. They respond well to urgent and immediate disasters, particularly if pictures are being dramatically shown on TV screens. They are less willing to give regularly for long-term aid unless the money is tied to a particular person or project. School fees for Mary in a village in Zambia can be raised from individuals here; money to meet the ongoing costs of teachers' salaries is more difficult to find. So voluntary organisations are wont to make their appeals in dramatic terms or in ways calculated to pull at human heart-strings.
The small administrative costs of charities are to be welcomed but this means that they are often operating on a shoestring, and mistakes can be made through the lack of adequate professional staff. A host of enthusiastic volunteers is a great blessing but they need organising and co-ordinating, and nurturing their time and talents can be a skilled job.
An evaluation of the way in which 12 large British charities responded to the food crisis in southern Africa in 2002 has just been published. The report well illustrates these strengths and weaknesses. The 12 charities together raised more than £16 million from the public and spent millions of pounds more of official aid from the Government. But in doing this it seems that they overstated the seriousness of the situation to the public, comparing it to the 1984 Ethiopian catastrophe in which at least 800,000 people died. It was not on that scale.
However, there was something new about the 2002 appeal. It was the first time British charities had tried to avoid a full-scale humanitarian crisis rather than respond to one after it had happened. Instead of waiting for people to die, the agencies moved beforehand to prevent catastrophe. In other words, the charities were trying to build a fence around the top of the cliff of hunger rather than pick up the bodies at the bottom of the cliff after they had fallen.
In addition, the evaluation reported that the charities had learned quickly how to work on a larger scale than previously and had co-ordinated their responses well. They were found to have been sensitive to local cultures and to have supported local groups.

1059
Most of the charities worked with local Church groups in Africa but the report found that some of these were totally out of their depth.
On strengths and weaknesses, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, pressed for more scrutiny and accountability in the donation of aid. We cannot fault these charities for seeking to be open and accountable in a world and continent where neither is always common. The agencies hope that their openness to independent evaluation will encourage the public to support future appeals in the confidence that their money will be well spent; and I echo that hope. It will be of interest to hear from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House how Her Majesty's Government plan to strengthen their relationships with aid charities in the years to come.
Africa is like the man who has been hit by 16 bullets, and they still keep coming. He is hurt; he is staggering; but he is still alive. The bullets of HIV/AIDS, political corruption, failed harvest, malaria, ignorance and disease continue to take their toll. The task of combating then is one in which both government and NGOs have their part to play. But this is not merely a question of the best way of managing aid; it is also a moral question.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, led us into the philosophy of aid for good or ill. Perhaps I may add my reflections to his. We live in a world of greed, self-indulgence, rising debt and false prosperity, yet with no real strength or self-confidence, where the gap between rich and poor both within and between nations continues to increase. We urgently need a globalisation of moral responsibility.
There are those, some holding senior office, who say that this widening gap between rich and poor is of no significance. But decades ago, J K Galbraith warned us of the danger of breaking the social contract which held that while some might be richer and some poorer all could expect both protection and a chance in the social system.
That is what development aid is basically about. It seeks to restore life and health, not only for their own sake, but as a sign that every person matters, every person has a value in society and can expect protection and opportunity. Unfortunately, protection for all can become protectionism for the wealthy and powerful and opportunity for all becomes hollow without access to food, health, education and markets.
I am not always uncritical of Her Majesty's Government, or any government. But I believe that they are to be congratulated on taking the lead in seeking to persuade western governments to be more generous in providing development aid. We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer whose prudence does not prevent his being personally committed to this work; and we have been well served by a succession of equally committed International Development Secretaries.
The money that a government such as ours can generate and deliver makes the resources of charities seem trivial but there is a symbiotic relationship. The more people are involved in giving of their time and money to development aid through the charities, the
1060
more the social climate is formed and generated which enables governments to be generous with the public purse. And the more committed the Government are to development aid and the eradication of poverty, the more the charities feel that they are not giving their all in some kind of social vacuum but are part of a resilient and sustainable partnership.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on enabling us to have this important debate. However, there is, of course, another side to the development aid coin: the eradication of debt and the manipulation of markets to which the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Freeman, referred in their speeches. In 1776, Samuel Johnson made what we might call the green pea argument when he said that he was prepared to pay half a guinea for a dish of green peas. Why? I quote him:
"You are much surer that you are doing good when you pay more to those who work as the recompense of their labours than when you give money to charity".
The radical American theologian Jim Wallis uses different words to make the same point, when he says:
"Stop asking what you can give to the poor—just stop taking from them".
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate whose views on voluntary organisations, as a member of several. I very much appreciate.
In the context of the comprehensive and penetrating survey by my noble friend Lord Judd, I want to underline that the purpose of development aid is to do itself out of a job. In time, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, suggested, growth should take over and attract investment to take the place of aid. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who has expertise, of course, in the area emphasised agriculture. I very much want to follow that and ask: can agriculture be the engine of growth? Our Department for International Development thinks so, and has put over £145 million into direct support for agriculture. Its new document Agriculture and poverty reduction: unlocking the potential sets out a strong case for backing agriculture which is very timely. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation says in its latest report:
"countries which succeeded in reducing hunger were characterised specifically by more rapid growth in their agricultural sectors".
The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD)—I join the tribute of my noble friend Lady Jay to the leadership of my noble friend Lady Amos in support for NePAD—has now published a Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme, half of which is to be funded from within Africa.
The advantages of focusing on agriculture are that first of all, it is at the heart of where poverty is deepest. Three quarters of the 1.2 billion people who survive on less than a dollar a day live and work in rural areas. Agriculture can best meet their most immediate needs: its product, food, is their first essential; in general in

1061
Africa it provides two thirds of employment; and it is also half of exports. So growth in agriculture will benefit the poor most. But whereas in sub-Saharan Africa agricultural production declined and the absolute number of people going hungry increased between 1980 and 2001, in south-east Asia rapid agricultural productivity gains lifted millions out of poverty. To learn from that success is really necessary if our international goal of halving the number of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015 is to be met. What are the challenges to development aid for agricultural production?
Agriculture-led poverty reduction relies on small farms. How viable are small farms? They certainly can be. I was in Vietnam over the new year and saw its astonishing record in growth, now 7 per cent of GDP, halving the proportion of people living in poverty to 29 per cent. Agriculture is its big success story. It is now the second largest exporter of rice, by volume, in the world. It does this mainly with small farms, buffaloes rather than tractors, and very expert hard-working farmers. DfID is set to be the biggest donor in the country and it well repays the British taxpayer's funding. But networks of small farms need underpinning.
Crucial is access to credit, even on a small scale. I am a great supporter of micro-finance—that is, small loans where peer pressure is substituted for collateral—and I declare an interest as an associate of Opportunity International; and I see that the World Bank announced a pilot last June for grants of 225 million dollars over three to four years to improve the financial services available to small and medium-sized enterprises, including expanding and regularising micro-finance institutions. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell me whether our government support this initiative and encourage its application to agriculture?
Tied up with access to credit is land title. In Ethiopia— and I ought to declare an interest as the vice-chair of the British-Ethiopia All-Party Parliamentary Group—the Derg regime took land into state ownership, and one result was that there was almost no investment in marginal land. Forests were stripped and topsoil was lost, contributing to drought and famine. Now the Government are creating a form of title to land which can be inherited. I hope my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development can encourage them to provide for at least a three-generation period, so as to create strong incentives for improving land value. The Economist, in an article last week, failed to give the Ethiopian Government credit for land reform. This was not as misleading as the BBC's concentration on the sensational famine of the 1980s and emergency food aid, also last week, which ignored what would really lift Ethiopia out of aid dependency, namely investment in Ethiopia's emerging agricultural production units, which such a programme can only deter. I very much commend John Vidal's article in the Guardian on 15 January, setting the record straight.
1062
Land title, of course, is more than an incentive to improvement. It is the most common collateral for asset-backed lending—the next step up from micro-credit. As the Economist says, asset-backed lending is one of the engines of growth, but, perhaps only one in 10 in Africa owns the title to their property. DfID has some very successful programmes of training in governance expertise such as tax collection systems. I wonder if it also works in helping countries to develop land surveying, land registries and pro-poor property law?
Asian agriculture has also benefited from genetically modified crops. The kind of farming which does not require heavy chemical expenditure is pro-poor and it would be interesting to know what research in innovatory agricultural techniques DfID puts at the service of the developing world. One of the aims of the NePAD agricultural programme is to promote agricultural research such that spending doubles over 10 years. However, it is no use having efficient agriculture if there are no proper trade prospects, as several noble Lords have said. Can my noble friend say how the Doha round is now progressing?
The other big external issue, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, is commodity price fluctuation. How does DfID's commitment to rapid liberalisation of agricultural trade take account of the need to shelter fledgling sectors against external shocks like abrupt changes in terms of trade?
Finally, I would like to raise an awkward issue. This concerns middle-income countries, not the poorest. For instance, in India, a middle-income country with good growth rates, there is a very large number of poor people. The number of those going hungry there rose by 19 million from 1995 to 1997. But once a country has enough resources to create satisfactory growth and attract investment, donors might well conclude that their aid should be transferred to poorer countries, even though the poorest of the poor are still there. It is national redistribution that is the problem. How can donors—should donors—intrude on sovereignty with their own views on redistribution, or insist that national and federal governments get more of a grip on their own local administrations? What can donor governments do?
4.57 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, it is the moral duty of the peoples of the developed nations to make reasonable provision for the poor peoples of the world. The objectives that accompany that noble duty are well established and are interdependent: that there be more aid; that it be effectively used; and that poor countries be assisted to make economic and institutional progress towards self-sufficiency.
The key issue raised by my noble friend Lord Judd in this timely debate is: how can the United Kingdom best pursue those objectives in the foreseeable future? Our Government, particularly when my noble friend was a Minister at DfID, had and continue to have an excellent record, both in the amount and the quality of development aid for which they are responsible. The

1063
commitment of the Government and the country is well encapsulated in the International Development Act 2002. Its brevity bespeaks the clarity of our national purpose, which is to provide development assistance likely to reduce poverty by furthering sustainable development and improving the welfare of populations to achieve lasting benefits. Within that new statutory framework, I commend to the House and the Minister three interrelated policy objectives for the future.
First, that there should be more aid. The initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the international financing facility is innovative, beneficial to all and should be implemented. It should be a complement to current development aid, not become an alternative, which so many people in the developing world fear may happen. Moreover, it should provide continuity and consistency, so that poor countries are not subject to the vagaries of national or international political pressure. Furthermore, it should alleviate the debt burden. I therefore hope that in the coming year, 2005, when we have the presidency of the G8 and the European presidency, the maximum amount of international persuasion and pressure will he exercised by our Government to introduce the IFF or an acceptable variant of it.
I said that that proposal was complementary to and not alternative to existing aid. Many in the developing world are very anxious indeed about the impact of expenditure on the reconstruction of Iraq on their development aid budgets. One understands the political realities that require such large amounts of money to be spent in that country, but let us not forget that it is an oil-rich country. It has the capacity in the long term to fend for itself and, presumably, to pay back some if not all of the money put into it by us in the near future.
I raised that point for my noble friend to deal with for a reason which I can illustrate by way of example. Because of Spain's redistribution of its development aid towards Iraqi redevelopment—and Spain was an ally of ours and the US in Iraq—the total national Spanish development aid budget to the rest of the world is now 0.03 per cent of GDP. That is an incredible statistic from a wealthy European country in the light of the declared objective of 0.7 per cent for us all. I understand the realities, but the world needs reassurance. How will budgets be distributed for the future? I invite the Government—if not in this debate then at a prompt occasion in the near future—to make a policy statement on their financial structure and system for development aid over the next few years.
The second objective is to let the aid be used effectively. I should like to make two policy points here, one about the world outside and one about here in our country. To prevent famine is vital; the relief of starvation is the primary object of much development aid; no one can deny its importance. However, in order to achieve that and in order to balance budgets, surely the position cannot be that we should stop providing aid to countries where people are not starving but suffer poverty of the spirit.
1064
Where nations do not function well, there is no future in sight and no progress to be made. In Peru, for example, our Government and the British Council have for years run a radio programme, several times a week, all over the country, educating ordinary people in that country, especially indigenous Indians, about the simple things of life—how a community works, how legislation operates, how to deal with your councillor, how to go to the doctor, how to survive in a functioning society. Its budget in Peru is dependent on us. Our programme may or may not continue. Its value is inestimable; its cost modest. So in attempting to end poverty, let us not give up on the poverty of the spirit.
Internally, whatever we say here, the young of this country—the idealists of this country, who are indifferent to our political and legislative process at the moment—are not indifferent to the fate of the poor of the world. It stimulates them. It enthuses them. It makes them think that government and society have got worth. So I call upon the Minister and the department in the future to ensure that DfID's work is properly advanced in this country, and thereby to increase the budget up to the 0.7 per cent objective.
Finally, let there be good, progressive governance in poor countries. I fully endorse the views of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. In the 21st century there should be no more excuses and no more irresponsibility from some of the self-ruling elites of poor countries. It cannot be accepted any more. The message has to be clear: "First, you introduce in your countries proper financial systems in which commerce and business, macro and micro, can function. Secondly, you apply simple basic standards to work, business and the environment embodied in the United Nations Global Compact. Thirdly, you stamp out corruption". There is no more insidious barrier to progress in reducing poverty than corruption. We should fully endorse and campaign for the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. We therefore seek from the Government a commitment to make countries change for the better in so far as we can.
I opened by saying that development aid is a moral duty. To provide it well is a virtue, a virtue that not only gives succour to the poor but adds to the strength of our national spirit, which is imbued in this country with decency, generosity and a respect for worthy ideals—all of which mean development aid.
5.7 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for this chance to speak about development in the Arab world, a region with which Britain has had a long relationship. Unfortunately that has been tarnished by recent events and our Government's conversion to regime change in Iraq. Two years ago we were still stunned by the events of 9/11. While Ministers and defence analysts were devising new measures against terrorism, diplomats, academics and civil servants began to look for positive ways of both explaining and responding to the so-called "clash of civilisations". As I shall mention, the two aims do not live together happily.

1065
The aid community was slow to catch up. It was only after the second intifada in Israel/Palestine and during sanctions against Iraq that NGOs began to realise how little they knew about the Arab world—for half a century the province of travellers, oil men and devotees in the Foreign Office. There was a general belief, except among a minority, that all Arab countries were oil rich and could look after themselves. This is only a cameo, but it shows how wrong we were. Events have proved that it has been our lack of awareness and commitment towards the Arab world in the West—especially the Anglo-Saxon West—as much as socio-economic conditions in the region itself which have contributed not to the acts of terrorism in themselves but to the anger and prejudice against the West which has allowed them to happen.
There has been a spate of reports on this dilemma, from the UN's excellent Arab Human Development Reports, to the papers given to the FCO conference last April; from the British Council's survey, to policy documents including DfID's latest regional assistance plan for the Middle East and North Africa. That carefully worded document, which I commend, takes the UN report a stage further and bravely sets out a framework for poverty reduction—which is what DfID is all about; it is not primarily about changing attitudes.
In the past decade our aid through DfID and the EU has been deliberately more concentrated on the poorest countries. That has meant that the range of programmes has been diminishing. Only Yemen in this region now falls into the category of poorest. I hope that this is not a firm trend in our policy towards the Arab world, where there is much inequality and where some countries deserve special attention. I shall leave Iraq aside, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, because it has obviously become a special case. Large sums have somehow been found for its reconstruction, which would have been unheard of before the war.
Jordan is a good example of a country where the UK could have a greater impact, but the DfID programme is small and winding down on the grounds that Jordan is a middle income country. The same is true in Egypt. Yemen, where we now have an active role, the West Bank and Gaza seem to be the only programmes in which DfID can have complete confidence. Britain's firm support for UNRWA and the EU programme "Protecting Palestinian Institutions" has been admirable, however frustrating the political background.
Another government initiative in the Arab world is the new Global Opportunities Fund. Only launched by the FCO in May 2003, it has a budget of £120 million over three years, mainly in support of a hotchpotch of anti-terrorism, environment, democracy and other global objectives. Hidden inside it is a tiny £1.5 million programme called "Engagement with the Islamic World". This encompasses economic reform in Morocco, human rights in Egypt, the development of a Syrian money market, capacity building for women in Lebanon and training in journalism through the BBC World Service Trust. The FCO describes it as a
1066
systematic strategy across government for engaging with the Islamic world and promoting peaceful political and social reform in Arab countries. This is an encouraging development, which deserves much more prominence. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the budget is to be doubled during the coming year, and that eventually it will be somehow more closely related to DfID's programme. To launch such a programme in the FCO alongside anti-terrorism looks like phoney diplomacy and not true development.
The Global Opportunities Fund also works through organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and the British Council. Besides its main programme, the British Council has brought young people together through its admirable "Connecting Futures" programme and continually looks into ways to support local initiatives.
My concern in this debate is that while these programmes are undoubtedly doing good work, much more needs to be done to encourage organisations in the Arab world to carry out development themselves. One of the themes of the UNDP report has been labour migration; the way in which Western universities and institutions have drawn off skilled labour that the Arab world cannot afford to lose. Over 130,000 Arabs are currently studying in the EU or in the US, some 85 per cent of those under postgraduate programmes. Many of them are unlikely to return home at all. A reversal of this trend is urgently needed. through a thorough rethinking of our scholarships programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, mentioned the buzz words such as "capacity building" and "an enabling environment". The aim must be to create stronger networks of knowledge and in-country training in such fields as financial services, small-and-medium-sized enterprises, local government and institutional development, so that planners and accountants as well as engineers and doctors do not feel driven to join the brain drain. Much of this work is already undertaken by the private sector, particularly the large accountancy firms. Here, there are problems of corporate responsibility and accountability. I mention, as a trustee of Christian Aid, a report on this subject published today.
The Liberal Democrats rightly called attention recently to the role of the Adam Smith Institute. Apart from the considerable cost, the insertion of privately contracted consultants and specialists into fragile ministries or to avoid elites in developing countries can inhibit rather than reinforce what is being done. It would be much better to create shorter-term assignments, which build in training in, say, banking services online in harmony with established financial institutions to avoid the need for outside intervention.
There is a long tradition of charity in Islam, which contains the seed of civil society. Community and consultation are important tenets of Islam and they chime in with our more formalised notions of democracy. An exchange of skills within different sectors of charitable work, such as education and health, could transform attitudes and enable changes

1067
to take place, such as the setting up of new NGOs. There are always political risks that such charities may become too exposed, but these risks must be judged according to the society concerned.
My visit to Palestine gave me an insight into the quality of Palestinian NGOs. Here, one finds experienced, young aid workers who feel so much frustration when they are capable of dealing with problems but cannot either cross the check points or find resources to do their work and form links with other societies where similar work is going on.
I shall end with an unfashionable suggestion. Let us not apply the middle income rule too harshly in the Arab world. I happen to know that even Saudi Arabia has poverty, not only geographical but also in its health and education sectors. We tend to think of large hospitals in the capital cities there, but there is a new interest in charitable outreach work and the development of civil society. I declare an interest, since my wife is one of the few people who have done research on this. Several health charities there require a range of management skills which could be provided by Britain or other countries in the region. Our approach to aid in the Arab world, like in so many areas, needs much more flexibility and original thinking if it is to have the required impact to help strengthen civil society and prevent an increase of Islamic extremism by small minorities fostered by social inequalities.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd, who launched the debate in his usual eloquent style. I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lord Brennan; that is, to allow abject poverty to persist into the 21st century is immoral, because we have the means to remove it. Instead, we use these means for selfish or destructive purposes, towards levels of consumption that are bad for our health and the world's health and we spend vast sums for wars and preparations for future possible wars. To eliminate gross poverty from the world would improve our lives too, and not only in a moral sense. I quote from page 12 of the most recent DfID report, with an introduction by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Talking about poverty, it states,
"We ourselves cannot escape its impact, as events over the past year have continued to show. We have to improve the lives of people around the world if we are to live free from war and disease …to address the causes of environmental degradation, illegal migration or the trade in illicit drugs, or take advantage of the economic benefits that increased demand in the developing world would create for workers in the UK".
That last part of the paragraph deserves emphasis. Not mentioned in the DfID report is the relationship of poverty to terrorism. It is not a direct relationship, as my noble friend Lord Judd pointed out. Poor people may become bitter and desperate, and they are easy recruiting material for extremist movements.
As well as aid, we must consider the world economic backdrop, as other noble Lords have pointed out. The economic playing field is tilted sharply against the
1068
south in three main ways. The first of these is the persistence of the debt problem, despite HIPC. I gather that Uganda's debt has increased from £2 billion to £2.2 billion since some of its debts were written off. Uganda and other poor indebted countries often still must pay more to service their debts than they spend on health and education. The total debt servicing costs of the developing world are 343 billion dollars annually, which is 6.5 times the total development assistance, which is 52 billion dollars.
The second adverse tilt consists of the terms of trade. As many noble Lords have mentioned, there are still persistent tariffs against imports from the south, particularly agricultural products, which are its mainstay as my noble friend Lady Whitaker mentioned. That is especially so if the products are value-added. Oxfam has calculated that those barriers cost the south 100 billion dollars a year. In contrast, developing countries are required to lower their tariffs against imports from the north as part of liberalising their economies—a pre-condition for receiving loans or grants from the World Bank or the IMF. That allows subsidised cheap food and cotton, for example, to be imported from the north, which undermines the prices of local agricultural products and sends many farmers into bankruptcy.
Thirdly, as mentioned by my noble friend. Lord Dubs, the prices of stable commodities such as coffee are now at rock bottom, sometimes making it hardly worth the effort of harvesting them.
I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the steps that the Government are taking to make trade more equitable by tackling some of the issues that I have mentioned, and to make the HIPC initiative more effective. A suggestion by development NGOs is that debt-servicing costs should never be greater than 10 per cent of any national budget. Would it not be fair for unpayable debts to be written off when total servicing payments reached or surpassed the amount of the original debt? It has always seemed unfair to me that an individual or firm can be declared bankrupt, but that that is not an option for a nation.
The work of DfID on the ground is widely respected, as all noble Lords have mentioned. However, I am still somewhat doubtful about how it was justifiable to pay the Adam Smith Institute 70-odd million dollars to privatise the public services of Andhra Pradesh. I still have some problems with that, despite George Monbiot's article in the Guardian being answered by the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that the decision to work in co-operation with governments to strengthen their effectiveness is very good in principle. And a good example of much appreciated assistance is the operation in Vietnam—which my noble friend Lady Whitaker discusse—dand which I have also just visited. Vietnam has a stable government and already has a good record in poverty reduction. We are helping there in the health, education and rural transport sectors.
Many countries present far greater difficulties because corrupt or ineffective government prevails. Even more difficult are countries involved in conflict

1069
the most prominent at the moment being Iraq, of course. I am sure that my noble friend will give us an update on how the DfID operation there is progressing in the current difficult security situation, and what the total costs are likely to be.
In many other countries with poorly functioning governments, there is still a strong role for international and local partner NGOs that know their communities and ensure that donors' money is well spent. That is not always the case if it is given to central government, as other noble Lords have mentioned. Those NGOs often co-operate with and strengthen government-run services at a community level and are very well trusted. That is certainly the case with the two NGOs with which I am most closely associated, ICROSS in Kenya, and Healthlink Worldwide, which I am glad to say is funded in part by DfID and has an ongoing programme in the occupied territories of Palestine, in partnership with local organisations.
I hope that DfID takes care—I am sure that it does—to assess whether resources given to failing governments, or any governments for that matter, are not wasted when non-governmental organisations and other organisations in civil society can do the job of eliminating poverty, if they are supported more effectively, at a local level. They assist rather than replace government services such as dispensaries or schools, which are almost always desperately underfunded.
I ask my noble friend to consider the vital importance of continuing and, I hope, increasing support for reproductive and family-planning services. She will be aware of the Ottawa commitment of November 2002 on the issue, which recommended that 5 to 10 per cent of national development budgets be used for reproductive health. In the United Kingdom's case, that would be between £200 million and £400 million. I am told that £270 million is spent by DfID on HIV and reproductive health together, which falls within the range. However, I suspect that most of that money goes to HIV programmes. Can my noble friend say how the sum is allocated between the two, as I am sure that she will describe our important HIV/AIDS initiatives?
How well are those initiatives integrated with reproductive health? The two are really inseparable and integration makes both more effective, but I fear that the concentration on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS may tend to be at the expense of reproductive health, which is already suffering because of the withdrawal of American funds. In the long term, it will be equally important in the fight against poverty.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on his passionate and serious introduction to the debate, and join others in commending the Government on their remarkable commitment to reducing poverty. A striking part of their policies has been to aid countries to focus on
1070
poverty and then to provide resources. I am confident that that programme will continue, especially the debt cancellation, and one hopes that it will rise to the desired level that the noble Lord set out.
My comments will be on the barriers preventing poverty reduction caused by environmental and technical problems. Others have raised the issues of law and order and medical problems, which are also important. I want to mention the ways in which UK expertise, both inside and outside government, could be used more effectively. I declare an interest as president of ACOPS, a non-governmental body, and of the Advisory Committee for Natural Disaster Reduction.
Questions have been raised about the allocation of resources of different departments in Whitehall, so I begin by asking whether there are genuine interdepartmental reviews about the relative effectiveness of expenditure by different departments on projects related to poverty reduction. I have not seen any. Many departments spend money on such projects, as is touched on in general terms in DfID's annual report. However, cost-effectiveness and relative importance are not reviewed. That relates to an issue before the Science and Technology Committee, which is reviewing the effectiveness of international agreements and the UK's involvement. As I shall explain, DfID may not take as much interest as it should in its own expenditure and that of other departments. That may be a curious statement, but I shall come back to it.
As the World Summit on Sustainable Development concluded, and as the executive director of UNEP explained in his Callaghan lecture recently, environmental pressures, fighting environmental degradation and mitigating environmental disasters are an essential part of dealing with poverty. There was very strong support for that by the then Secretary of State, Clare Short, in Johannesburg. Those factors impact most strongly on the poorest communities. Rich people and communities could often get by, but the effects are worst for the poorest communities.
Through many techniques, it is possible to make better predictions—warnings—and provide better education, better specialist advice and better infrastructure investment to deal with some of those problems. The British Government contribute importantly through the work of Df1D, but also through the work of other agencies such as the Met Office, Defra and the Department of Transport. However, whereas resources for the DfID budget have increased considerably—the figure of 90 per cent was cited—resources for other departments have not increased in proportion. Why not?
For example, those departments are helping countries to provide warning of natural disasters and training local staff. In developing countries with poor living conditions and vulnerable communities, disasters have a disproportionate effect. However, as one sees in Asia, devoting resources to those areas, through better local organisation and technology, can greatly reduce the devastating impact. For example,

1071
we saw that it was the poorest people who suffered greatly in the recent Iranian earthquake. People who live in well-built housing in Los Angeles do not suffer.
Even in Africa, one can see big differences in how countries are making progress in that area. A devastating environmental impact on poverty is the destruction of habitats and, I regret, the environmental piracy, to use a strong term, of the richer countries, whose fishing fleets have destroyed fish stocks and coastal habitats, especially off Africa. For example, modest help from the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency to African countries is helping them to police those areas, but the amount of money available is extremely limited. More resources devoted by the UK—and, as my noble friend Lady Jay pointed out, European Union policies to reduce European piracy—could make a great difference.
In Africa, more than half the population live on coasts. The World Bank reported that by 2050 not only will most people be living in cities—70 per cent—but most of them will be living in coastal cities. Under NePAD, a new African centre for dealing with the coastal environment has been set up in Nairobi—a concrete achievement of the NePAD initiative. Some of the worst features of poverty in those cities are diseases caused by shortage of clean water, poor sanitation and, as a West African Minister commented last week, abuse of those facilities.
As a Seychelles Minister explained when he addressed the All-Party Group on Africa in October, it is vital that education for those countries—and perhaps more widely—should be based on environmental understanding. We should begin not with, "The cat sat on the mat", but by reading and talking about the water, the beaches and the plants, because they are the essence of life. The UK can contribute more in the way that it is already contributing to help the environment of the Seychelles, but also more widely through that concept of education and the environment.
Technology, especially recently, has a bad reputation in relation to poverty—dams, big power stations and so on have been commented on—but I am confident that technology is undergoing great transformation. It will play a vital part in future. What efforts are being made by the DTI and DfID to exploit new, sustainable local electricity generation using photovoltaic systems, for example, which will enable people to provide local water purification? In the same way, mobile phones have provided vital communication where other networks do not exist. In fact, with the Internet, that has enabled some rural communities to choose the best crops to plant—which can vary greatly with the seasons—and how to market them.
That brings me to the World Bank's Global Environmental Facility, which is a great initiative by the international community to involve both developing and donor countries in environmental projects aimed at sustainable development and poverty reduction. Billions of dollars have been and
1072
continue to be spent. The United Kingdom. the United States and other leading countries recently increased their contribution to that agency.
DfID is the department responsible for ensuring that the UK contribution is spent wisely. However—I have experience of this, having heard about some projects—because the UK does not contribute as a bilateral donor to some of those projects, it has little influence on them, although it is funding them to a considerable extent. Therefore, UK expertise cannot be involved. Given that supporting the Global Environmental Facility is a major plank in the UK Government's aid and environment policy, which I strongly support, can my noble friend comment on whether the current arrangements for management and monitoring are entirely satisfactory?
That should be one of the best ways forward, especially as it should lead to the more effective participation of the private sector in solving environmental and poverty problems. I join the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, in hoping that that can he given more emphasis in future.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing this important debate on an area in which he has such expertise and such a proven record. Time and again, he challenges us all, not simply those on his own Benches.
I start by picking up one point from the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, mentioned, Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on the European Union is currently undertaking an investigation into EU international development assistance, a subject that is certainly germane to this debate. Our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, regrets that he cannot be here today, because he is attending a meeting in Brussels. Aid channelled through the EU accounts for one quarter of UK development aid. Whether that is being put to good use is clearly relevant here. However, I will not today prejudge our findings, which we look forward to presenting to your Lordships shortly.
Therefore, let me confine myself to the remaining 75 per cent of UK aid. Developing countries account for 80 per cent of the world's population—5 billion people. By 2050, that proportion will be 90 per cent of the world's population. It is thus clear not only for moral reasons, as the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Rea, pointed out, but for economic reasons how important it is that the developed world assists our less well-off neighbours.
Doing what we can to reduce conflict around the world; removing trade barriers among the rich nations, as the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Dubs, said; and investing in education and training, as the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Judd, said, are all essential if poorer countries are to prosper. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, emphasised, it is economic progress that will best tackle poverty. However. we all agree that aid still has a major role to play. The

1073
Government have done a great deal in the field of international development, and their expansion of aid, to which other noble Lords have referred, is most welcome.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Dubs, emphasised, it is surely time that the UK had a timetable for moving to the UN-agreed level of 0.7 per cent of GDP spent on aid. Belgium, Ireland, France and Finland have all adopted such timetables. The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have already met that target. As ActionAid pointed out, reaching the target would cost only half of the extra £5.5 billion mobilised for the war and reconstruction effort in Iraq.
Here, I reiterate what we have said from these Benches many times before and perhaps strike a discordant note in what has been a debate containing much agreement. I emphasise how deeply we regret the fact that the Government took us into war in Iraq. Not only has that had a most damaging effect on Britain's position in the world, it has also served as a terrible distraction from major global problems.
In the autumn, it became evident that not only had it proved to be such a distraction, it had also siphoned off aid money, as was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Brennan, and by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. The noble Baroness, the then Secretary of State, Clare Short, and the Prime Minister all promised in advance of the war in Iraq that such action would not result in the diversion of funds from poor countries. Those promises were broken.
As Oxfam pointed out last October:
"The Prime Minister assured us in a letter sent in April this year that in order to fund reconstruction in Iraq, no aid would be diverted from other emergencies or from programmes supporting poor people anywhere else in the world".
It points out that the announcement of those cuts,
"means that he is breaking his promise and letting down the poor people in those countries that rely on that funding".
The noble Baroness herself explained on 10 November last year that,
"Over the next two years, funding for the reconstruction of Iraq includes £50 million reallocated from planned programmes".—[Official Report, 10/11/03; col. WA 156]
All of this was caught up in DfID's decision to redirect its budget from so-called middle income countries to the poorest countries around the world. In some ways that may seem reasonable enough. But this obscures the fact that some of the world's poorest people may well live in so-called middle income countries. A strategy that addresses poverty around the world should, surely, look at the poorest people wherever they are to be found.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, pointed out, South Africa—now plagued with HIV/AIDS, and also receiving many refugees from Zimbabwe—counts as a middle income country. Does that mean that we should now turn away from South Africa? All but a handful of countries in Latin America count as middle income countries, and DfID's Latin American
1074
programme has suffered as a result. As CAFOD has put it, to take money from so-called middle income countries to fund the reconstruction of Iraq is,
"robbing Peter to pay Paul, when Peter is as poor as Paul".
I now turn to what seems to me to be the most major crisis facing us in development terms today: the problem of HIV/AIDS. If we thought that, up until now, Africa faced major developmental, economic and social problems, that is surely as nothing compared with what it now faces. The noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Soulsby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have most cogently addressed this issue. HIV is the pressing problem at the moment.
In some areas, HIV/AIDS is affecting 60 per cent of the working population. It is estimated that there will be 25 million AIDS orphans by 2010. Those are children who are not likely to be in education and who have no social stability or preparation for a stable economic future. Their future is very bleak.
Some 40 to 50 million people may well now be infected. I welcome the move to extend the availability of cheap drugs in developing countries. These drugs have dramatically reduced the death toll in affluent countries—we have certainly seen that in the United Kingdom. It thus becomes ever more vital that we now help to get cheaper drugs to people in poorer countries so that their life spans can be extended and so that we can help to keep families together. Worst hit is sub-Saharan Africa, but there is also great concern for China, the former countries of the Soviet Union and many other areas.
Can the noble Baroness tell us in what ways the Government seek to tackle this matter? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have also asked, what priority will they give to this when they chair the G8 summit and when they hold the presidency of the EU? If they say that they are to give this matter a high priority, how do they see that translating into actions?
While the WHO programme of 3 million people on anti-retroviral treatment by 2005 is to he welcomed, this is surely too little, too late. What expansion of this programme do the Government anticipate—not simply to meet its requirements, but to expand it? What progress is being made to develop health care systems to deliver what is needed? How is the care of orphans going to be placed at the centre of policies in those countries? Will DfID seek to have a continued role in HIV prevention treatment programmes in developing countries?
Before concluding, I shall pick up on a couple of issues that have been mentioned in this debate. Can the Minister say what is happening with the International Finance Facility? Welcome though it may be, does she agree that it is not a substitute for reaching the 0.7 per cent target? Is she aware that other European countries have signalled their reluctance to support it unless the UK adopts a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent? Can it flourish if the United States does not back it? How does she feel it can be co-ordinated with other large bilateral and multilateral initiatives like the Global Fund and the US AIDS Initiative?

1075
Secondly, can she tell me how debt relief is to be included in the aid budget?
In conclusion, I say again how much I appreciate the introduction of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. While I welcome much that the Government have done, I fear that some of their very laudable efforts have been knocked off course by their activities in the Middle East. I look forward to the assurances that the noble Baroness can give us today.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating this debate. I agree with him that the UK aid programme has been a success for many years. It is probably one of the best aid programmes in the world. But there are bound to be failures. It is not always helpful to find someone to blame when things go wrong. In fact, one might go further and postulate that, if there are no failures, then not enough risks have been taken and not enough courage shown in initiating bold entrepreneurial projects.
As many speakers have said, one of the best ways of giving aid to help in the fight against poverty in developing countries is to give financial support to reputable charities that have a good track record of giving effective aid, and which have had success in the all-important activity of capacity building.
My wife and I have just returned from one of our many visits to west Africa, where we operate on a hospital ship that has three operating theatres and 70 beds in two wards. This is a charity called Mercy Ships, which provides operations that are not usually available free of charge. We work with local surgeons, introducing them to new techniques and treatments. One of the many attractive features of this charity is that none of the 300 crew is paid: we all have to pay for our own food and keep on board—and that includes the captain. As a Scot, this use of charitable money appeals to me very much.
As several noble Lords have already mentioned, one of the major problems in giving aid is ensuring that it gets to those who need it. Ann Gloag of Stagecoach generously set up several hospital units in Africa, but, being a canny Scot, she soon realised that too much of her money was leaking away into the wrong hands. She decided that the answer was to have her own ship. This led her to Mercy Ships, and resulted in her buying a 20 year-old Danish rail ferry that is currently being converted into another hospital ship in Newcastle. This will be completed by the end of the year, provided that we can raise the outstanding £8 million.
Over the past 25 years, volunteers from Mercy Ships have operated on over 8,000 patients with advanced dental problems, cataracts, hare lips, huge jaw tumours and goitres, hernias down to their knees and women rendered incontinent through childbirth. Many of those women were outcasts, but successful treatment resulted in them being accepted back into their homes and the villages from which they had been expelled.
1076
I emphasise that we could never have done any of this work in Sierra Leone had it not been for the 2,000 British troops who did such a great job in restoring and maintaining peace. They also did many other invaluable jobs such as training the police and army and undertaking building and engineering projects. Great credit is due to them, as my noble friend Lord Freeman has already mentioned.
When charities such as Mercy Ships come to one of the developing countries for a period of up to six months it is a great help. But what is needed is capacity building. We need to help them to build up and maintain these services themselves. To that end, we have established permanent land bases, run mainly by local people, to supply splints, orthoses, wheelchairs and artificial limbs for those disabled by diseases such as poliomyelitis and by the atrocities of war. We provide building materials and equipment to teach local people to dig wells and build clinics.
We have supplied 40 goats, 80 sheep and seeds to the farmers in Sierra Leone who lost everything in the war, on condition that they give the firstborn lamb and some of their harvest to their neighbours. Last week, I noticed that our Chief Whip was wearing a silver model of a little goat in this lapel. He told me that it represented a charity called Kids for Kids, which loans six goats to a poor family for two years, providing them with milk for the children and allowing the family to keep the kid goats produced.
In west Africa, perhaps the most lasting legacy will be the dental school that we are planning to set up to train dental assistants for a period of three months, which will enable them to carry out the most straightforward treatments. In the fistula hospital in Ethiopia I met an outstanding lady who had been taught to operate on fistulas. She underwent the operation herself 25 years previously. She has now carried out more than 2,000 such operations and must be the best fistula surgeon in the world. She can neither read nor write. In Togo, in west Africa, a local man in a mission hospital was taught how to do hernia repairs. He has now carried out more than 1,000 of those procedures and is probably the best hernia repairer in west Africa. He, too, can neither read nor write.
The other great advantage of having lay surgeons is that they will not emigrate as so many doctors do. In fact, many noble Lords sitting in the House could be taught to carry out a straightforward operation. So long as their victims—I mean their patients—knew that they had no medical qualifications, that would be legal. Of course, one cannot operate on an animal without a licence.
Teaching lay people to carry out operations in Africa is an unusual but highly effective kind of capacity building. But some politicians, professionals and liberal idealists resent that approach because they see it as providing second-class care to developing countries. But it should be seen as providing more care, and more appropriate care—in fact, it is the best care available under the present conditions.
The United Nations recently inspected some of the capacity-building projects and found that little capacity was achieved in the long term. Its conclusion

1077
was that capacity-building efforts are best if they are demand-led—the people must want to do it. We must avoid capacity-building projects that we are sure that they need, when the people do not actually want them.
Clear five-year objectives must be set with clear time frames for their achievement. It must be possible to increase the ability of local people at all levels to organise and set goals and performance targets effectively, and to do that with decreasing dependence on external support. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach emphasised and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, neatly expressed, in giving aid to developing countries, we should be trying to do ourselves out of a job in the long term—but what a long term it is.
When it comes to HIV/AIDS, the role of heads of state has been crucial. Those presidents who have denied the problem have presided over disasters, whereas those who have been honest and given real leadership are well worth studying. Perhaps Africa has most to learn from President Museveni, whose campaign has led to a significant reduction in the incidence of HIV/AIDS, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs: from 31 per cent to 7 per cent among pregnant women. President Museveni's leadership and his close liaison with schools, Churches and NGOs has been inspiring. At the centre of his campaign has been the slogan "ABC"—abstinence, be faithful in marriage and condoms.
The Overseas Development Agency, under my noble friend Lady Chalker, was a great supporter of NGOs and gave £3 million to the Mildmay AIDS hospice in Hackney to build a similar centre in Uganda at the invitation of President Museveni. My noble friend very wisely advised me, as the chairman, that the centre should concentrate on teaching as well as on out-patient care. As many as 90 orphans can be seen there in a day. They are all dying of AIDS, but their lives arc improved by treating them and their many complications, as well as giving them a good square meal. We also encourage patients by lending them £50 to set up small businesses, which helps to relieve their poverty, feed the children and boost their morale.
I visited Ugandan prisons and saw inmates acting in short four-minute plays, which were very powerful and demonstrated the appalling effects of AIDS and how it can be prevented. Local people seem to be much more effective than foreigners at getting the message across in their own way. Before leaving the subject of HIV/AIDS, perhaps I may also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her husband for all their work in tackling the AIDS problem, and also the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich.
In summary, capacity building is the order of the day, but it is much more likely to work if we listen to the people we are trying to help and concentrate on what they want, rather than patronising them with our views on what we think they need.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing an excellent debate. His experience and expertise is greatly valued in this House. I thank the other noble Lords who participated in this debate for their very positive comments about the Government's development policy. However, noble Lords made it very clear that a great deal remains to be done. I shall return to the challenges in a moment.
This Government have much to be proud of in the arena of international development. Spending has risen steadily, and, by 2006, we will be spending £4.6 billion on overseas development assistance. One billion pounds of that will be allocated to Africa, underlining our commitment to the continent. My noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pressed me to give a date for reaching 0.7 per cent. I cannot confirm a date today, but our commitment to reaching that goal remains firm.
We have written off 100 per cent of debt owed to the UK by the poorest countries in the world. We have proposed a radical new international finance facility designed to raise the extra 50 billion dollars needed each year to achieve the millennium development goals, and we have untied all our aid so that recipient countries can spend it wherever they get greatest value for money.
Over the past six years, a quiet revolution has been under way in British development policy, and its effects have rippled around the world. The Department for International Development is today one of the most respected donor organisations in the world. It is respected, not just for the reductions in poverty that have been delivered in developing countries, but also for the quality of its ideas. Above all, I believe that the department has come to be respected because it represents the next wave in development thinking and, in particular, the importance of having an integrated approach to development and globalisation. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke of the importance of a joined-up approach. In particular he spoke about a cross-Whitehall approach. We saw this recently in our approach to the negotiations in Cancun. But we have also seen it in our conflict prevention work, the creation of the conflict prevention pool, which brings together the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID; our work on aid effectiveness with the Treasury and the sustainable development agenda with the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
My noble friend Lord Hunt asked me specifically about the nature of inter-departmental reviews on poverty. I can say to him that where we have joint targets these reviews take place.
In a speech in Chicago in 1999, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out a new agenda on inter-dependence in foreign policy. We have come to realise that borders are of decreasing relevance in the world today because we have moving across those

1079
borders capital flow, migrant workers and refugees, infectious diseases and invasive species, trade and information and viruses both real and virtual. So we have come to recognise that the national interest and the global interest need to be aligned.
It is this recognition which is at the heart of our development strategy. We face immediate security challenges in today's interconnected world and these are threats to which we must remain alert and respond to them. But there are development challenges which also pose a threat to our world. For example, there is the growing prevalence of HIV/AIDS to which I shall return. In sub—Saharan Africa Botswana has a 39 per cent infection rate.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, when he said that security and stability are essential for development. That includes tackling corruption, focusing on governance and creating an environment to attract investment.
The United Kingdom has worked hard with its international partners to get the entire international development effort to focus on achieving the millennium development goals. But on current trends we will meet only two out of the 18 targets by 2015, the headline target of halving absolute poverty and the target to halve the proportion of people without access to safe water. Other targets including universal primary schooling, gender equality in schools, reductions in child and maternal mortality and combating the global HIV/AIDS epidemic will require a significant increase in effort if they are to be met.
But achievements in individual countries with substantial reductions in income, poverty in China and India, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, demonstrate that progress can be made with the right political will and the right environment.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked what we are doing to help to fulfil the sectoral millennium development goals. We are committed to maximising the opportunities offered by the 2005 UK presidency of the G8 and the EU to push for faster progress on development.
We have three priorities, which are: accelerating progress towards achieving the millennium development goals, including taking forward proposals for mobilising additional finance; tackling the global HIV/AIDS epidemic; and addressing the challenges faced by Africa.
As regards the finance facility, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the UK Government do not see the IFF as a substitute for reaching 0.7 per cent growth.
I turn to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords. I begin with health and HIV/AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, spoke in particular about the 2 million who will die of tuberculosis and the 1 million from malaria. Over the past 50 years there has been enormous progress in improving global health but there remains a staggering scale of death and ill-health in developing countries. The links between health and poverty are clear. Poor people suffer greater ill health, which pushes people
1080
into poverty and they may be unable to escape. As the noble Lord made clear, poor health affects national economies and household income directly through decreased productivity and, importantly for the poorest, through significant out-of-pocket expenditure. So poor people need to be able to access good quality essential health services.
We have committed over £1.5 billion to strengthen health systems since 1997 ensuring access to trained staff, reliable supplies of drugs and health commodities and building effective management systems to deliver and measure progress. We have played a critical role in the development of, and worked closely with, Roll-Back Malaria, Stop TB, the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation and the global initiative to eradicate polio.
HIV/AIDS was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Dubs, Lady Jay and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. We have taken a leading role over the past few years both in pushing the issue up the world agenda and in giving financial and practical help. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked specifically about the action that we will be taking. On World Aids Day last year we published our call for action, which re-emphasised our commitment to tackling the global epidemic and highlighted the need for stronger political direction, better funding, donor coordination and better HIV/AIDS programmes. We shall continue to offer the leadership required to get the world to focus on what we must do together because there is no individual country that can tackle the issue.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Judd, Lord Dubs and Lord Rea and the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Freeman, spoke about the importance of a fair world economic system and trade. There is no doubt that Cancun was a setback. The continuing stalemate at the WTO meeting in December was a further disappointment.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked how the Doha round is progressing. We are absolutely committed to getting the Doha development agenda back on track. Looking ahead to our presidencies in 2005, we will be working to create the right conditions for the WTO negotiations to resume in a constructive atmosphere and to ensure real development gains from the round. We have committed over £160 million to trade-related capacity building since 1998. The money is targeted at the existing poorer countries to develop their own policies, participate fully in the negotiating processes and seize the opportunities that arise from trade liberalisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular pressed me on what support we are giving and have given. We contributed financial support to assist the African Union, the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group and the least developed countries to come together to discuss their common agenda for the round. At Cancun, 62 WTO members found their voice and exerted their influence by forming a new alliance.

1081
There is no doubt that the burden of debt has played a major role in holding countries back from development. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friends Lord Judd, Lady Jay and Lord Rea and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all alluded to that. We have made progress since HIPC's launch. Some 70 billion dollars debt relief has already been agreed for 27 countries, reducing their debt by two-thirds on average and freeing up resources for spending on poverty reduction.
Our aim is that HIPC should provide poor countries with a permanent exit from unsustainable debt burdens. We have therefore been pushing for additional relief or topping up for countries which risk exiting the initiative with debts above the HIPC threshold. We are pleased that this was agreed for Burkina Faso and will continue to press to ensure that all countries with unsustainable debt receive top-ups.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made an important speech underlining the need for developing countries themselves to put the right macro-economic policies in place. The noble Lord made the point that we need to increase world economic growth. I agree. We in the Department for International Development have changed our approach, which is a result of acknowledging that reality. Where partner governments demonstrate a genuine, strong commitment to poverty reduction and where circumstances are appropriate—for example, where fiduciary risks are assessed as acceptable—we are moving our development assistance away from individual projects to providing assistance directly to partner government budgets.
Direct budget support allows us to support the implementation of a government's own poverty reduction strategy. I can assure my noble friend Lord Rea that we achieve better financial management of donor funds and the government's own funds. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that not only do we measure output, but we also measure outcomes. We need to look at the quality of life of poor people and we need to look at the way that it has changed as a result of our support.
I could not agree more on the point about evaluations and external scrutiny. That is why the OECD peer review process and other evaluation mechanisms are so important. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, my noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord Judd, the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and other noble Lords, about the importance of ensuring the effectiveness of our aid programmes. We have worked with the Treasury on that and, in advance of the Monterrey conference, have published a document that looks at the issue of aid effectiveness.
Agriculture was raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. We are committed to supporting agriculture as a means of reducing poverty and achieving the millennium development goals. Achieving our goal of halving the number of people
1082
living on less than one dollar a day by 2015 will need a dramatic improvement in the performance of agriculture, particularly at the small and medium-scale level.
In response to my noble friend's particular question about the World Bank's micro-finance initiatives, we are one of the largest contributors to the World Bank. We work with the World Bank at the policy and country level to support micro-finance. Many times the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has raised the issue of education in this House. The noble Lord's concern is that the focus is on primary education. Of course, that is our focus because of the relationship between primary education achieving universal primary education and tackling poverty.
I can say to the noble Lord that our support for the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowship Plan continues. In 2003, more than 700 awards were made at a cost of £11.7 million. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that we are also supporting, for example, the Kigali Institute of Science and Technology in Rwanda in developing science and technology courses. So there is some work that we are doing in the higher education arena.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the importance of working with NGOs. We recognise the key role that NGOs play in development and the elimination of poverty. We have ongoing debate and discussion with representatives of the NGOs. Since 1996, support for UK NGOs has increased by 32 per cent to £222 million in 2002–03. The right reverend Prelate made reference to the recent Disasters Emergency Committee report on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, and the NGOs' response to that crisis. Perhaps I may say that NGOs are to be congratulated on undertaking that evaluation and the learning that will come from it.
On the matter of capacity building and the importance of capacity building being demand-led, raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I absolutely agree. That is why we support country-led strategies. Developing country governments are involved in the choice of any consultants that are used as part of their poverty reduction strategy processes.
My noble friend Lord Hunt raised issues connected to the environment. The key outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development—the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation—recognises the importance of protecting and managing the natural resource base for economic and social development, and that that should be integrated into,
"country owned poverty reduction strategies …which should reflect the priorities of the poor and enable them to increase access to productive resources".
But challenges still remain. Many countries have little capacity to establish monitoring and information systems, or to develop appropriate macro-economic frameworks, or to devise suitable growth strategies. That is why DfID has identified a number of key sectoral areas in which we are giving support.

1083
My noble friend Lord Rea asked me specifically about Iraq; I shall come on to points made by my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in relation to Iraq. Progress is being made in Iraq. Security remains a major challenge, but the coalition has launched more than 17,000 reconstruction projects of which more than 13,000 have now been completed.
As regards financing, at the Madrid Donors' Conference in October 2003, the international community demonstrated its commitment by pledging more than 33 billion dollars in grants and concessional loans, as well as trade credits and assistance in kind. The UK's total financial commitment of £544 million for three years was announced at that meeting. While on the subject of Iraq, I should reassure my noble friend Lord Judd that the commitment to Iraq has not affected our humanitarian or our emergency programmes. I should like to make that point clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I have made this clear to noble Lords in the past. We have not diverted funds from the poorest countries or from our humanitarian emergency strategy, and our commitment to 90 per cent of our funding reaching the poorest countries by 2006 remains.
My noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Jay were concerned that a simplistic analysis would be made in relation to terrorism, security and poverty. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was also concerned about our strategy in the Middle East. My noble friend Lord Rea was concerned about a possible connection between terrorism and poverty. The Government's approach takes on board the complexity of the issue. We want to tackle poverty and support fragile and emerging economies. But, at the same time, we are grappling with how best we can seek to influence those countries where the state has collapsed.
I can tell the noble Earl that our strategy for the Middle East is to help governments, civil society and the private sector, across the region, to drive the economic, political and social change needed to enable progress towards achieving the millennium development goals. While we need to take a strategic approach to middle-income countries, we cannot just look at the fact that poverty exists in a country. I would remind the noble Earl that poverty exists in the United States—the richest country in the world.
I am very conscious of time, so I shall try to move to a conclusion. The challenges facing developing countries are huge. Africa has been mentioned several times in this debate. During our presidency of the G8, we intend to focus on areas where we believe that concerted action in Africa can have real results. That includes getting more girls enrolled in primary school, where we are aiming for 70 per cent by 2005; addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic; and enhancing African peace-keeping capacity, because conflict has had a major impact on development opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked specifically about the arms trade. The Government welcome the arms trade treaty for the contribution that it makes to
1084
international debate. But if such a treaty is to have an impact we must gather support from a wider range of countries, not just those that already practise responsible policies. We are working with overseas countries to set up regional and sub-regional meetings to discuss and agree arms transfer controls.
I have said many times in this House that despite the many challenges that continue to face us, achievement of the millennium development goals is still possible with political leadership and political will. In this Government we have that political will and we have that leadership. We will continue to work in partnership with the IFIs, with partner governments in developed and developing countries, with the NGOs and the business community to keep these issues high on the international agenda.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I sincerely thank all those who have contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend for her characteristic, thorough and detailed response. We are altogether fortunate to have the Leader of the House insisting on demonstrating her personal and ministerial commitment to the subject.
Perhaps I may just say that this has been an important debate. There is a great deal for us to digest, such as the macro-micro dimensions, the importance of discipline within the developing countries themselves, which is absolutely essential to success, the multilateral dimensions and the rest. Many vivid points have been made. Perhaps one endearing point that will remain with all of us was that fleeting moment of the picture of the Opposition Whip with a goat in the lapel of his jacket. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Women in Sport
6.20 p.m.
Lord Pendry Lord Pendry rose to call attention to the steps which Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage women's participation in sport; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that the House realises the importance of this debate and recognises that women who participate in sport and physical recreation in this country have not always received the encouragement that they deserve from many quarters, especially the sporting media. However, before I proceed, I declare an interest as president of the Football Foundation to which I shall refer later.
The debate calls attention to the steps that Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage women's participation in sport. I readily salute those Ministers who are responsible for making some positive moves in that direction, some of whom I shall refer to in the course of my speech. However, a great deal more needs to be done, if girls and women are to

1085
make the kind of advances necessary to catch up with other countries, such as Australia which has a female participation rate of 75 per cent in sport and physical recreation against our national average of 38 per cent. The difference is perhaps not surprising when one considers that by the age of 18, 40 per cent of girls and young women in the UK have left sport and recreation altogether.
I am grateful that a number of noble Lords have agreed that this is a subject worthy of debate and are prepared to speak today. I have no intention of making cheap party points during my speech. This subject is far too important for that. I recognise that the shadow Minister for sport would dearly like to have been present today, but I understand that he is detained on another important sporting engagement. I welcome another Olympian, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his place.
Having said that I had no intention of making a party point, I cannot resist stating that I am pleased that the current Opposition have moved from their position when in government, when they held a negative stance towards women in sport. I remember in my capacity as shadow Minister for sport attending the very first international women in sport conference, held in Brighton in May 1994. I raised a question from the Opposition Dispatch Box bemoaning the fact that despite the conference being hosted by Britain, with some 280 delegates from 82 countries present, including many sports ministers, we did not send one British Minister.
I pointed out to the then Minister for Sport, Ian Sproat, that many of those present from the UK were bemused and many ashamed that there was no ministerial presence in Brighton, nor did the Government send a letter of support. I further asked the Minister whether he would at least support the Opposition by endorsing the declaration carried at that conference. In his reply the Minister stated:
"If more women wish to involve themselves in sport I shall be very glad for them to do so, but it is up to them. I read the declaration: it was political correctness in excelsis".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/94; col. 8.]
I hope that that view no longer prevails in the Conservative Party.
My final shot in this political territory is to say that I found it strange that the Conservative Party sports strategy in 2000 made no reference to the importance of women in sport. I hope that that is history and that the debate will show from all sides of the House a recognition of the importance of women in sport and that we are all singing from the same song sheet. Part of that song sheet surely contains some of the points made in the Brighton declaration from which I now quote:
"Ensure that all women and girls have the opportunity to participate in sport in a safe supportive environment which preserves the dignity and respect of the individual; increase the involvement of women in sport at all levels and functions; ensure that the knowledge, experiences and values of women contribute to the development of sport; promote the recognition of women's involvement in sport as a contribution to public life, community
1086
development and in building a healthy nation; promote the recognition by women of the intrinsic value of sport and its contribution to personal development and a healthy lifestyle".
Who could doubt the aims of that Brighton declaration? It is a declaration aimed at developing sporting culture that enables and values the full involvement of women in every aspect of sport. I am indebted to Margaret Talbot, chief executive of CCPR, for spelling out some of the facts surrounding the lack of participation by women and girls in sport. There is certainly no evidence that girls and women are naturally less inclined towards physical activity. In the main, male participation is greater than that of women in a ratio of two to one, with a difference greater in outdoor rather than indoor activities. The gap is narrower while girls are still at school, hut it quickly widens after school-leaving age. Generally, girls and women enjoy fewer opportunities in every sector. whether statutory, voluntary or commercial, and as Margaret Talbot points out, because girls of all ages enjoy fewer freedoms of activity outside the home, that further restricts their capacity to use public facilities and services.
Girlsport is an exciting new programme from Sport England which will assist enjoyment, involvement and progress in sport and physical activity, and will no doubt be taken very seriously by the Government. The Football Foundation is another example of an organisation taking positive steps for women's sport, having invested substantial amounts of money in grass-roots women's football in communities across the UK. The foundation backs a wide variety of schemes, from promoting social inclusion in Asian women's football—a much needed niche, as any fan of the film "Bend It Like Beckham" will appreciate—to schemes such as the one in Berkshire, setting up taster sessions in girls' football across the county and devising and developing programmes to keep women in the game later in life.
Another encouraging sign is the development of equality standards in sport, initiated by the home country sports councils in collaboration with UK Sport. The standard, which is due to be published this spring, is designed to serve as a toolkit for social inclusion, aimed not only at reducing discrimination but at pro-actively promoting inclusion and greater participation.
I also welcome such initiatives as the Girls in Sport Partnership being run by the Youth Sport Trust in conjunction with Nike. The project is concerned with developing girl-friendly forms of PE and school sport to increase physical activity levels and to encourage positive attitudes towards participation.
So far some 2,000 secondary schools have taken part in the programme and the project is producing some interesting research related to young girls' attitudes to sports. Such research could be used as a basis for reforming the culture of school sports with respect to young girls across the board and the Government will, I am sure, take note of those developments.
Another positive development by the Government, following pressure from noble Lords during the course of the Local Government Bill, was a mandatory tax

1087
relief of 80 per cent for all community amateur sports clubs, a development that was warmly welcomed by all the key sports providers and which will help to narrow the participation gap.
With measures such as that, the Government, with sporting organisations, are clearly making an attempt to bridge the gap. However, if we are to make the progress necessary to bridge the participation gap, we need the sporting media in this country to recognise equally the contribution of women's sport. Very few high-profile female role models exist in comparison with men's sport because the sporting media has failed to recognise them. That is not to say that a female sporting élite does not exist. The role models are out there, but with the exception of a handful of sportswomen, the media chooses to ignore them. The Women's Sport Foundation reveals that only 2.65 per cent of daily newspapers cover women's sport.
Another study of gender portrayal was undertaken in the 1994 Olympics, which found that women received only 26 per cent of television coverage, despite the fact that the games reflected 41 per cent of broadcast time going to females.
On the rare occasions when the media spotlight falls on women's sport, the coverage produced is often negative—affirming unrealistic gender stereotypes. For example, the Women's Sport Foundation found that coverage of women's sport rarely showed action shots. Instead, details of women's personal lives were often included inappropriately.
A study undertaken by the Southampton Institute in 2002 found that of the coverage of women's sport that exists. one third of it is dedicated to Anna Kournikova. One only has to search Google. co. uk to view the vast number of websites devoted to the tennis star. the majority of which make little reference to her sporting attributes.
Such representation of female sporting professionals confuses and distracts from the message that such women are as fit, strong and highly skilled as their male counterparts. It ignores the very reason why they have risen to the top of their game.
That representation is perpetuated by the sports media. Tabloid newspapers are without doubt the worst offenders. One tabloid sports editor has been quoted as saying that for women's football to receive more space in his newspaper, a female international would have to have an affair with Sven-Gõran Eriksson. The belief that for sportswomen to gain greater visibility in the media, they must be physically attractive, not only misses the point of women's sport, but is also untrue.
Many élite sportswomen—I cannot quite hear what my noble friend Lord Faulkner, is saying, but he will perhaps repeat it when he speaks later. Many élite sportswomen, such as the England Ladies Cricket captain, Claire Connor, and Arsenal captain, Faye White. to name but two, are both feminine and attractive, but they still fail to get the media coverage that they deserve as athletes performing at the top of their game.
1088
The media need to be encouraged to celebrate our female sporting élite, and to recognise their sporting achievements as athletes, to raise the profile of women's sport and its role in society. The recently relaunched Women's Sport Foundation is doing some sterling work and has published a report, called, "Britain's best kept secrets". It argues that the wide gap that already exists between men's and women's participation in sports will never be closed if the inequality of sports reporting continues.
Why does it matter that so few women are actively involved in sport? Why should we be concerned that the national average participation rate for women is only 38 per cent? We ignore such disparity at our peril. It may hold the key to improving the health of half of the nation. For example, women generally live longer than men and face a greater risk of osteoporosis than men. Weight-bearing exercise can help to present this condition, and the Government need to take better advantage of that.
In addition to that risk, women now face an increased risk of cardiovascular disease owing to changes in lifestyle. Statistics show that half as many women as men undertake sufficient physical activity to reduce that risk, which is a missed opportunity from a preventive health perspective, and a further burden on our health system.
The economic case for increased female participation does not end there. Women are twice as likely to be obese as men, and regular exercise is known to be one of the most effective ways to treat the condition. Is it any wonder that women are more likely to be obese than men, when we consider that between the ages of seven and 11, girls are half as likely as boys to take part in physical activity and sport? The Government must recognise that relationship to exploit fully the health benefits of sport for women.
The chief medical officer will shortly publish a report on physical activity in the UK, and is expected to document the relationship between physical activity and health. That is an encouraging step in the right direction, and will add more value to the arguments for increased female participation in physical activity. Despite the many obstacles confronting girls and women in sport, I believe that the future looks brighter. I hope that the debate will be read and understood by the powers that be, and that that brighter future becomes a reality. I beg to move for Papers.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for leading the debate and putting the Motion before the House.
I confess that it is a slightly mysterious Motion in that we are supposed to be debating the steps that the Government are already taking to encourage women's participation in sport. But it is more the steps that they are not taking that we should be debating. I suspect, as I do increasingly, that too much of our time is spent talking about what the Government are or are not doing, when we should be talking about what we as citizens are doing for ourselves.

1089
I note that of the working parties to look into the deep problem of social exclusion that the Prime Minister set up when he came to office, the one which perhaps produced the most telling report, and around which all the others revolve, was that dealing with the importance of self-help in our society. Self-help is the essential, irreplaceable engine of any sort of improvement, particularly vis-à-vis social exclusion. The one thing that is often forgotten—and which was forgotten in some of those reports—is that we already have about 100,000 unsung community amateur sports clubs. Without question, they are the most important single element in creating a good society. By a good society, I mean a healthy society with a sense of communality, involving self-help, team work and all the other virtues that we associate with amateur sports.
We should note, however, that that number is reducing—rather fast in some sports. It is worth addressing the causes of that both tonight and hereafter. To be fair to the Government, a good deal of consideration is being given to that problem. One of the most obvious and deep aspects of the decline in community amateur sports clubs is the decline in community life as such. There is a profound problem of disintegration or dissolution of community life. There is increasing individualisation in life that too often leads to a reduced input by our fellow citizens—particularly by leading citizens—into civic and community life.
Sports clubs have a unique role to play in dealing with that problem because they reach out to people and parts that other organisations fail to reach. Fortunately, for young men, participation in sports, especially team sports, is a passion that escapes few of them. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, made clear, it escapes too many women. He pointed out that two men engage in amateur sports for every one woman. I believe that the statistics for ethnic minority groups are even worse, by a factor of two to one. That is a huge challenge. I do not think that any noble Lord believes that men have any greater right to benefit from sport than do women.
The first point I want to raise in the time available concerns over-regulation. We see during every working day in this place a culture that is tempted to use regulation to deal with every perceived inadequacy. In the realms of sport, in particular amateur sport, I strongly urge that we resist that temptation and adopt any and every other means of achieving what we want. For example, a head of steam is now building to legislate in respect of sports coaching. I would he powerfully hostile to that. Many small sports clubs are hanging on by only a thin thread and nothing should be done to incline more of them to close.
I turn now to work-life balance, about which there is obviously great concern in society at large. The Government have made it an objective to try to restore the work-life balance. Surely there is no better way of doing that than through the reinvigoration of community amateur sports clubs. However, it would be churlish of me not to make the point that last year
1090
the Government introduced for tax purposes the new category of "community amateur sports clubs". I do not doubt that that will have a major impact on the infusion of funds from individuals at the grassroots level into the sporting world and community amateur sports clubs. The Government took an important strategic decision and we are grateful for it.
I shall refer briefly to the links between schools, sports clubs and local authorities. If there is scope for government funding that would yield a large dividend, I think that it lies here. I am told by those working at the coal face that, too often, seriously inadequate links are established between schools—hard-pressed, with inadequate sports facilities and too little time for sports, along with often recalcitrant pupils—and sports clubs, many of which, if given a prod, would willingly make available their facilities, coaching services and so forth. Local authorities also have a major role to play.
I want to draw attention to a point on which I have received valuable input from a charity based in Hoxton called the Sky Partnership, as well as from a young charity called the Greenhouse Schools Project: the problem of adolescent and post-adolescent girls and young women who, I am told, find it particularly difficult to engage in sports. They often come from homes with no tradition of participation in sporting activities, and again that problem is most acute among certain ethnic groups. They have no role models to relate to, while a preoccupation with their sexual allure and relationships with the opposite sex often leads to an extremely low level of interest in engaging in sport. Add to that the problems faced by some Muslim groups—anxieties about changing facilities and chaperoning in the context of sport—then we must try to meet a major challenge. Again, this is a challenge not only for the Government, but also for sports clubs and local authorities.
The Greenhouse Schools Project has found that even where it has encouraged private and independent schools to make available their facilities at the weekend—pitches, gymnasia and swimming pools—it is difficult to persuade young women from some of the inner London comprehensive schools to take advantage of those facilities. That underlines the point.
I should like to see the role and profile of women elevated in the sports world—that is, the sports associations and quangos—along with a much stronger attempt to lure women into sports coaching. I also suggest that particular attention is paid to the needs of girls and women in every government or quango programme and project. The briefing distributed to some noble Lords by the Central Council of Physical Recreation makes it clear that there is a real shortfall.
I close by repeating the obvious: community amateur sports provide the great melting-pot of our society, embracing all ages, types, backgrounds and temperaments. All are equal in sports clubs. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for initiating the debate.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Pendry has secured this debate. On many occasions he and other noble Lords here today have shown dedication to promoting sport for all. I want also to express my thanks to the several organisations for women's sport which have been so helpful in providing me with information, in particular the women's branch of the England Cricket Board.
I shall discuss the importance of involving women in sport from a young age, for reasons of health as well as fitness. I shall emphasise the importance of securing funding for sport, the need for organisation in sport and the vital importance of enthusiasm for sport within schools, communities and sports bodies. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, this is not just a government issue. I shall illustrate these aspects by focusing on women's cricket, as an example. I shall also briefly mention another aspect of women in sport by talking about the work of the Lady Taverners.
First: catching them young. Evidence shows that women aged 40-plus are using public sports facilities such as gyms with enthusiasm. It may be that such facilities are women-friendly and that at this age women have more opportunity to engage in sport since they have fewer childcare responsibilities. Many systems of sport at a younger age are not women-friendly, being geared to male aptitudes and tastes. Generally, young women and girls have less time to participate in sport and have fewer role models. Nevertheless, participation in sport by women is increasing and, interestingly, in non-traditional sports for women such as cricket and football.
Perhaps women are recognising the benefits to health of exercise. Exercise can improve physical well-being and decrease the likelihood of stroke, heart attack and the onset of osteoporosis, referred to by my noble friend Lord Pendry. I know that the media are under attack for their portrayal or lack of portrayal—of women in sport, but I have to say that media messages about health and exercise are coming across very powerfully. Research indicates that young women who take part in regular physical activities develop higher self-esteem and self-confidence, and are less likely to become smokers or take drugs.
So, we need to foster exercise at a young age, overcome stereotyping and make systems work to encourage the participation of girls and women in sport by making that participation easy.
As I have said, that demands funding, organisation and enthusiasm. Of course, encouraging sport for all young people, boys and girls, is important, and sport needs to be made easy to access and enjoyable. Much is happening in education. Enthusiastic teachers have adopted exciting approaches. In schools, Kwik cricket and board games such as "Owzat" encourage greater understanding of and enthusiasm for the game.
I turn now to my example of organisation and enthusiasm. Women's cricket has recognised the need to change systems which, in turn, increases opportunities for girls and women to play the sport. The club league structure has changed. Seventeen
1092
counties now organise their own league clubs. That has cut down the costs of time and travel and encouraged more girls to participate in club cricket. There are now three regional leagues. There are competitions such as the Lady Taverners, which seeks to encourage maximum participation and develop beginners. That is played with a soft ball and eight players a side. Last year, 30 counties entered club competition, with 1,500 girls participating in the under-13s and under-15s national competition.
There has been a 26 per cent increase in counties entering teams for competition at various age groups since 2000. The majority of players are picked by selectors, but counties can also send players to an assessment day. Standards have risen steadily, perhaps because of that collaborative approach. Three hundred and forty-seven women's clubs are now registered with the England Cricket Board—an increase of 30 per cent on 2002. That is an extraordinary result.
The cricket development squad, fed from the regional squad, has three players funded by the national lottery. All three were part of the under-19 side that successfully toured Australia last winter. Such squads and their participation in international competition help to bridge the gap between county arid England cricket. That happens with planning, work and commitment from the counties.
The scheme, Women Into High-Performance Coaching, set up in 2001, exists to fast-track talented female coaches and to give them the opportunity to coach excellent players, rather than relying on male coaches, who, as we know, dominate the sporting world.
Women's county cricket development officers contribute to enhancing opportunities. They help clubs to look for funding; they help clubs to link into the county structure; they work on accreditation; they encourage pathways for young players to join clubs. Such effort has resulted in a 300 per cent increase in junior women's cricket and nearly a 100 per cent increase in adult clubs.
I have summarised the pyramid of organisation and structure which has gone into developing women's cricket and encouraging young women to take up the game. It is appropriately called "the pathway from playground to test arena". It has resulted in better coaching, better communication and better administration.
There are now 24 lottery-funded players in the England squad, which has an international programme. It will visit New Zealand this summer; take part in the World Cup in South Africa in 2004–05; tour Australia in 2005 and India after that. The under-19s toured Australia in 2003 and, playing in the under-19 national state tournament, won all six state matches comfortably. England players won awards for bowler and batsman of the tournament. Organisation, structure and enthusiasm do pay off.
I shall comment briefly on another aspect of women in sport; that is, in raising funds to enable young people to take up sport. As I have said, I shall speak

1093
about the Lady Taverners, in which I declare an interest as a member. The Lady Taverners came into being because of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Traditionally, each Prime Minister is a member of the Lord's Taverners. The all-male club therefore had a problem with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the Lady Taverners was set up. Very dynamic it is too. The situation would perhaps be different now, just as the MCC now has women members.
The Lady Taverners has 980 members and 19 regions. It organises regular fundraising events and aims to give young people, particularly those with special needs, a sporting chance. In 2003, it raised more than £730,000.
During 2003, it provided 22 minibuses and major grants to two special needs schools for a soft playroom and playground equipment. Through the wheelchair sponsorship scheme, 11 grants have been made by the Lady Taverners, totalling more than £12,000. Individual awards to young people with disabilities are also made; for example, to Mickey Bushell, who was born with seven vertebrae missing and no spinal cord. Mickey is now the national under-15 Disability Sport England wheelchair racing champion, thanks to many grants from the Lady Taverners.
Women are making an increasing contribution to making sport popular and accessible—as participants, as supporters and as fundraisers. Fundraising is all very well and a good social activity in itself, but it is not enough to maintain sport on its own. I know that the women's under-19 cricket team, for example, is not able to tour for a while because of a lack of cash. I therefore ask the Minister which government funding schemes specifically target women's sport and sport for the disabled.
The organisation of women's sport is improving, as I have described through the example of women's cricket. Enthusiasm is there. Funding for sport in general has increased. What are the Government doing to encourage more women into sport? I know that all of us here tonight would welcome a positive response.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Pendry on securing this debate. Britain needs more people taking part in sports at all levels. It especially needs more young people taking part in competitive sports, particularly more girls and women.
London's bid for the Olympic Games in 2012 offers a golden opportunity to encourage young athletes from around the UK to get into sport on a regular basis and literally to go for gold. There is only one winner in an Olympic bid, but there are no losers. The city of Birmingham found that in the 1980s when it submitted a bid. As part of that, the city encouraged its elite athletes and leading clubs to go into schools to build up public support. I hope that similar schemes will be seen across the United Kingdom in connection with the London bid.
1094
If more girls and young women are to be encouraged to take part in competitive sports and physical activities, role models are needed. That is where the media has an important part to play.
The triple jump champion, Ashia Hansen, whom I was proud to have as constituent in my former parliamentary constituency in Birmingham, underlined that point when she said:
"Growing up I had some really strong female role models to look up to from within my sport. I hope now that I can help others by being a role model and I welcome what the Women's Sports Foundation is trying to achieve. All young female athletes should have the opportunity to look up to the stars in their own sports to encourage and motivate them".
She was referring to the campaign by the Women's Sports Foundation to give more publicity to women's sport. In its report, appropriately called Britain's Best Kept Secrets, published last November, it found,
"not only is the overall level of coverage poor, a substantial proportion of it is derogatory or focused excessively on the sportswoman's physical appearance, personal life or lifestyle".
It concluded,
"the lack of focus on a sportswoman's athleticism, skill and achievements within sports reporting, in turn further undermines the status of women in sport".
The report also stated:
"Women are under-represented in all aspects of sports news production including sports journalism, sports photography and sports broadcasting and presenting".
It was the case in July last year—I have reason to believe that it is still the case— that not a single daily newspaper in England, Scotland or Wales had a female sports editor.
Serious issues about social exclusion arise. The gap in participation between women from poorer backgrounds and those from better-off homes is greater than that between middle-class men and women. Although more women are involved in sport and physical activity than was the case 15 years ago, the number and percentage of women taking part lag behind men's involvement. Television time for sport has expanded hugely, yet women in sport receive the same tiny share of coverage as they did a few years ago. The Women's Sports Foundation found in 2000 that women's sport received just 2.3 per cent of the total coverage of tabloid newspapers. While 1,564 photographs of sportsmen were published, there were just 36 of women. A repeat survey last year showed that coverage was 2.65 per cent, despite the success of Ashia Hansen and the other women athletes who set a string of new records at the World Indoor Athletics Championships in—yes, you have guessed it—the National Indoor Arena in the city of Birmingham last March.
I endorse the remarks of Deborah Potts, the chief executive of the Women's Sports Foundation, who said that the renewal of the BBC charter in 2006 should include sport within its commitment to balanced and representative public broadcasting to help to ensure more adequate coverage of women athletes.
This should also apply to all TV channels, which should feel some responsibility not only to show sport but—as they have done in the past but seem to do so

1095
little of now—to try to encourage interest in new and different sports. They should try to build audiences in that way rather than simply responding to the lads' games where the money is, such as football and rugby.
There is a real challenge here for the media: do not simply clear your front pages and screens to celebrate the success of women in sport when the medals are hung around their necks; help to encourage and build heroes by better reflecting the commitment, dedication and sacrifice that lies behind all the elite sporting achievements of women.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing the debate and I congratulate him on his splendid speech. I am conscious that the list of speakers contains a number of distinguished sportsmen and women. I am afraid that I cannot claim any great fame as an athlete but your Lordships will know that I have over many years taken an interest in sporting issues. I have made, I hope, a modest contribution to the cause of women's sport in an administrative and office-holding capacity and, indeed, as a Member of the House.
Two years ago I successfully steered a Private Member's Bill through your Lordships' House which would have extended the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act to private sports clubs which offer membership and facilities to men and women on unequal terms. Despite a number of declarations of support for my Bill from my noble friends on the Government Front Bench and the backing of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Bill sadly suffered the fate of virtually all Private Members' Bills which originate in this House and died a death in the other place.
During the Bill's passage I was able to share with the House a number of horror stories about how women were treated at various golf and bowling clubs. I referred to the survey of social attitudes published by Golf World magazine. The findings, as reported in the Independent on Sunday, were that golf clubs were,
"the final bastions of British snobbery, discrimination and prejudice".
Nearly one-quarter of British clubs were found to be preventing women from becoming elected captains and more than two-thirds operated under rules that discriminate against 140,000 regular women golfers. Half the clubs admitted that men and women were charged different fees for full membership and that there was a restriction on the hours that women can play.
A couple of years earlier, a survey in Women in Golf magazine showed that only 56 per cent of women could stand for election to the main committee; 21 per cent had men-only access in parts of the clubs; and 35 per cent did not provide women with full voting rights.
It is particularly regrettable that five courses approved by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club as venues for the Open are all male clubs. It is deplorable
1096
that the sports Minister was effectively told to get lost 18 months ago when he rightly complained about the 2002 Open being held at Muirfield.
During the passage of my Bill. I was sent many examples of some of the practices followed. There was a golf club in the Midlands where a white line was painted across the floor of the bar to mark the territory that women could not enter. A famous club in the north of England imposed a 30 per cent levy on subscriptions for men and women members alike but first denied women any vote on whether the levy should be raised and applied to them.
I have no reason to suppose that the situation has changed markedly from that described by Tim Howland, the chief executive of the Ladies' European tour, who was quoted in the March 2001 edition of Golf World as saying,
"It's mainly men who laugh about signs like 'No dogs. no women'. It's not something that women find funny. This sort of behaviour doesn't happen on the continent, only in Britain, and it's a sad indictment of how golf treats women and children".
As a number of my noble friends have said, the situation for women's participation and treatment in sport would be better if media coverage were improved. There is certainly more sport on television than ever before, but it is overwhelmingly men's sport, particularly football, that dominates.
My noble friend referred to the efforts of the chief executive of the Women's Sports Foundation to have a new clause relating to women's sport inserted into the BBC charter. He may be interested to see the BBC sports calendar for 2004, which arrived on my desk yesterday. On the front cover there are five different sports depicted—not one of them shows a woman participant. Inside there are a further 21 photographs, and women appear in only three of them.
The media have a huge part to play in raising the profile of women's sport, highlighting role models and encouraging participation. As other speakers have said, the WSF has done sterling work in monitoring the national press, particularly the tabloid press. A statistic to come out of its conference at the Oval in November was that on average there were 10 days a month in the print media when women's sport received no coverage whatever. This lack of media interest results in poorer levels of sponsorship and means that there are fewer high profile role models for young women and sportswomen of the future.
Part of the problem, I suspect, lies with the language that we all use. We often under-estimate how we can alienate or discriminate against individuals and groups by the use of inappropriate language. By the use of language inclusive of women, we can subtly but powerfully shift the perception that women's sports are add-ons, auxiliaries or less important than men's sports towards the notion that they are important in their own right.
We have moved on a little from where we were a few years ago, as the Women's Sport Foundation admits in its fact file on Women, Sport and the Media. It is not so long ago that tabloid writers were more interested in whether women soccer players would swap shirts at

1097
the end of a match than in reporting the game. I thought that football had made real progress until I read the extraordinary comments of Mr Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, which were reported in the Guardian last week. He was reported as suggesting that female players wear tighter shorts to promote "a more female aesthetic". He said that the game's popularity would improve if they play in,
"more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball".
He continued:
"They could for example have tighter shorts. Female players are pretty, if you excuse me for saying so"—
well, no, Mr Blatter, I do not—
"and they already have some different rules to men, such as playing with a lighter ball".
The Guardian report then contained a series of robust quotes from some excellent women footballers from around the world. The England goalkeeper, Pauline Cope, said the comments were,
"typical of a bloke. We don't use a lighter ball, and to say that we should play in hotpants is plainly ridiculous".
What makes Mr Blatter's comments so unfortunate is that they fly in the face of the excellent progress the Football Association has made in recent years to develop women's and girls' football. The FA has a five-year programme to develop opportunities for girls to play, to encourage and foster excellence as well as developing coaches. Four years into it, participation in women's and girls' football in England has grown from 960 to 4,800 affiliated clubs and the number of players from 11,000 to 61,667. Football has now taken over from netball as the most popular women's sport. We have a long way to go, however, before we reach the levels of participation seen in women's football in the United States where there are 7 million female players.
Finally, I should like to express my support for the UK strategy for women in sport which has been co-ordinated by UK Sport and the WSF, with involvement from other agencies. This aims to achieve a measurable impact for women as participants, leaders and élite performers by 2006. I suspect that we are some way off from introducing legislation of the kind which has had such a powerful impact in the United States: that is, Title IX of the US Educational Amendments of 1972. This is the landmark legislation which bans sex discrimination in schools in both academics and athletics. It states:
"No person in the US shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any educational programme or activity receiving federal aid".
That means that for every dollar spent on boys' sport, exactly the same has to be spent on that for girls. It is widely believed throughout the US that it is this legislation which has been responsible for the huge growth in high school sport for girls in the country. Before Title IX, only 16,000 women played college sports; now 160,000 compete at college level.
Women's soccer is more popular than the men's and the full-time players earn salaries that, while not approaching European levels, are substantially more
1098
than those of other professional sports people. In a sense, Mia Hamm, the icon of American soccer, is the female David Beckham and earns substantial fees as a player and through sponsorship. In a range of sports—soccer, basketball and volleyball—being a professional woman player is a US reality and not just a dream.
I have not the slightest doubt that if we had similar legislation in this country, the prospects for girls' and women's sports generally would be transformed. It would be good to think that this could become an aspiration for us, too. I hope that we are making progress. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, the subject of tonight's debate could not be more timely. I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing it.
The combination of the state's health and the participation in sport make daily headlines on the front and back pages of our newspapers. No newspaper bulletin on TV or radio is complete without reference to obesity, marauding youths on our streets, or the inability of Britain to produce a Wimbledon champion. Tonight's debate gives us the opportunity to analyse reasons why women in particular are failing to make active participation in sport a key part of their lives. We can look at the barriers, the turn-offs, and the basic lack of confidence and opportunities presented to them.
I hope briefly in the time allotted to me to flag up what I see as the major obstacles with some suggestions for remedy. However, I intend to devote the bulk of my speech to an area which I believe is causing huge damage to sport right across the spectrum. That issue is planning.
A quick jog round the basic facts dealing specifically with women and sport throws up the following headlines. Only half as many women as men take part in any sport and they have a much narrower range of sport available to them. The media are almost "woman blind" when reporting sport. Just over 2 per cent of daily newspaper coverage is dedicated to women's sport. Obesity is a hot issue from tabloid press to the World Health Organisation and the debate is heated. There are huge employment opportunities in sport but women play only a marginal part. Sport, by and large, is run by men for men. School sport is a vexed question. We have a whole generation of young women who were deprived of extra-curricular activities while at school, never getting a fair start into the world of active sport.
In answer to those headlines, we do see some progress. There is greater awareness of the need for encouragement for women and, indeed, for sporting heroines to galvanise them into action. Obesity, with the critical equation of diet and exercise, is very much a "woman area". Women take the lead with their families and must be encouraged to delve further.
As for school sport, there has been some progress. The Government's initiative on school sports, the New Opportunities Fund, after school clubs, and, as the

1099
noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned, financial concessions to community amateur sports clubs whose obligation is to be the bridge between school and adult sport are central to those incentives. Marvellous organisations, such as the Women's Sports Foundation, the newly revitalised Sport England, and the ever vigilant and energising CCPR are all pulling together to improve our current situation. I have some optimism but, as someone said in a previous decade, Baby, we've sure come a long way, but we've sure got a long way to go".
I turn to the area that I believe can unlock the gates for women taking up and continuing in sport at every age and stage of life. I speak as one who plays tennis at least three times a week and, sadly, will not see 39 again. Sports clubs play a vital role in promoting their sport through a coaching programme, informal and competitive play and providing a "village" where families and friends can meet and play together. However, clubs tend to be located in areas of suburban housing where they have been a community resource for decades, pre-dating any neighbours who overlook them or live near them.
In our clubs we expect first-class playing areas with the opportunity to use the facilities to the maximum and at times convenient to us. To gain participation for 12 months of the year we probably need some indoor facilities—a bubble, an indoor play area. Clubs should also have excellent social and changing facilities with designated areas for young children, and a dynamic coaching system to train our beginners into champions if they have the potential but to improve all of us however young or old. A bar is an asset, as is a catering facility.
That is not too much to ask in my opinion. But just try to obtain planning permission to upgrade your local club and you will soon discover the uphill struggle you face. Initial objections often come from local residents. Their motives are clear and, by co-optinig, the support of their local councillor, they can thwart the upgrading time and again. The statistics for refusal are dire. In many cases not only the local residents but the local planners take a negative view, quoting noise, increased traffic and light pollution as justification.
The syndrome of almost blanket refusal has an additional unseen effect. Many clubs do not even bother to apply. It is a lengthy, probably expensive, process and clubs do not have the human or financial resources. So I am sure the situation is even more dire than the current statistics show.
What am I asking for? I ask for fairness, justice and common-sense outcomes. Currently the cards are firmly stacked against the clubs. We need a proper balance for the long-lasting success of those clubs. I do not ask for the removal of local democracy, but PPG17 should be strengthened. Surely it would be fair to strengthen the guidelines for planners. It should be implicit and expected that clubs should have reasonable planning applications viewed objectively.
Perhaps I may give the House an up-to-the-minute example. In a short interview with Ace, the tennis magazine, I mentioned my concern about planning
1100
refusals. The response was electric. Clubs all over Britain wrote to me with their individual tales of woe. I decided to speak to governing bodies other than tennis. I found identical problems. Bowls, cricket, rugby, hockey and athletics had all suffered from planning rejections. In my research, I have been greatly helped by the LTA, Sport England and the CCPR, all of which are alarmed at the prospect of clubs in decline with some even closing down.
When I went to my pigeonhole on Tuesday, by chance I found a pink slip asking me to make a phone call. I have a perfect illustration of what is happening today. Milford Tennis Club in Hampshire has seven courts, a squash and table tennis section and 600 members of all ages. Its court surfaces were upgraded recently with a loan from the LTA. Now it wants floodlights. It applied with the proviso of switching off the lights at 9.30. Imagine the club's dismay when, without consultation, the New Forest District Council turned down the application on the grounds of light pollution and increased use. No local residents objected. The secretary, Mrs Nicholls, asks: "How can the planning authority take such a negative view?". The floodlight specifications were recommended by the LTA's technical officer. Anyone who has seen modern floodlighting knows that spillage and pollution of lights is almost non-existent. Regarding the extended use, Mrs Nicholls said:
"surely that's the objective. We're trying to fight the couch potato syndrome".
She added:
"without modernising our facilities, the very life-blood of this club could flow away".
She concluded:
"Is anyone out there listening?".
Of course, I sought her permission to quote her tonight. I salute her and the thousands like her—volunteers trying to promote healthy sport, take the kids off the street and give their communities the joy and pleasure of active sport.
The answer to her final question, is, I believe, "yes, we are". I hope that when the Minister replies, he will take us forward. The last thing we want is for potential sports women to turn to easier, more attractive alternatives to sport as we understand it. Keep fit, gymnasia, exercise classes are splendid, but not a replacement for sport. They can go hand-in-hand, but they are not substitutes.
Finally, let us not forget that sport is fun. Women play a crucial role in our sporting future. The surest way for a child to be sporting is for it to have a sporting mother. Let us give our clubs the support that they richly deserve, to be more women and family-friendly, to provide a fundamental building block for the sporting health of our nation.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pendry for introducing the debate. He and I share a footballing interest, as he has been chairman and is now president of the Football Foundation, a successor body to the Football Trust, whose funds

1101
came from contributions from the pools companies. He is president of the Liverpool County FA, while I am chairman of the Liverpool County FA's Local Football Partnership. I shall speak from that standpoint, bearing in mind that football is our national and most prominent sport.
I am also a trustee of the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which is funded by Littlewoods and Vernons to some £9 million annually, to encourage greater participation and enjoyment of sport and the arts, especially at grass roots level. Among our fellow trustees was Rebecca Stephens, who was the first British woman to scale Mount Everest. Included in both the Liverpool LFP's constitution and the FSA's trust deed is a requirement that whoever we support must have an open membership and allow, as far as possible, community access to facilities.
On the face of it, women's participation in sport would appear to be up to them. However, there are constant and huge constraints and impediments—including those that are sociological— that mean women are far from able to access and enjoy sport to the same extent as men.
Football is the top female participation sport in England, with 85,000 Football Association-affiliated players at 11-a-side level in 2002–03. In August 2002 there were 4,800 11-a-side girls' teams aged 16 and under—a doubling since the year before and compared with 80 teams in August 1993. The figure of 85,000 is a 38 per cent increase on the previous year. Ten years ago there were only 11,000 players. Girls' football is booming in England. Last season football became the top female sport in England, showing how investment at grass roots level and the promotion of female role models in the media can have a marked effect on promoting a healthy lifestyle in young women.
The Government need to encourage more investment into girls' sports to counteract the health problems that women suffer from today. Playing sport is a key part of a healthier lifestyle and gives women the confidence to make their own choices. A healthier lifestyle will combat health issues, anti-social behaviour and teenage pregnancy as well as helping sufferers from obesity and diabetes. The £5 million lottery funding given through Sport England's active sports girls' football campaign has been instrumental over the past three years in making the present participation figures a reality.
The FA recently signed its first major sponsor for women in 2002—the Nationwide building society—in a multi-million pound four-year deal and has won its bid to host the 2005 UEFA European Women's Championship Finals, which will be hosted mainly in the north-west. The FA is working on them with local government offices, Sport England, the regional development agency, city councils, UK Sport and professional men's clubs, to drive participation in women's sport in the community. A terrestrial TV platform would help to drive awareness of women's sport, elevate the promotion of female sporting role models for young women and drive participation.
1102
The FA Women's Cup Final is the only live women's football broadcast on terrestrial television each year. There are four internationals on Sky Sports. The first final, shown live on BBC 1 in 2002. attracted 2.5 million viewers, compared with 6 million for the men's FA Cup Final that year. A hotline number, read out live on air in BBC l's coverage in 2003, resulted in over 200 calls to find out how girls could start playing football for their local football clubs—a direct link between showcasing women's sport and encouraging a healthy lifestyle for young women. Research conducted for the FA has shown that 1.4 million girls are taking part in some sort of regular football activity.
The FA's local football partnerships bring together local key stakeholders in football to develop an inclusive committed partnership to form "one plan for football" and determine the local priorities. Liverpool's LFP brings together representatives from the local authorities who have jurisdiction over many of the facilities, Sport England, Football in the Community, Merseyside Sport, English Merseyside Schools Association, women and girls' football and Liverpool FA, to help to draw up and implement the county's facility and development plans in conjunction with the regional sports board. The FA has allocated £280 million nationally over four years, 2003–06, to be spent through the local football partnerships on grass roots development. Liverpool LFP's allocation in that regard is £8.2 million, of which £5.8 million will come from the Football Foundation, with matched funding for the remaining £2.4 million—a 65.5 per cent rate. A key objective is promoting the women's game, to which there are elements in most applications for funding. For example, £70,000 is funding the Nugent House project in St Helens, which will provide segregated changing facilities and improved amenities, with a safe playing and training environment.
The FA has already set up within women's football a clear pathway pyramid to mirror the structure of men's football. Merseyside has two Premiership League clubs—Everton and Tranmere Rovers—with Liverpool FC Ladies being in their historically customary Division One status. However, that is where the similarity ends, with the discrepancies immediately being highlighted in coaching facilities, education, media coverage and image. Indeed, women's football is entirely amateur. There are 30 clubs on Merseyside and each club may have up to 11 teams. Charter standards will help to put pressure on clubs to develop more coaches, but they need to be female. Probably only four clubs have a female within their environment. There needs to be a clear pathway for women to develop their coaching and managing skills; and courses should be developed around the women's game as well as the men's. At the top level of the women's game the players have to rely on male coaches. There are only seven females in the country will Level 4 coaching qualifications, which are principally set up for the professional game. Hope Powell is on her own, having attained professional licence standard and has to manage the England national team as well as the youth teams under-15, under-17 and under-19; yet the success achieved is

1103
something that the men's team would strive to attain. Liverpool County's women's development officer, Mo Marley, coaches the under-19 England team. She tells me that that team has reached the semi-finals in the past two European ladies' championships.
The development of women's and girls' soccer puts extra stress on already overstretched facilities. Everton Ladies find it difficult to access floodlit pitches. Access to indoor facilities for girls is not only limited but poses a huge cost to limited resources. At local level there is limited provision of female changing rooms and nothing at all for female officials. In education the tradition has often been that male teachers take the boys and women teachers are "not capable". Merseyside Schools FA has a competition for girls' teams, but unfortunately the drop-out rate has increased due to the lack of teacher support. It is now a major priority to keep up with the explosion in female participation.
Many noble Lords have highlighted a discrepancy in media coverage. In Liverpool there is a 10-minute weekly slot on BBC Merseyside dedicated to women's and girls' football—next to nothing compared with the men's coverage, yet like gold dust to them and probably 10 minutes more than that provided to most county FAs. In the past 12 months, Mo Marley has been involved in the Women's Premier League, the FA Cup, the European Championships and the World Cup quarter-finals at under-19 England level, and yet the media have expressed no interest. As we know, however. last week Sepp Blatter suddenly made a comment and four different media companies immediately contacted Mo Marley for a comment. We need to change their views—that bias towards men-only sport and the image of women's football.
Women's football is developing at a tremendous rate and Merseyside is probably at the forefront. Women's football needs to be seen as sport in its own right and addressed with the same professionalism as that accorded to the men's game. Women footballers share the same professionalism in their approach while often holding down full-time jobs. As with most people in full-time jobs, a sports injury would entail a period off work. I am sure that that position is replicated in other female sports. I expect that with money coming into football and the development at grassroots level, football can lead the way in improving facilities in conjunction with local authorities, schools and the regional sports board, which can then be expanded to the benefit of all other sports and include women on an equal basis.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, albeit briefly. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on securing the debate. I was glad to hear from him and from others of the initiatives being taken to encourage more women to participate in sport.
One noble Lord mentioned the difficulties and the many disincentives which women, particularly working mothers, must try to overcome to play a
1104
greater part in sport. Those who come from a sporting family, as I fortunately do, are at a great advantage. My father and nephew played rugby for Scotland—at different times, obviously; my mother played hockey and tennis at school; and at various stages at school and beyond I was able to play netball, hockey. tennis, squash and golf. Sporting parents are great role models for their children, both male and female. I believe that the only way that we can gain maximum participation in sport is to start at the beginning, in pre-schools, schools and clubs. The great sin of past decades was the sale of so many playing fields for development purposes. To leave schools, particularly large comprehensives, with no playing fields and with what often seems a postage stamp for a playground is a national disgrace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said that fundraising on its own is not enough. I agree. I believe that the departments for health, education and housing should contribute significantly to the sporting budget. I do not have time to explain why I have included housing in that. However, I should like to see the school day extended by one or two hours to allow pupils to be involved in physical activity including dancing. I am thinking particularly of Scottish country dancing because those who take part, male and female, are on the whole very fit. Extracurricular activities, particularly sport and physical education, should be built into the school day. Sport is so important in developing character, confidence, fitness and team spirit.
When mentioning schools we must not forget schools in rural areas. I know from personal experience that school transport has always been a problem whenever attempts have been made to schedule sports and other extracurricular activities in after-school hours. Children who live 20 or 30 miles from school cannot stay for sports and other extracurricular activities if there is no school bus or other transport to take them home.
Only with the political will and resources to improve facilities for our youngsters will we see a real increase in the number of women participating in spore in the future.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on bringing this debate forward. also congratulate all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on raising a good cross-section of points. One point must be that the problems facing women in sport are not much different from those facing men in sport. The difference is in the amount of attention given to those problems and the amount of cultural support given to those individuals to encourage them to take part in sport. I am afraid that much of that is historical. The only real question is when in the history of sport a shift will occur in people's attitudes, from merely saying "You can if you want to", to actual encouragement.
The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, outlined a discussion in the other place which was quite revealing. I do not think that anyone from any of the major political

1105
parties would even think of giving that type of answer now. The world has moved on. This is not a political point; the point is about the development of sport. We have had many arguments about women's participation in sport. Noble Lords may have followed the arguments advanced by those who have tried to stop women participating in professional boxing. Whatever one's view on professional boxing, in an equal society, everyone should be allowed to take part. It is probably an extreme practical example of prejudice.
We have to try to address the problems of women in sport in the light of that historical tradition. In that tradition, lads often talk about sport and occasionally play it. Unfortunately, many of them spend far too much time talking about it and not enough playing. One knock-on effect has been that women do not regard football or any other sport as theirs; it is someone else's preserve. Fortunately that tradition is being broken down, but it is not being broken down quickly enough. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, provided an exposéof the attitude towards women sports players exhibited by a senior official whose name I will not try to pronounce. That attitude seemed similar to soft porn; there was not much else to it. The attitude had nothing to do with what the game is about or its spectator value.
Even one of life's misogynists is reported as saying that women's football is a better spectator sport because there is not as much frenetic rushing about. I have often heard it said about women's tennis that shots and points must be fought for and built, rather than just belting them out. If we take the fact that women's sports will always be slightly different, we should start to revel in the difference and in the fact that it will be slightly differently structured.
That means an attitude shift, which brings us to the media. People are used to looking at the same things in a sport—pace and power are the dominating factors that someone is looking for in a team. Women's sports rely on something else, which gives people an excuse for dismissing them, because they do not look like the real thing. It is a pretty bad excuse, which should not survive. I suggest that that is from where we must start to break it down. We must provide political leadership and put pressure on people to start to appreciate women's sports as being valuable in their own right and something that should be paid attention to.
Those women's sports that get attention generally occur alongside men's sports. Tennis and athletics do well out of this. The major tournaments have both competitions going on at the same time, and the camera and the commentators are already there, so it works out well economically to cover both male and female tournaments. It has meant that these sports have always had a toe in the door and do better. We must try to encourage those in the know—the BBC has a great duty to take on a leadership role in this regard—to pay attention to women's sports in their own right as different events.
1106
As a rugby player, although now retired from regular games, I have recently enjoyed an experience where my chosen sport was briefly in the limelight. It took a long time to come, and if one looks at it now, rugby has retreated further back in most of the newspapers. It does better in the broadsheets—in the tabloids one would think that the game had ceased to exist until the next world cup or five nations tournament. Rugby union does much better than many other sports. If one takes on this culture, which is dominated by football and racing—national hunt or flat, depending on the season—it is not surprising that female sport is squeezed out. We must try to encourage the media to pay attention to the sports that are going on week in, week out that are not in their normal remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, talked about the traditional role of the sports magazine programme, which encouraged people to look at and experience other sports. That has been driven back into fashion of late. We must encourage our sporting bodies to look here. If we manage to get good examples of sport in our press and media, what will we do to encourage them to take it up?
If he ever finds himself at St Peter's gate, the noble Lord, Lord Philips of Sudbury, can talk about what he did for amateur sports clubs and guarantee at least a shorter stay in Purgatory than most of us. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, talked about the importance of amateur sports clubs, which have probably saved our national sports from falling apart. They have saved various governments of different colours a great deal of time, money and effort in providing a sporting base. The existence of amateur clubs has meant that local government has not had to support sports in the way that would be necessary in other countries. They have provided their own clubhouses and coaching structures, but those are starting to creak. The Government are starting to recognise that, but I encourage them not to say that enough has been done, but to look at what else is needed. If they are taking on the educational programme for sport and physical well being—I could go on inter-relating this to the health position—these wonderful, unique institutions of ours will need greater support.
My noble friend mentioned that he was against a move to make coaching compulsory. Let us meet them half way and ensure that the Government give greater help and incentives to coaching programmes. Basic safety courses should be made available and free for all sports, because the problem comes when you get bad coaching. If we can do that, we stand a chance of having this great resource that will get people involved in sport.
Why is sport so important? People who take up a sport, as opposed to people who go to the gym, do not just do it for three weeks after Christmas. Men go on a diet, then go back three weeks later on, and say that they will come back when they are a little bit fitter after exercising by themselves, and then forget about it. Gyms make a lot of money, because everyone must pay for one year's membership. That does not help anyone to get fit. If someone has made a commitment

1107
to getting out there to compete on a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday morning, they have a far greater incentive to keep themselves fit and healthy. Those people will have greater social interaction, because they will depend on team mates and the structure of the game. It has all those benefits.
We hear that women's sport is being pushed away by social attitudes about fear and body image. Women suffer so badly in this department because they are under pressure to conform to certain stereotypes. Struggling to keep fit means being exposed to the danger of ridicule. We all must laugh at ourselves in our sporting careers, because we do not get it right all the time—some of us more often than others. The Government can provide encouragement in that regard. That brings us back around to good examples being provided in the media.
Women's problems in sport are not that far removed from men's problems, but women need encouragement and support from government and the media. Without that we are ignoring a great deal of talent and the great benefits for more than half of our population.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on introducing this debate. I also congratulate him on the important contribution that he has made to sporting events, not only over the years, but over the decades. We should be grateful to him for that.
In view of his opening remarks, I should say in the clearest possible terms that we on this side of the House are strongly in favour of encouraging greater participation in sport by girls and women, for all the reasons that other noble Lords have put forward: health, reducing obesity, social inclusion and so on. My noble friend Lord Moynihan would certainly take that view, and he regrets that he is unable to be here. He is in America, having meetings with members of the New York committee for the Olympics 2012 bid. He is sad that he is not able to take part in the debate this evening.
I should declare an interest as patron of Herne Hill Harriers who, I am happy to say, have excellent girls' and women's teams with substantial ethnic participation. I am not sure what else I should declare, given the sudden appearance of my parliamentary golf partner on the Government Front Bench.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, drew attention to the unfortunate remarks made by the president of FIFA a short time ago, which show to some extent what we are up against. It is extraordinary, given that, partly because of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, as chairman and president of the Football Foundation, there has been a great increase in participation. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, gave the correct figures of an increase from 10,000 to something like 82,000 participants in women's football. That is not too pessimistic, but we clearly have a long way to go.
1108
The Motion is couched in terms of government measures. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, that the fact that we are making a bid for the Olympics in 2012 is important. Clearly we want to win, but the fact that we are making the preparations and putting in the investment in sport is important in itself. There are associated problems, as we said in an earlier debate, with transport. There were some hopeful remarks at the launch a few days ago, but I am not clear what the situation is on Crossrail. My understanding is that the Government are now committed to Crossrail, but not in time for the Olympics. That would seem strange; perhaps the Minister will let us know the position.
Many noble Lords drew attention to the imbalance in media coverage, both on television and in the press. I was quite astonished a year or so ago when the BBC invited me, along with almost every sportsman one could think of, to a very large conference at White City— alas no longer with an athletics stadium. The discussion in the second half of the day was devoted almost entirely to problems of professional football club finance. Professional football gets a grossly excessive market share in terms of coverage. I enjoy watching it myself, but the share is not right at present.
Also important is the question of role models, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. I think that we are making progress on that in various sports, including Paula Radcliffe in my own, who is an ideal role model for many youngsters. In the last season of equestrian events, where women have always been every bit as good as men, Pippa Funnel has totally outclassed the men. There are some sports where the balance between men and women is more appropriate.
Remarks have been made about problems that still exist in golf clubs, although we are making progress. There is a huge difference in that respect between golf clubs in this country and, say, one where I am also a member in the Netherlands. However, the problem is not true of my golf club in London, which made a determined effort to try to bring in more schoolchildren to play. There were extraordinary events last weekend when a 14 year-old schoolgirl, Michelle Wie, just failed to make the cut by one stroke. She actually returned the same score as the winners of the British Open and the American Open last year, which shows the extent to which women are improving in sport generally, and indeed participating more and providing role models. The same is true of Ellen MacArthur, and one could talk of many others.
Women now achieve times, distances and performances every bit as good as those achieved by men not all that long ago. The gap is closing. Some of that is related to technology; women pole vaulters now go far higher than male pole vaulters used to, but the pole is not the same as it used to be. If we are to encourage more women into sport—I speak very much of competitive sport; that is the important issue in the debate—we have to look at how people can progress up the ladder, and we have real problems in that. There is a gap between school and club, and it is not all that easy, particularly for girls, to continue after they leave school.

1109
I was speaking to someone in athletics yesterday who said that the number of participants in the London championships who were at school was very large. However, as they got older and went to university, the figure dropped very dramatically. Clubs play a very important role but, whatever the sport may be, they have to build up a greater link between the school side and the club side, otherwise girls simply drop out before they take part as women. Someone pointed out, however, that women sometimes come back at the age of 40 or so, but that may be a bit late to get into the Olympics if they have not participated previously.
The other problem—it did not use to be the case—is the gap between club level and international level. It used to be possible to get into international teams while doing a full-time job. That is no longer true, and we shall suffer from that. In the past year or so, a number of very distinguished athletes have retired, and the back-up is not coming through because the progression between club and the so-called elite athletes is becoming too big. We have a real problem with that, particularly for women.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, about the role of local authorities. It is tremendously important, but so is the issue of planning permission. Given that we do not have the same climate or environment as Australia, we have a problem so far as floodlighting is concerned, as I know from my experience of trying to arrange floodlights in London for a sports club. We need more floodlighting if we are to get girls as well as men participating more in sport in the evening. As we well know, there are problems with school facilities and so on. It is quite difficult to get schools to open their facilities to people during the evening. That is certainly a very important aspect of the matter.
We are very short on time, but it has been a fascinating debate. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to problems particular to the subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, originally drew attention. We are at a very exciting time in sporting events because of the question of the Olympics and our participation. We certainly hope that it will be possible to encourage far more girls and women to participate, so that they can in a higher proportion be ready to take part in 2012. In the mean time, it is only 205 days until the start of the Athens Olympics, and we must wish all those who take part in sport on our behalf—men, women or girls—every success on that occasion. It has been a very helpful debate, and I welcome it.
7.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I join everyone who has congratulated my noble friend Lord Pendry on having introduced the debate and on the way in which he did so. He should also be congratulated on the range and quality of speeches that he has encouraged.
1110
Everyone who has spoken is better qualified than I to speak on the subject, but I shall do my usual best to catch up so far as I can.
Clearly the issue of participation by women in sport is a serious problem with which the Government are and must be concerned. The latest available figures from Sport England show that 89 per cent of school-age boys took part in sport to some extent in 1999. The figure for girls was a healthy 84 per cent, so that in itself is not the problem. But by the ages of 16 to 19, young women were 23 per cent less likely to take part in regular sport than young men of the same age. By the ages of 25 to 29, 75 per cent of men were still participating, but only 54 per cent of women. By the ages of 45 to 59, the figures had dropped to 47 per cent for men, and to only 35 per cent for women. We therefore agree that we have a problem.
I must make a personal intervention here as someone who has tried to avoid competitive sport, in particular, all my life. After all, I used to go to the movies on games afternoons at school, but as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport covers the film industry as well, I cannot be wholly condemned for that. One cannot cover the whole field from personal experience. However, I would generalise from that by saying that I hope that no one here tonight or in government will think that their role is to force anyone into sport. Encouraging physical activity, yes; fighting ill health, certainly; but I hope and believe that we are concerned with those who want to take part in sport but cannot and who would like to be encouraged to do so.
There are many reasons why women find participation in sport more difficult. The most important one is that, on the whole, women work much harder than men. If they are working for a living, they are also working at home in a way that men still do not. They are bringing up children in a way that men still do not. The demands on their time are significantly greater than those on men. My noble friend Lady Massey referred to that; it is true. That may be one reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, observed, women's participation in sport starts to increase again after the age of 40.
There are certainly good reasons in public policy why the Government should be encouraging women to take part in sport and trying to remove barriers to their doing so. The first and most important, referred to by many noble Lords, starting with my noble friend Lord Pendry, but including my noble friend Lady Billingham and others, is the question of health. My noble friend Lord Pendry correctly referred to problems of osteoporosis and cardiac disease, but there are also concerns about the direct relationship between inactivity, obesity, and ill health. There is no doubt that that problem is increasing. More than one-fifth of men and nearly one-quarter of women are now clinically obese, and the proportion of obese children has risen in as little as a year by 3.5 per cent.
So inactivity is a serious and growing public health problem that contributes to costs of £2.5 billion and to 9,000 premature deaths every year. Sport is one of

1111
many forms of physical activity that demonstrably address obesity. Organised sport forms only 8 per cent of the totality of activity. Nevertheless, it is clearly an important element in the fight against ill health. That is something that no government could ignore.
However, the news is not all bad about participation in some sports. We have heard some eloquent speeches on that subject. Several speakers, especially my noble friend Lord Grantchester, have given details of the rise in the number of female players registered with clubs affiliated to the Football Association. That has grown from about 11.000 in 1993 to more than 63.000 in 2002. That is an extraordinary achievement. About 1.4 million girls regularly take part in some form of footballing activity. It is now the number one sport for girls and women. I have only one tiny disagreement with the noble Lord about football: he talked as if the sport was entirely amateur; I am glad to tell him that Fulham Football Club has full and semi-professionals in its women's team.
My noble friend Lady Massey was eloquent about cricket, where there has been a 33 per cent increase during the past year in the number of women's clubs affiliated to the England and Wales Cricket Board. She mentioned the work of women cricketers in raising money for charity through the Lady Taverners. That is certainly a matter for congratulation.
In Rugby Union, the number of women's clubs has risen from 12 to 230 in the past 20 years, with a fourfold increase in registered players during the 1990s. Although there are no firm figures yet, the sport reports that a high proportion of the estimated 10,000 people who have taken up or returned to rugby following the triumph in the World Cup have been women or girls.
So we have two trends. Girls and women remain less likely to participate, but more girls and women regularly participate in sports that were once thought to be more or less exclusively the preserves of men. As my noble friend Lady Billingham said, we have come a long way but still have a long way to go.
What is the Government's activity in the area? The main policy to which I shall refer is the national physical activity strategy, the first phase of which will he published this spring. That is being carried out by the Activity Co-ordination Team, which covers nine government departments, as well as Sport England, the Health Development Agency, the Local Government Association and the New Opportunities Fund. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the ministry responsible for local government, is actively concerned in that.
In particular, we are considering barriers to physical activity by women, which several noble Lords have mentioned. Those include planning issues, to which my noble friend Lady Billingham and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred, the location or price of modern sports facilities and the need for wider use of school facilities, to which the noble Lord also referred. There are also psychological barriers: the fear of sport; the fear of losing in sport. There is the time needed to
1112
combine physical activity with work and home-making. There are travel problems—the need to encourage walking and cycling. All those are matters for that cross-government co-ordinated body, which is working on the subject and will be publishing a strategy within the next few months. Before I leave that topic, let me assure my noble friend Lady Billingham that the Activity Co-ordination Team is considering the particular issue of planning guidance for sports facilities.
I shall now refer to the work of the Women's Sports Foundation, as have several noble Lords. I am especially well informed about it, because its representatives came to see me this morning. I was pleased to welcome Deborah Potts and Helen Donohue and, I hope, give them some help on how to approach the issue that they raised with me—media coverage. I accept everything that has been said about media coverage, particularly in the press, but that is a matter on which the Government have no power to act, other than to deplore some of the things that we have heard about. I was able to point their in the direction of the BBC charter review and Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, both of which ought to be helpful to them in attacking the issue of broadcast media coverage of women's participation in sport.
The foundation works closely with the Government and the Sports Council in a range of measures that have greatly raised the profile of women in sport. It is very encouraging to hear about its work over the past 20 years. In recognition of that, the foundation's grant from Sport England was increased by 33 per cent to £200,000 in 2003–04.
As a result of this and other activity, there has been a great deal of structural reform. The funding agreement that Sport England has with the Government includes a specific equal opportunities requirement. It ensures that gender and other equity issues are considered at the beginning of all publicly funded sports projects. Governing bodies must adhere to comprehensive equity agreements of their own if they are to qualify for funding, and those principles are adopted by each of the sports councils which recently published the UK Strategy Framework for Women's Sport. That strategy aims to create a sporting culture that fully values the contribution of women and creates the conditions necessary for their full involvement. This is starting to have an effect.
I refer to this matter because of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I also recognise the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to the Football Foundation. That body has fully adopted equity principles and has provided £1.6 million for 30 women's and girls' coaching projects. All of the £83 million-worth of facilities that it has funded include full provision for women and girls. In the 20 Football Foundation projects that have been evaluated, participation rates have shot up by as much as 600 per cent.
I do not want to leave that subject without saying a word about amateur sports clubs. I am grateful for the recognition given by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to

1113
the amendment to the Local Government Bill which makes 80 per cent rate relief mandatory. That matter has not got very far: there are over 100,000 amateur sports clubs and only 558 have registered. There is a good deal of educational work still required.
I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the discrimination that takes place in clubs such as golf clubs. He has been very eloquent on that subject. But those are private clubs, and, as he knows, how far the Government should intervene in private clubs is a controversial issue. Our first priority has to be to those facilities that receive public funding, and where we have a direct influence.
I agree that, if we are looking at sport as a whole, the link between local amateur sports clubs and elite sports and the Olympics is essential. I appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Higgins, said about the Olympics. Incidentally, there is no problem of discrimination there, as 3,500 out of the 7,000 participants in the 1996 games were women. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right in thinking that Crossrail will not be completed—nor was it ever expected to be completed—in time for the 2012 Olympics in London. I hope we can convince him that the transport facilities for the Olympic sites will be first class.
The noble Lord also mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is in New York speaking to the people responsible for its Olympic bid. It should be made clear that he is not sleeping with the enemy. He is 100 per cent behind our Olympics bid, and he took that commitment with him to New York.
I would like to say a word about school sport and coaching—not in the sense that coaching should become compulsory, which was the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but because we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked, providing support and investment in coaching. We have 3,000 additional community sports coaches and 45 development officers in localities and regions. An explicit objective of our coaching programme is to increase the number of qualified coaches and those receiving high quality coaching among women and other under-represented groups, including ethnic minorities.
Our PE, School Sport & Club Links programme addresses links between schools and clubs, building on the Girls in Sport Partnership developed by the Youth Sport Trust in partnership with Nike. I hope that it will be agreed that that is not bureaucracy. As a result, more than 200,000 girls in 2,000 schools have benefited directly from the Girls in Sport Partnership to date, and the lessons have been incorporated as part of training in sport, which has been delivered in every school in England.
The noble Lords, Lord Pendry, Lord Faulkner, Lord Grantchester, Lord Addington, and nearly every noble Lord who spoke mentioned media coverage. I have referred to the encouragement that we are giving to the Women's Sports Foundation in its very necessary campaign. It has achieved something in its initiatives and is rightly proud of what it has done. But
1114
it is still necessary to make further progress. The foundation launched the national "Campaign for Coverage", as a part of which it seeks a condition covering women's sport in the BBC's charter. The Communications Act 2003 contains references to sports coverage and equality, although they are not linked. But in the charter review it is a legitimate objective to say that they should be linked.
As has been said, there is now considerable coverage, not just of women in tennis and athletics, but of the Women's FA Cup Final on the BBC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred, the Rugby World Cup on ITV and BSkyB's coverage of football, cricket and golf. There has been considerable success in boosting women's participation in sport, despite the absence of meaningful media coverage. In football, the 1.4 million figure to which I referred is very significant and includes some very young people, who will want to follow their sports in the media and will form an audience for those sports. In the end, that audience will impose itself even on the most recalcitrant broadcasters. It is a difficult problem, which must be solved.
In addition to the role model function, there are other forms of leadership. In women's sport we are now creating leaders at all levels. The chair and chief executive of UK Sport are women. As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, the chief executive of the Central Council for Physical Recreation is Margaret Talbot. Three of the nine Sport England regional directors are women, as is the head of the English Institute of Sport. Our Olympic bid is led by the inspirational Barbara Cassani. We have never had so many women at the top of sport. That provides the momentum that we need if we are to drive up participation. I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken that that has never been more necessary. It is important that we celebrate our achievement in leadership at all levels. The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, asked whether we had the political will; I hope that my response will convince the House that indeed we have the will to do just that.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I have less than a minute in which to thank everyone for taking part in this thoroughly good debate. There have been some powerful speeches, to which I would love to refer. I bet that we will not see any column inches in any of the newspapers about this good debate. That is part of the challenge for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Rail Transport
8.18 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their response is to the report prepared for the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group by Professor Phil Goodwin on the Future for Rail.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, early last year the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group, with the assistance of the Rail Forum, invited Professor Phil

1115
Goodwin of University College London to prepare the report that we are debating. In a nutshell, his remit was to review where things now stand on the rail component of the 10-year transport plan announced in 2000 and updated in 2002. Incidentally, the update showed huge increases in the forecast levels of road congestion. Professor Goodwin's central assessment is that, although a year ago the picture was one of doom and gloom for the railways, with calls for a new Beeching, the latest analysis suggests that we can now see light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. But I shall try not to do an injustice to what is a very careful and balanced assessment.
On the downside for rail the huge cost escalations on investment projects are still a major concern. But, on what one may paradoxically describe as the upside, the implications of growing road congestion and the logic of road pricing affecting both passenger and freight are beginning to transform the whole field of transport economics, with much more vigorous use of the price mechanism in prospect on the road side. The successful congestion charge in London, although there is much that can be said on the whole question, has helped tremendously to concentrate our minds.
Goodwin's conclusion is that very large investments in rail must continue and the rates of return on them will start to improve as the cost-benefit arithmetic and customer decision making responds to the new market signals, in particular producing a modal shift to rail in many market segments, notably InterCity and in the conurbations. Goodwin is very careful not to claim that rail is the alternative to road for every journey because clearly it is not, but in terms of rail economics there is a high degree of validity for his thesis, with a proper degree of empiricism in his approach.
The Goodwin report, with its impressive grasp of what I will term spatial economics linked to the growing desire of people and goods to move as a feature of a growing gross national product, will help to promote the intellectual underpinning of what I believe will prove to be the new policy mix for the next 20 years. The all-party group has warmly welcomed the report.
The 10-year plan, the principle of which we are all as determined as the Government to sustain, has already played a vital role. It has marked out the pitch on which the different transport modes are competing. It sets out some of the rules indicating where the referee may from time to time need to blow his whistle. We recall that it is some three years since the 10-year plan was published to a very wide cross-party welcome, and in particular the robust reasoning for the need for large and sustained sums for investment, the headline sum for rail being £67 billion—roughly half public and half private—and, incidentally, in the same ball park as overall investment on roads despite the much higher usage of the latter.
Incidentally, the Rail Regulator makes the point that it is he who authorises the actual payments through the access charging regime, but I believe it would be to throw out the baby with the bath water to
1116
deny the huge role played by the 10-year plan in setting out the ball park numbers. It is equally important to have a look at what we are getting for our money.
It was always recognised that the investment would take time to show results. Nevertheless, the 10-year plan envisaged a 50 per cent increase in passenger traffic and no less than an 80 per cent increase in freight, albeit the latter from a very low base. We also know that these targets—I use that word for want of a better— have to relate to normal questions of rates of return on capital. We cannot decide levels of investment by waving a magic wand.
This is the one time in my remarks that I will mention the relationship between the roles of the Rail Regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail, the train operators and, in the middle of it all, the Department of Transport. My one comment on this is that although on the face of it it seems odd that we have the regulator getting down to the detail of exactly when to extend line capacity between Rugby and Stafford, it is equally obvious, if there is a finite amount of capital which he can justify—and he has a role in putting pressure on contractors to perform—this institutional demarcation dispute, if I may use that trade union term, is not the central issue for the railways. There has already been a deluge of facile talk about it this week, with vertical versus horizontal integration, lengths of franchises, fat controllers and the rest of it.
To return to the main theme. Goodwin analyses the economics, the inter-action between supply and demand, first by considering the supply side, which is the cost and efficiency of supply capital and whether this is constrained, and the demand side, therefore the price, and hence the level of traffic having regard to the competition and changing consumer preferences.
Goodwin points out that when we ask who is to pay for investment there are only two choices: the fare payer or the taxpayer. He says that the so-called private finance is not a third way.
Perhaps there is one interesting caveat to that. One financing model—Crossrail—provides for institutions and businesses to play a part in stumping up the money through some kind of levy (for wider social and direct business benefits that they can see) and the enhanced land values and property values more generally that this new spatial economics can capture. Apropos the previous debate, although Crossrail will not be ready in time for the Olympic Games, the non-stop seven-minute journey on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from St Pancras to Stratford will be.
Recent statements by the AA, the RAC, the Freight Transport Association and others have, for the first time, fully recognised that not only is an expanding rail sector vital for the country, but also that a congestion-charging regime on the roads will have to play a part. That is in addition to the effects of the 48-hour week limit for commercial drivers affecting road far more than rail, and, to take a different point, the implication for centralised production and "just-in-time" distribution. I am reminded of the thought that all the sandwiches in Britain are now made in Peterborough,

1117
as someone put it. For all that I know, perhaps they are—apart from the tomato sandwich that I made myself last night.
Perhaps I may raise a couple of points about road-charging regimes, showing the significant difference between the two possible scenarios. Scenario A does not have road charging on the relevant routes. Scenario B has road charging. Professor Goodwin demonstrates that the move from scenario A to scenario B is decisive in increasing the use of rail and, therefore, the rate of return on investment. It gives a decisive signal to the investment community. It is also side by side with getting a grip on costs—namely, the moment that the Treasury can start to believe seriously that there is a future other than pouring money down a big, black hole.
In a nutshell, the new paradigm sees rail continue to charge at full cost, but, for the first time, with road also charging full cost. In particular, that is a revolution from the current marginal cost perception of the road journey—in other words, the perception that, "This is only costing me the cost of the petrol"—which hugely distorts the intermodal share at present.
The report is packed full of powerful insights, of which I shall cite two. On page 11, there is the rather striking observation that the majority of investment for public transport—that is, rail—could in future be private, but that the majority of investment in private transport—that is, road building and road traffic—is public. It is pointed out on page 14 that the higher safety requirements for rail, in effect, raise the price of capital.
On pages 23 and 24 of the report, Goodwin notes—in concluding what he dubs his "digression into roads"—that capacity constraints on roads, in many cases, are also paralleled by capacity constraints on rail. If we are searching for a satisfactory policy mix, the one thing that we cannot do, in effect, is to choke off road and to choke off rail traffic at the same time through lack of capacity on rail or through pushing up fares too fast. We must put the rail capacity in before we can do the switch—bringing to mind shades of the debate about London Transport and charging in London.
From page 26, Goodwin addresses the strategic implications for rail of constrained demand for road movements. In my view, that is where we see the opening up of the most innovative and arresting part of his analysis. He demonstrates that whereas there is a rather slight impact on modal share through rail investment per se, there is a huge shift in its share, and, hence, benefit to the economics of' rail, via the introduction of a charging regime on road for the relevant journeys.
On page 26 there is the hypothesis that a reduction in car traffic of 5 per cent through a charging regime could increase demand for public transport by 50 per cent—he gives his reasons for stating that—thus transforming the profitability of investment. That will improve the economics of public transport and although it is only a hypothesis, it is a plausible one in some segments.
1118
The argument that I have summarised is, of course, much more complex and sophisticated than that and much traffic could disappear or go elsewhere. To what extent—this is not a good example but it is a possible contrary hypothesis—would road traffic simply shift outside the most congested period and, for example, move to the middle of the night? The spectre of us all driving through the middle of the night is more than a little far fetched, although many people in the south of England already seem to get up in the middle of the night to go to work. Surely there are limits on how far that will go.
I also believe that at some point it would he useful to see an assessment of the income distribution consequences of charging regimes. Some de facto hypothecation has to take place so that the caricature figure of the man in the Bentley with the big cigar, scattering £50 pound notes left and right so that other people get out of his way, has to be combined with the principle of all the revenue going into public transport and with other measures to avoid problems for vital services, rural residents and so on. That is not an easy area about which to generalise.
In conclusion, the report is pregnant with ideas across a broad sweep. In thanking Professor Goodwin for his work, my colleagues and I are very pleased to be associated with it. I very much look forward to this short debate and the response from the Minister.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for introducing the debate. It gives me an opportunity to sneak in under the wire and make a little stab at one or two points that interest me. I do not mean the Goodwin report, in particular, 10-year plans, logistics or many difficult, technical and complicated matters that my noble friend excels at explaining. I want to follow on from a contribution that I made to the October debate on the railways when I spoke about people, Investors in People, customers and staff. I make no apologies for taking every opportunity to speak on this issue, given that yesterday was a big debating day on the railways for our nation and yet very little was said about people—so there is probably a need to redress the balance now and again.
My approach is that essentially business success, in whatever terms one sees it—whether in plans, investment or strategy—comes through, and with, people. The industry employs 40,000 to 50,000 people. How they are valued, managed, paid and most of all how they are respected. has a tremendous effect on the kind of railways that the public receive and how good the service is for customers.
Following the debate that we had last October, the Minister of State was kind enough to write to me emphasising the importance of people. I very much appreciate that. He also explained in some detail the Centre for Rail Skills, a new body set up in the industry, and the work that it is doing. I agree that that is important, but I want to emphasise that skills training complements investing in people; it is not a

1119
substitute. The benefits for rail companies of achieving the national standard for Investors in People may, but may not, embrace skills training. Skills training cannot achieve cultural change as Investors in People can. Cultural change is much needed if we are to deliver the kind of service that people expect.
In October I had a useful meeting with Mr Richard Bowker and his team, along with the chairman and the chief executive of Investors in People. I hope that that meeting bears fruit. Progress has been slow, not least of all because there has been much turnover in senior staff in the Strategic Rail Authority, particularly in the human resources and training positions. That always impedes progress. I am hopeful that in 2004 we shall see steady and meaningful co-operation between the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail companies and Investors in People UK. That will lead to more companies achieving the Investors in People standard and consequently there will be great change in the culture of the companies, the way in which the staff are valued and treated and, of course, in benefits to the customers. I just wanted to add that observation.
On the question of customers, I said in October that I should like each of the rail companies to publish customer survey information, but that has not yet happened. Such information should be on the websites of all those companies. I hope that the powers that be will follow that up, as it is a pretty basic request. The SRA could request it and perhaps publish a compendium on league tables of customer service, which would allow customers like me to make comparisons. It would also enable us to have an even more extensive debate about what happens to the customer, which would be better than a debate that is based on anecdotes, moans and groans, and personal experiences, all of which are no doubt as valid as mine. I hope that my noble friend can look at some of those issues to see whether progress can he made.
Finally, I want to have a brief word about something that is not often talked about, which I shall call the "passenger experience". Passengers want regular trains at the right price, but they also want a pleasant travelling experience, which is not always available. If the train is not comfortable and clean, we should discuss why that is so. I make no apologies for slipping into anecdote when I say that travelling from Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Victoria or Blackfriars stations are not pleasant experiences for customers. Trains are often dirty and ill-used. Food, litter and feet seem to take up more space on the seats than passengers more often than not. It is not unusual to find vomit and, even, urine in the passenger areas.
Perhaps we do not like to talk about that, or we find it slightly embarrassing because it is not the rail companies' fault. In essence, it must be a kind of community problem that displays ignorance and lack of respect for one's fellow passengers. Sadly, at the end of the day, that seems to be where it lies. However, the rail companies and public representatives have a role to play in finding a solution, perhaps by improving manning levels at stations and on trains. Perhaps campaigning for cleanliness and high standards of respect for one another is all that is needed, as has
1120
happened in the past. Generally, it is a matter of showing concern. I wonder whether my noble friend feels that there should be more of a public debate about the passenger experience in addition to punctuality and price.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lea, on securing this short debate, and on taking the lead in getting the all-party group to commission Professor Goodwin to carry out the work and then publish the report. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it should be a major contribution to the thinking that will surround the review of the 10-year plan. It should be essential reading for anyone who will be working on it, both within and without government. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber tonight has read it.
I shall speak on two subjects: road congestion and rail. I shall start with a quotation on Goodwin's report from the Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, who said:
"We will not be able to build our way out of all the pressures we will face. Road user charging has to be considered as part of sensible management of our roads".
He wants to start a debate, which I welcome.
I think that that will lead quite quickly to gridlock in certain areas, and that certain areas are quite important. Trafficmaster has done some work showing that congestion on the M1 has gone up by between 75 and 143 per cent in the past five years. On the M62—the trans-Pennine motorway—congestion has risen by between 164 and 247 per cent in five years. And that is not starting from an empty road.
The quarterly survey of transport activity produced by the Freight Transport Association shows that the percentage of respondents who believe that congestion is getting worse has risen from 35 per cent to 60 per cent over the same period. The freight industry believes that congestion is worsening and I am astonished at the speed at which this deterioration is taking place.
I agree with Professor Goodwin that some form of road user charging scheme will be essential. However, I recall that the Government took a slightly different view in the Ten Year Plan for transport: they said that traffic would grow but congestion would not. At the time some of us wondered about that. My noble friend Lord Lea commented that perhaps people will do all their travelling at night. While that might be one solution, the critical problem is the location of congestion spots around the country, and it needs to be addressed.
We should accept that Professor Goodwin has identified a problem and that we need to look at the consequences. My noble friend quoted from page 27 of the report, where it notes that a 5 per cent reduction in road congestion could lead to a 50 per cent increase in public transport use—assuming that people still want to move around. I was struck by a comment made by a person at Transport for London whom I met last week. He said that the congestion charging scheme has

1121
been a success—I agree with him—and that road traffic has reduced. However, the scheme has caused people to transfer to the Underground and buses. He also remarked, "It may be that in 10 years' time the demand for buses will be so great that the bus lanes will not be able to cope". What shall we do at that stage? His solution was to build Crossrail. I shall not debate that proposal tonight, except to say that it would cover only one route. However, we have to think about future provision if the bus lanes no longer work. The Underground, as we know, is quite expensive.
I hope that we do not find ourselves debating the figures in the Ten Year Plan, pondering whether congestion will increase by X or Y per cent. The key point Ministers should accept is that the main motorways in certain parts of the country, along with London and the other main conurbations, will face a serious problem with congestion, if they are not facing it now. It has to be dealt with. If we opt for nationwide road user charging, one compensation may be that people living in the countryside will suffer from less congestion. Those with no access to public transport should see a reduction in the cost of moving around. I am sure that that would be much more acceptable.
On page 29 of Professor Goodwin's report is a comment by Sir Christopher Foster, former chairman of the RAC. He is credited with establishing the structure of the privatised railway. I am not sure whether that is a real credit, but we can leave it to one side. However, he challenges the Strategic Rail Authority to engage in a debate on the costs and charges for the use of road and rail—both direct and indirect. I think that he is right to ask for those figures. For over a year I sought information from the SRA on the costs and values of different types of rail transport—intercity, commuter and so forth—but I was told that that information is confidential because someone owns it. If we are to have a proper transport policy, one that means something, we have to be able to debate these matters on the basis of proper information.
We do not want to see another failure along the lines of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. A previous government signed up to it and allowed the owners to charge exactly what they like for time immemorial. I am sure everyone now regrets that, so let us make sure that it does not happen again.
I turn to the railways. Clearly demand for rail transport will grow—on the assumption that people will continue to want to move around—and so we have to ask the question: can rail do it, and will the Government allow it to do so? While I welcomed the Statement made on Monday, I have a few concerns which I have already mentioned. While it is right that we review the railway, we must ensure that we do not seize upon a cure that is worse than the disease. Let us remember that the ink is not yet dry on the last round of changes.
Network Rail has been in place for around a year and is taking its contracts in-house. I shall come back to that point. The periodic review is a very important statement, made after detailed work by an
1122
independent regulator, about how much money Network Rail needs to run the network and the services specified by government for which it is contractually liable, in particular to the freight companies.
My noble friend Lord Sawyer mentioned people. He was absolutely right to do so. Those people in the railways have been subjected to unprecedented change in the past 10 years: changes of employer; changes of job; changes of management structure; changes of rules and regulations—that will not be my major theme tonight. Those changes are clearly unsettling and sometimes unnerving. We should ask whether further massive change will help them to do their job better or secure a better railway. I am grateful for the interest that my noble friend, who has enormous experience, is showing in the issue.
Since the Statement was repeated on Monday, we have heard predicable reactions. Many people have demanded that magic wands be waved instantaneously. I was pleased to see that the Health and Safety Commission bravely welcomed the review. However, it recommends that,
"safety should be truly independent".
I agree with that. It also recommends that safety should be,
"free from … economic pressures".
What is it trying to get at? Does it want a gold-plated railway that it will not fund? Nothing can be free from economic pressures, as has been said many times.
As for being "able to hold the industry to account", it does so in a confrontational and unhelpful way. Half the reason for our current problems is everybody's fear of being taken to court for something or other. I agree that the rail safety watchdog should be independent, but I shall submit information and evidence to the Government that show that a change is necessary.
Let us consider for a moment whether structural change is essential to deliver what we want, or whether a change in management, responsibilities and obligations is more important. I could speak further about safety. It needs to be independent, whether it be overseen by the Department for Transport or by a new regulator. We can debate that at length.
There is a problem with the role of the SRA and Network Rail. There is overlap and confusion, which should be resolved. We can debate that issue later as well. Network Rail has taken maintenance in-house, which has more than doubled its staff in six months in a safety-critical area. I understand that some of the staff and managers from the contractors do not want to move. I worry about the continued safe maintenance of the railway while that is happening. Taking work in-house is a brave decision and I am sure that it will save money in the long term. I worry about the process, but I hope it works.
Nevertheless, 10,000 or so rules and standards will need to be removed or amended if they do not meet the criteria that we and Ministers have mentioned. There are many examples, but I shall not go into them at this late hour. However, there are 10,000 of them. It

1123
requires a task force drawn from Network Rail, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and others proactively to challenge them. It should challenge not just the HSE, which does need to be challenged, but its own people as well. It also needs strong support from Ministers and the SRA.
There have been calls for vertical integration and for TOCs to run the infrastructure of the railway. What makes them think that they can do it better than Network Rail does now? I read in the press this week that the TOCs have suddenly discovered that they are short of drivers, but I shall not go into that. The TOCs appear not to have quite understood that Network Rail is under severe financial regulatory pressures. I suggest that they are not always under the same pressures. If there is to be vertical integration, let EWS run the Midland Mainline; let Freightliners run the Southampton to Birmingham route; let GB Railfreight run the Great Eastern; and Direct Rail Services the West Coast Main Line, northern branch. That is no more stupid than the suggestion that the passenger people do it. That would mean massive change.
I suggest that, rather than massive change and years of uncertainty and cost, it would be useful first to improve communications, to change attitudes and to define responsibilities clearly. That suggestion applies also to the SRA.
The railways are consumed with bureaucracy—much of it self-inflicted, I accept. Some in the industry are fearful, as I have mentioned. Nobody seems to know who is doing what and few are prepared to speak out, for good reasons. However, improvements are taking place. Network Rail has existed only for a year.
I suggest that the problems faced by the rail industry are to do with management and communication. I hope that it will be given the chance, under a great deal of pressure from Ministers, to solve those problems before the Government press the nuclear button and plunge the railways into another five years of uncertainty.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is unusual for an Unstarred Question to be so extraordinarily topical as that of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall today. I congratulate him on his timing and on his speech. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I pay tribute to him for his persistence in persuading the other members of the All-Party Rail Group to commission the report produced so ably by Professor Phil Goodwin. I declare an interest as the group's treasurer and as someone who has had an association with the railway industry for more than a quarter of a century. I also add my appreciation to the Railway Forum, which paid for the report but had no influence over its content and its conclusions, which are Professor Goodwin's alone.
I suggest that our task today—rather in the way that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has done—is to put the report into the context of the announcement made by
1124
the Government on Monday and to draw particular attention to the findings and recommendations that will best inform the review that is now taking place.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to some lessons that we learnt at the British Railways Board during the 20-odd years that I worked there from 1977 onwards. It is a pity that, once again, we shall not have the benefit of hearing in the debate from the dozen or so former Conservative transport Ministers who are Members of the House, particularly those who were responsible for the privatisation of the industry in the 1990s. But it will be nice to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Luke, none the less.
It is perhaps significant that the only one of the former Ministers who intervened during the discussion on Monday's Statement was the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, whose period as transport Minister I was happy to describe as the golden age of post-war railway history.
There is not time today to delve into the extraordinarily complex psychological relationship between the British people and the railways. To call it "love-hate" is far too simple. We do not have the huge sense of pride that the French have, for example, in their wonderful TGV network—although, as a frequent user of their provincial services, I do not detect in France a greatly superior system to our cross-country services, the frequency and convenience of which I believe are better than theirs.
But where SNCF is fortunate is that it does not have an hysterical, unfair, biased, inaccurate and often mendacious national newspaper industry constantly on its back in the way that our railways do. The snide comment, the cheap joke, the ludicrous anecdote, the invented so-called "facts", and the denigration of the best efforts of hard-working public servants are all preferred—particularly in the tabloid newspapers, but sometimes also on radio and television—to an honest appraisal of the facts, or to giving credit where it is due.
Let me take just one recent example—the suggestion by Network Rail that timetables should show slightly increased journey times to reflect engineering and other conditions on the line so that passengers can have more confidence in published arrival times. Our railways have included what is called "recovery time" in their schedules since timetables first started to be published in the middle of the 19th century. There is nothing underhand or dishonest in their doing so; our domestic airlines have done it for years. Indeed, it is not very long ago that flight times from Heathrow to Glasgow and Edinburgh were increased overnight from one hour to one hour and 20 minutes—an increase of 33.3 per cent—and yet there was no media outcry over that.
When I travelled to Hull and back for a day trip last Saturday, the timetable had a few minutes added to it to take account of a diversion for engineering reasons via Hertford. In the event, Hull Trains did not need them and the two trains I caught were eight and 15 minutes early. Everyone on board felt good about it and many congratulated the train crews.

1125
The strange relationship between the British people and their railways is brilliantly described by Professor Goodwin in the chapter headed "The Paradox of Growing Demand for a Service in Crisis", which starts on page 32 on my copy. He quotes from a range of really damaging newspaper reports, which contain nothing but gloom and despair for the travelling public. He then states:
"The question arises of explaining the buoyant, and for much of the period actually increasing, national demand for rail travel. This is not a debating point—one cannot dismiss the importance of the problems of service delivery—but the resulting picture of a crumbling system only barely managing to cater for customers who were deserting it in droves just does not seem to be demonstrated in figures for actual usage".
The professor then quotes a series of statistics to prove that point including the SRA's own assertion that,
"passenger kilometres travelled on the network have grown by 38 per cent since 1995 and now exceed the levels of 50 years ago, carried on a rail network half the size. Rail moves 20 per cent more people into central London than ten years ago".
What we have, therefore, is an extraordinarily popular railway, used by more people than at any time since the mid-1950s, who refuse to be put off from travelling by train despite the denigration and abuse from the media.
What is more, if Professor Goodwin's assessment of what will happen to congestion is correct, and the Government decide to adopt sensible demand management policies for our roads—as I fervently hope that they do—rather than disappear into the black hole of a massive motorway building programme, the need for more capacity on our railway will grow enormously.
Some noble Lords may recall that during the debate on buses initiated in December by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I supported Mr Livingstone's return to the Labour Party for the reason that the success of London's congestion charging scheme should set the agenda for transport policy considerations across the country. I warmly welcomed, therefore, the press statement last July by the Secretary of State on the Government's road strategy, quoted by my noble friend Lord Berkeley:
"We will not be able to build our way out of all the pressures we face. Road user charging has to be considered as part of sensible management of our roads".
That statement is quoted approvingly by Professor Goodwin who says:
"A sensible pricing system on roads would radically transform the economics of railways".
He includes the startling statistic that,
"a reduction in traffic of only five per cent could lead to an increase of up to 50 per cent in the actual or potential demand for public transport use".
That is incredibly important because it puts directly into context all that the Government are attempting to do to improve the railways. It also destroys completely, of course, as Professor Goodwin points out, the ludicrous suggestion which has appeared in
1126
the Sunday Times and elsewhere in recent months that what the railways need is a new Beeching "to take the axe again to the railways".
The reality is, of course, that many of the capacity problems that the railway is having to cope with now stem directly from the Beeching closures of the 1960s and 1970s and the short-sighted cost cutting that followed, such as the singling of the Southern Region's west of England main line and the Cotswold line from Oxford to Worcester.
What a tragedy it is that the one north-south main line built to continental loading gauge and able, therefore, to take all the Channel Tunnel trains and freight—it would be interchangeable with the Continent—the Great Central, was closed in the 1970s. What a relief it is that Beeching's plan to close the north London line, now the most congested commuter railway on the system, was prevented after a public outcry.
That brings me to the Government's Statement on Monday. I agree with much of what David Begg wrote in the Financial Times yesterday, in particular his assertion that it would have been better if this review had been announced in 1997 immediately after the Government came to power. I do not criticise them for that. They believed that they could make work the privatisation structure they took over. Few imagined that Railtrack would be so utterly incompetent, insensitive, profligate and arrogant. Few foresaw that the layer upon layer of legal and contractual agreements would inflate costs by a factor of between two and three, and that the fragmentation of the industry would create such a risk-averse and blame-avoidance culture.
How interesting it is that the architects of this system, the spokesmen for the Conservative Party, now admit what a ghastly mistake it all was. Let us take Mr David Willetts who said in the Daily Telegraph of 13th December of last year:
"It was the wrong model … I freely accept that this structure is not right. I would not defend the way in which we carried out railway privatisation".
It is a bit late to admit that. But we have to move on and, naturally, I wish the Government's review well. I particularly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has asked Richard Bowker and the SRA to play such an important part in the process. Mr Darling's Statement also said that they had,
"worked extremely hard with the industry, bringing greater leadership and strategic direction to the railways, and they do so with our full support".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/04; col. 1077.]
I agree and hope that it has put paid to the negative and damaging rubbish that appeared in the Independent last week, following the planting of some unpleasant and malicious rumours.
The new structure of the industry must feature an accountable, single point of contact for industry and government. I hope the review produces such a recommendation and puts at the head of that organisation an individual with proven qualities of leadership and an ability to change an industry for the

1127
benefit of its customers. The outcome that must be avoided is what Anthony Hilton described in an amusing, but accurate, piece in the Evening Standard on Monday. Speaking of the Government, he said:
"Perhaps it yearns for the days of rail nationalisation when, according to an old Treasury hand who actually administered the policy, the civil servants pursued an active strategy of making sure the railways never became popular. There was method in their madness. They realised that if the rail system was used too intensively and more and faster trains were run, the track would begin to crumble and maintenance costs would soar. Whenever it looked as if rail passenger numbers were increasing too fast, the Treasury would cut the funding so that the old British Rail would have to whack up fares, and passenger numbers would plummet. Trains would then be cut, reducing the wear and tear on the track, and reducing the likely cost of maintenance and easing the strain on public finances".
Mr Hilton adds:
"I am not making this up, honest".
I can assure him that he is not, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would probably agree, that is exactly how it was at the BRB. It is so important that we do not go back to those days and go down the crazy cul-de-sacs like the Serpell report, and the other efforts to reduce the size of the railway, particularly at a time when we should be planning to increase capacity for all the reasons that Professor Goodwin puts forward in his report.
9.02 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we welcome Professor Goodwin's report and I join those who have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for giving us the opportunity to debate the issues raised. I particularly commend the fact that the report is brief—much briefer than is usual for such reports.
Early on, Professor Goodwin refers to the establishment of:
"a national Strategic Rail Authority for Great Britain, to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of our railways".
I will argue that the SRA has not yet carried out those functions. To some extent, the reason is that it has been a prisoner of decisions taken before it was functional—namely the fact that the West Coast Main Line upgrade had been agreed and the Southern Region power upgrade was made inevitable by the decision that had already been made to replace most of the rolling stock on that network. So the majority of funds available for the SRA never existed. The SRA has been cursed by fighting between the bodies that surround it, to which the Secretary of State drew attention on Monday—namely the Rail Regulator, Railtrack, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Transport and, of course, the trade unions, who have not always smoothed the way of passengers. The SRA has also been the victim of thinking on a grandiose, rather than an incremental, scale. It has become part of the problem, rather than its solution.
Apart from funding the massive losses of rail, why should we all care? Because Phil Goodwin argues that railways can be a significant part of the future for passengers and freight for the benefit of us all. Setting
1128
aside the usual suspects—who he identifies and, by the way, were mostly keen advocates of privatisation—a cost-efficient railway with investment targeted where it would do most good could make a significant contribution in accessing cities, major inter-urban journeys, and reaching our ports and airports. The main beneficiaries will probably be car users either as passengers or as drivers on less congested highways.
Goodwin argues that we should make allowance for the disruptive effect of change in rail and road schemes. I believe that that makes a strong argument for allowing the planning of engineering possessions to be one of the tasks that should be considered for transfer to the major franchisees. Safety management, Goodwin argues, has become a millstone around the neck of the industry. I fervently support the review of all safety arrangements mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others, with responsibility being vested almost entirely in the new chief inspector of railway accidents in the Department for Transport.
Goodwin goes on to raise the issue of the multi-modal studies. These, he says, were "very expensive". They represented a largely coherent package, with road and rail elements being interdependent. It was a pity that the SRA was somewhat lukewarm in its participation. They need revisiting after rail costs have been brought down, because they need to be implemented on a co-ordinated basis, as Goodwin argues, with the effects likely to be cumulative as road and rail schemes move together. I seek some assurance from the Minister that that will happen. Otherwise the very large sums already spent will have been wasted.
A feature of the multi-modal studies was that some of the recommendations depended on traffic restraint through congestion charging. The technology to make that work has now been proven. The extension of congestion charging, however, depends upon local authorities being actively encouraged by central government to implement and develop such schemes. Can the Minister promise such encouragement? It also demands that public transport as an alternative to the car should be reasonably priced—which is largely not the case when one compares this country with many countries in Europe.
However, I pay tribute to the Government—they deserve one or two brownie points particularly when they have done the right things—for their recent announcement on funding of the guided bus schemes in Luton and Cambridge, two extremely congested cities. We need such schemes to make traffic restraint and congestion charging acceptable. We need operators of buses, guided buses, trams and trains to bring forward reasonably priced proposals, bearing in mind that cities that are less congested present far better operating conditions, which in turn lead to lower costs.
In talking about congestion charging I shall pause for a moment to say that the letter in yesterday's edition of the Times stating that 75 per cent of retail businesses in the London charging zone experienced a drop in trade makes no mention of the loss of

1129
American tourists, worries about terrorist outbreaks or the closure of the Central line. It was written more out of fear, or to stir up trouble, than as the result of any sound research. I think that we have to wait for that research to be published.
We are led to two conclusions. First, the growth of road traffic will inevitably lead to demand management, especially in urban areas. People in the country have nothing to fear from that. In urban areas there are very limited opportunities to build road capacity or parking capacity. Secondly, better public transport will be needed. The choice of mode, whether bus, guided bus, tram or rail, will depend on the costs that attach to each mode. As things stand the bus will inevitably win, as it has in London. Rail can win only if it exploits capacity to the maximum and reduces the costs of enhancing services well below the present level. That is why the review announced on Monday by the Secretary of State for Transport is so important, indeed crucial, to the industry. There can be no increased role for rail in the future unless costs are quickly and dramatically controlled.
I was shocked to learn yesterday that the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority has written to stakeholders asking them to let him have their views in a coherent and organised way, so that he can provide the Secretary of State with advice that represents the views of the whole industry. I would not wish the views of stakeholders to be limited or moderated by such a channel of communication. The SRA controls the franchising process—that is its main function. Those seeking to win or to participate in that process may not wish to express views through that means. If they think that their views are contrary to those of Richard Bowker, they will not express them, because they will feel that they will be disadvantaged in some way in the franchising procedure. Nor may they wish to come to the eye of the foul-mouthed executive director of communications employed by that organisation, who is unfit to hold public office.
The SRA is part of the problem, in common with other organisations who are no doubt—one has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—hurrying to protest the fact that they should all remain independent. The role of the SRA should not be above question. It contains people of definite views and priorities. Those views are not universally shared. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the review is open to all who have a point of view, and that access to the review will be plain and simple. In that review, I hope that simplicity and devolution will have their part.
Above all, I commend to the Minister the good sense written in today's edition of the Times by Simon Jenkins. There have been many articles on this subject, but this one is written by someone who knows something about the railway. I reiterate my offer made from these Benches on Monday that we are willing and indeed anxious to help and to support a radical review. We are not willing to stand by and watch a review that does not stop the turf war of various organisations and which does not legislate quickly and decisively to stop
1130
these if necessary; a review that fails to dramatically stop waste and bureaucracy. A review, which I hope we can support, should lead to an improvement in services and a reduction in costs.
Professor Goodwin's report is welcome, as it shows what may happen. I stress the word "may". We, and I hope that I speak collectively between these Benches and the Government, must reach out to get the future that he suggests may be there.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome Professor Goodwin's report. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for asking this Question. The Statement made on Monday by the Secretary of State, Mr Darling, clearly showed that this is an important topic which comes high up not only on the political agenda, but also strikes a chord with a large majority of the public and the media.
As noble Lords have shown in their excellent contributions to this debate, this subject is not only an important one, but one which covers a broad area. I hope therefore that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not confine my comments strictly to the report per se, but speak to the subject of the report in general.
In order for us to consider what the future holds for rail, we must learn the lessons from the past. In 2000, the Labour Party, three years into its first parliamentary term, made huge promises on the issue of rail, and launched an ambitious, and much talked of, 10-year plan. Mr Prescott argued in the foreword of the document presenting that plan that it,
"will deliver the scale of resources required to put integrated transport into practice".
The Government listed great improvements, which were to all be in place by 2010, including improvements to service quality, more punctual and reliable trains, less overcrowding, and modern and increased capacity on the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines.
I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that the plan hit troubled water almost immediately. The tragic rail crash at Hatfield, which left many dead and injured, exposed the problem of gauge corner cracking on tracks. That meant that the Government had to address the problem and, as a result, there was a considerable lowering of speed limits, which inevitably caused a "sharp fall in performance", in the Government's own words.
The bureaucracy that the plan implemented has also been a failure, I am sad to say. The Strategic Rail Authority, which has come in for some fairly hard words during the debate, was created to,
"provide a focus for strategic planning of the passenger and freight railways".
Sadly, it has merely added to the bureaucracy on railways, which also consists of the Health and Safety Executive and the Rail Regulator. That bureaucracy has brought uncertainty over regulation and has been a huge cost to the taxpayer. The current regulatory regime costs more than £110 million a year, an increase

1131
of at least £5 million on last year, in direct operational costs alone. It absorbs a similar sum again in terms of industry resources.
Staying with money, I should say that this month the SRA's annual report was leaked to the Independent. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was referring to. It stated that the current £54 billion earmarked under the 10-year plan was being used up simply to maintain the present railway network, with nothing left for the improvements which the rail users had been promised. The report was considered unfit for publication. The Department for Transport has now said that a new report will not be published until the summer. I do not know whether that is true; perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny it. If the publication of the report has been put off until the summer, there must be some reason for that.
So what has the turning sour of all those great ideas meant for the people who really matter, the travelling public? The statistics speak for themselves. The SRA measures rail performance using a public performance measure (PPM) which combines figures for punctuality and reliability into a single measure. The PPM of all operators has fallen since 1998. Only 84 per cent of trains ran "on time" in 2003–04, and the number of complaints per 100,000 journeys increased by 6 per cent between 2002 and 2003. Yet during that period of late trains and increasing dissatisfaction among those using the trains, fares increased markedly. In fact, they have increased above inflation for all the years that Labour has been in power. In short, rail travel in this country is unreliable, overpriced and underfunded.
All that we know, and it is well documented. Now we have the helpful report from Professor Goodwin. He suggests among a great many other things that the,
"role that public transport is called on to perform within transport strategy as a whole is greater than was assumed to be the case at the time of the launching of the Ten Year Plan, not less".
It is clear that the railways are in a mess, although a great number of journeys are still most successful. I am always very successful whenever I go on a journey. Even when I was told last week that a crane had fallen on the track and that I would be a very long time getting from Waterloo to Winchester and back again, I am glad to say that I had no problem either way.
Now is the time for the Government, and in particular the Transport Minister, to say that the Government were wrong and are sorry. Mr Kim Howells admitted on the "Today" programme that that was the case. I would very much welcome that. During the short debate after the Statement earlier this week, my noble friend Lord Astor said that the Conservatives admit that we did not get the interface right between the railway companies and Railtrack during privatisation. The Government and Mr Darling in his Statement also said that some good things came out of privatisation and welcomed the innovation of the various railway companies. They have carried many more passengers than before.
The Government have rather wasted three years trying to implement that ambitious plan, which has now been discredited. However, we should now be
1132
concerned with the future. The railways need less bureaucracy and more long-term investment from longer franchises. The Government must consider reducing the regulatory burden on rail, so that the supply of services can respond to individual demand, rather than to dictation from the centre.
With congestion charging on the roads, new taxes planned for the motorways and concern about the environment at an all-time high, people are looking for a safe, value-for-money alternative to travelling by car. The railway currently only partially provides such a service. I, for one, will be keeping a close watch on the Government to see whether they carry out the review promised in Monday's Statement and, more importantly, act to cut bureaucracy.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join all the other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking my noble friend Lord Lea for introducing the debate on the report. He stuck closely to his last by reviewing; the main issues contained in the report—a report that has arrived at an opportune time and which we regard as thoughtful and full of well-informed analysis that will help us while we are engaged in a significant review of the railway.
I do not say that the Government subscribe to all the report's conclusions, but it is a welcome contribution to the debate. I congratulate the All-Party Group on Rail on having commissioned the report and my noble friend on introducing and producing an extremely well-informed debate that leaves me with a range of issues to which I must respond.
One point that I had not anticipated, which does not arise directly from the report, but which stands on its own merits, is that made by my noble friend Lord Sawyer. He is right. Of course we preoccupy ourselves with the two great criteria of the railway service: punctuality and reliability. He is quite right: we also need to pay attention to the question of the acceptability of the service once one is on the train. He suggested that that required some wider societal measures.
We have a range of strategies to improve behaviour on trains. Many of us can bear testimony to rail journeys where the train has been reliable and punctual when it deposited us, but we have endured many unhappy minutes, or even hours, on the train because of the conduct of a small number of people. We must address that issue.
The report emphasises the interaction between rail and road policy, which is of great importance. The Government recognised that, which is why both the 10-year plan and the White Paper sought to address those relationships in an integrated manner. I welcome the report's acknowledgement of the innovative concept at the heart of our 10-year plan.
When the plan was published, it was widely welcomed for delivering a much-needed step change in transport investment. It provided an unprecedented long-term commitment from the Government and put

1133
an end to decades of stop/start funding and short-termism. It envisaged total spending, including private investment, of £181 billion over 10 years. That included public expenditure of £22 billion for strategic roads; £33 billion for the railways; and £52 billion for local transport. Significant progress has already been made towards delivering that increased investment under the plan.
Let me mention another point raised in the debate. My noble friend Lord Sawyer mentioned the morale of those who serve on the railways. Investment is an important part of morale, because it suggests that the Government, acting on behalf of the wider public, have faith in the service that the railways can provide, if they are given the tools to do the job. I shall talk more about the Strategic Rail Authority later, but let me emphasise to my noble friend that the authority takes the skills issue seriously. It has set up a rail skills exercise. It is concerned that we train people effectively. That point is well made by the noble Lord, and accepted by us.
Our priority now is to focus on delivering the improvements needed to modernise our transport networks, and to make the most cost-effective use possible of the huge increases in investment that the plan provides. We are now spending £250 million each week to improve transport in this country, in order to make up for what has been recognised by noble Lords on all sides of this House as decades of under investment. That is an increase in investment of 65 per cent over the past three years.
We are also investing in major improvements to our road and rail transport infrastructure, and the increased investment is making a difference. For example, in the past year, we have seen major infrastructure projects open, such as the M6 toll road and the first phase of the Channel Tunnel rail link, which was completed on time and to budget. Credit is deserved for that. Noble Lords will also be aware of many other major infrastructure projects where work is currently under way, such as the widening of key sections of the most congested parts of the motorway network, and the huge investment in upgrading the West Coast Main Line. The increased investment underpinning these projects is benefiting individuals and businesses alike.
Strategy must be able to adapt and accommodate developments, changing circumstances and new opportunities. That is why a review of the 10-year plan is now under way. We need to ensure that our long-term strategy remains fit for the challenges of the next decade. Events such as Hatfield have implications. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made reference to this matter. We need to accommodate features of such significance properly in our planning. That work is in progress, and it will culminate in the publication of a rolled forward transport phased strategy later this year after the spending review has been announced.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, chided us on the Strategic Rail Authority's annual report. Does it not make great sense that the report should relate to the Government's spending review that is taking place
1134
over the next few months? That therefore fits in to a strategy that makes sense: resources allied to objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, introduced the matter of whether the structure of the review means that the Strategic Rail Authority will have a monopoly on this. The Strategic Rail Authority will certainly play a very important role in co-ordinating a great number of the representations from the industry. Ministers have made clear that contributions made directly to the department will be welcome. We are open-minded about the situation. We recognise that the developing expertise of the Strategic Rail Authority puts it in a position where it can co-ordinate responses and provide coherence to the representations that come in.
On the issue of roads, the Secretary of State published a discussion paper Managing Our Roads, to which a number of my noble friends paid considerable credit, because the concept of managing the road might also mean managing demand. which is an important part of Professor Goodwin's report. We have to look at the question of managing demand, and along with that we need to look at the question of congestion and road pricing. The Secretary of State adopted a forthright, far-seeing and courageous position when he said that we do need to look at the feasibility of road pricing. The London congestion charge is an important aspect of that. It has been broadly successful. Noble Lords say that we may eventually run into congestion of buses in bus lanes. By Heavens, my Lords, I look forward to that day. We still have the problem of cars and lorries being inconveniently parked in bus lanes. I speak with some fervour because, 20-odd years ago, in a different guise, I introduced a Bill to produce bus lanes in London. I am therefore very pleased by suggestions that they will develop an even more crucial role in the future.
On road pricing generally, we recognise the value of the relationship between road and rail. I wish that I could be as optimistic about propositions made in the report and by my noble friends, in particular, that road pricing will have automatically beneficial effects for rail through a modulated shift from road to rail. Would that it were so easy, predictable and effective. At present, our studies indicate that road pricing probably shifts the times of journeys rather than the mode of travel. We should not make that automatic assumption—I do not suggest that Professor Goodwin did, but he placed great emphasis on it. We need to evaluate and look carefully at the issue, but there is always the possibility that the operation of a road pricing system at certain hours merely squeezes traffic on to the road at other hours rather than resulting in a move to rail.
I appreciate the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the necessity of road management and his warm support for it. My noble friend Lord Lea also emphasised that it was a crucial part of the report. I do not decry it—very far from it—it is an important contribution to the debate, and the matter requires further analysis and work. However, I have adopted the stance of not being overly optimistic that the

1135
proposition translates easily into government policy that would solve the situation as readily as one might think.
As a result of the history of underinvestment, it has been necessary to put in place substantial increased investment. That is why the Government announced public investment of £33 billion over 10 years, doubling railway investment over a five-year period. Total investment in the four years to 2006 will be almost three times that at the time of privatisation. Those are very significant figures, which will make possible the effective use of the railway against a background in which we will have the capacity to do so. That has been warmly welcomed on all sides of the House.
The recent regulatory review, published last December, confirms that the cost of upkeep of British railways is £1.5 billion a year more than was thought necessary just three years ago. The review implied that Network Rail inherited a business from Railtrack with unit costs substantially higher than they should be. Network Rail is now tackling those inefficiencies and working to bring down costs. But taxpayers and fare-paying passengers need to know that their money is being well spent and that increased spending will improve performance. In short, cost control is essential, and the review that we are carrying out will address those issues. The statement on Monday pointed out that we cannot expect to use the investment successfully unless we concentrate on ensuring that there are clear points of decision.
1136
Many illustrations have been made in the debate today. My noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Berkeley referred to safety. The fact that there arc so many regulations and so many fingers in the pie means that the essential priority of safety—who would deny that?—has been translated into a range of inhibitions regarding the railway. That has not guaranteed safety so much as inhibited the railway's capacity to perform. That is why we need the review—there are a number of areas in which it is necessary.
The Strategic Rail Authority will have a role in the review. Its co-ordinating role will be enormously important, and the Government are confident that it will address the issues within a very short timescale. We need those submissions and the position before us in the next few months so that we can, coterminous with the development of the public spending review, have in place a strategy and resources.
We want to build on the review to create a railway which is responsive and operates in the public interest, while at the same time recognises the value of the private sector and respects the legitimate interests of investors. The report by Professor Goodwin highlights some of the key issues involved in all this. They will form part of the Government's review. I am very grateful that the All-Party Parliamentary Rail Group got to work on this at a very early stage and therefore has helped to prompt this debate, which my noble friend Lord Lea introduced so ably this evening, getting the general debate, following Monday's Statement, off to a very sharp, prompt and effective start.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
(Second Day)
Wednesday, 21 January 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Lord Ampthill: Before proceedings begin, may I make a short personal statement? A number of exchanges took place at the start of the Grand Committee proceedings on Monday which I hope all of us would regret because they departed from the spirit of self-regulation. If self-regulation is to work—and I believe that all Members want it to work—we must follow the practices of the House and any guidance in the Companion.
The Grand Committee on Monday was in uncharted waters because of the need to have a discussion about business before going through the Bill and the amendments. My interventions were based on the assumption that the formal proceedings of the Committee had not begun and that it was my duty to get them started. I wish to make it clear that I would not, and could not, have intervened as I did once consideration of the Bill had begun.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I remind noble Lords that we are in Grand Committee. Noble Lords will speak standing and there are no Divisions. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, wishes to ask the Minister a question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged. Is the Committee prepared to consider postponing consideration of Clause 5 until the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been received? I say that because I happened to see and approve a draft yesterday, or the day before—I cannot remember which. It will, in any case, be published within a week—it is ready for publication—and it is highly relevant to Clause 5. Your Lordships will remember that, I believe on Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Anelay raised the point of requiring assistance on Clause 5. I believe that I did, too. In the circumstances, it would be quite pointless to proceed with Clause 5. I cannot, of course, say exactly what is in that report. All I can say is that I ask noble Lords to accept from me that it is highly relevant to our considerations. That is a matter, of course, for all Members of the Committee but I just thought that I would mention it.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The chances are that we shall not reach it anyway, despite the Minister's admirable
GC 312
qualities and the way in which she approaches the Grand Committee. I think she would agree that she usually explains the various amendments at substantial length. I believe that Clause 4, which creates a totally new criminal offence, is likely to take up a considerable amount of the afternoon. If that is so, is it not better to decide that now and to agree to end our discussion at the end of Clause 4 rather than at the end of Clause 5?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and thank him very much for bringing Clause 5 to the attention of the Select Committee. I appreciate his discretion in bringing to the attention of the Grand Committee the fact that matters in a report that is yet to be published could well be relevant to our considerations. While maintaining the strict confidentiality by which he is hound, as he says, it is a matter for the Committee's decision.
Baroness Walmsley: Would it be possible to clarify that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is referring to Amendment No.38 onwards and that he has no objection to discussing Amendments Nos. 32 to 37, which refer to Clause 5? The controversial part, I believe, is Amendment No. 38. Perhaps the noble Lord will he kind enough to clarify that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My suggestion was solely related to the amendments to Clause 5. Then my noble friend Lord Carlisle said that we would not finish anyway. That is fair enough, but you never know, do you? These Committees sometimes run until eight, nine or ten o'clock.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My straight answer to the noble Baroness is that I am concerned to preserve Clause 5 only because it would be a sheer waste of the Committee's time to consider it without the assistance of that report.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising this matter at this stage. The Companion provides at paragraph 6.74 that clauses or parts may be postponed on a Motion made to that effect of which notice has been given. I do not want to take a technical point, but notice has not been given in relation to this matter. I would say to the noble Lord that the importance of Clause 5 is such that I think we would benefit from having a debate on this. This is obviously a matter to which we can return on Report, particularly after we have had the benefit of reading, inwardly digesting and thinking about more fully, the report which is about to be issued by the Committee.
I take on board what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I apologise if in his remarks the suggestion was made that I was perhaps overlong in my explanation.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: No, the noble Baroness is always courteous in her replies to this Committee. I would not suggest anything other than that of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am gratified I fear that I had proposed, for the assistance of the

GC 313
Committee, for my explanation to be quite full, as in my experience that is what the Committee wants; that is, first, to put on the record the Government's thinking and, secondly, to tease out anomalies or difficulties that noble Lords have identified which I can answer. We may have thought of many of the troubles already.
I would invite the Committee to allow us to consider in a way that is proper all the matters with which we are seized today. It may be that we do not reach Clause 5; I hope that we shall. However, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I do not think that any debate we have today on Clause 5 would be futile. I understand that in any event the Government will have to explain the thinking which caused them to come to the view that they now have in relation to the way it is phrased. I accept that once the report is to hand, the House will want to return to it on Report if it finds on mature reflection matters which need to be explored further. It may prove to be an advantage for the Committee to have heard what I say about these issues when it comes to consider the report and what will be our best way forward.
Lord McNally: Before the Minister sits down, I would ask her to take on board the words of the wise old owl, or the noble owl, Lord Carlisle. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, speaking from his unique perspective, points out that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is not old; indeed, he is not. If Clause 4 is to take the time suggested and we get past seven o'clock, we shall not have the kind of deliberation of Clause 5 which the noble Baroness suggests would be good for the Committee. Perhaps we could keep an eye on the clock.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may respond to that before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, replies as it may help him. Certainly, we can look at it at that time. I should also say that from the perspective of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, is in the first flush of youth.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not see him rise. Perhaps I may very briefly reply to the noble Baroness. I did not say that it was futile; I said that it would be wholly unsatisfactory from what I had read and know. I asked the Committee whether it would accept it because I cannot say exactly what I have read until it is published.
On the question of notice, I gave notice to my noble friend and she said that it was all right; I gave notice to the noble Baroness and she said, "Well, that was all Heir, and that she thought it made perfect sense. It is a matter really for this Committee whether it wants to do what I want to do, or suggest that we should do.
As to requiring notice, if the noble Baroness had been in the room just about 45 seconds earlier, I would have given her notice, but I do not suppose she would have agreed. That does not matter. The point is: what do Members think? I cannot put the matter clearer
GC 314
than saying that to try and debate Clause 5 without the assistance of that report is not futile, it is just a waste of time.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may suggest to the Committee that we see how we go. If the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is right and the noble Lord. Lord McNally, also makes sure he is right, we may well reach the stage where we decide as a Committee that the issue needs more time. I absolutely agree that this is a very important part and that we want to take a little time on it. So, if we get to a stage very near to seven o'clock and we think that we cannot do it justice, the Committee can indicate whether it would like to draw stumps at that moment.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
Amendment to Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1986
Use of recovery orders
In Part I of the Family Law Act 1986 (c. 55) (child custody), after section 34 insert—
"34A USE OF RECOVERY ORDERS IN CASES INVOLVING EITHER ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR A POTENTIAL RISK TO THE CHILD

(1) If an applicant claims that their partner has abducted a child of the family, the court may grant a recovery order if the applicant already has a residence order in their name.

(2) If there is no residence order in favour of either parent, the court may grant a recovery order.

(3) The recovery order will require both parties to attend court within 24 hours of the discovery of the child, or the first working day thereafter.

(4) Before returning the child to the applicant or giving the applicant any information as to the whereabouts of the child, the police must

(a)check their records to see whether either party has committed acts of violence;

(b)check to see whether either party is included on the register of domestic violence perpetrators;

(c)having located the child without notifying the applicant of the child's whereabouts, make enquiries with regard to the child's welfare.

(5) If records show that the applicant has a history of violence or the police have concerns about the welfare of the child if the child is returned to the applicant, the police will—

(a) not remove the child from the respondent;

(b) advise the respondent to seek legal representation;

(c) notify the court of their action immediately.

(6) If there is no record of violence and no reason to believe that the defendant or the child is at risk, the police will return the child to the applicant.

(7) Ex parte residence or contact orders should only he made if there is evidence that a party is wilfully refusing to attend court."

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 12. I am pleased to recognise that we have very effective laws designed to recover abducted children. Through them any person with a legitimate interest in proceedings under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 can apply for orders under Sections 33 and 34 of the Family Law Act 1986 and an application for a contact or residence order will usually be made simultaneously. As those measures are intended specifically to deal with

GC 315
child abductions, it is a quick procedure and orders can be made ex parte without prior notice being given to the other party.
That is all well and good. However, there is a danger that a violent parent will be able to use those measures to track down the child and its mother. Amendment No. 12 is designed to prevent that. The amendment seeks to clarify the legal procedures for dealing with child abductions to ensure that such measures are not used inappropriately in cases of domestic violence. That is necessary because violent perpetrators have in the past been able to use "seek and recovery orders" to track down their victims and to recover children even from women's refuges.
If an abused woman flees from the family home taking the children with her, her violent partner may claim that that is a case of child abduction. If he does not know where the woman has gone, he can apply in private law proceedings for an order requiring the disclosure of information as to the whereabouts of the child and also a recovery order requiring the child to be returned to him. That is merely a ruse to find out where the mother is.
The person on whom the order is served must immediately disclose to the court all the information they have about the whereabouts of the child. By various means the perpetrator may obtain this information. Orders may be served on relatives of the woman, on schools or education authorities. There have even been instances of staff in women's refuges being ordered in court to disclose the full address of the refuge—something that is usually most closely guarded—where the woman and children are staying, sometimes even in front of the perpetrators.
Recovery orders make it possible for abusers to take action so fast that the mother has no time to seek legal representation or to attend court to give her side of the story before the child is removed from her care. Although the address will usually—but not always—be disclosed only to the court and not to the perpetrator, such a process is profoundly shocking for an abused woman. It is likely to undermine her confidence in the law as a protector of the innocent and in the refuge as a place of safety, and it may make her despair of ever escaping her abuser. It is also a very effective way for the abuser to demonstrate that he is still in control of the situation. It is all part of the power relationship between the abuser and the abused woman.
In the fourth annual report of the Advisory Board on Family Law of 2000–01, the Children Act Sub-Committee recommended that,
"the whereabouts of the missing parent and the children should not …be disclosed to the parent who has instituted the proceedings, or to that parent's solicitor, unless and until the court gives permission for that information to he disclosed".
However, some judges seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between cases of domestic violence and cases of abduction because they are still granting orders for children to be found and returned to violent parents. They are also granting ex parte interim residence orders to perpetrators.
In a national survey conducted by the Women's Aid Federation of England in May 2003, seven refuge organisations reported problems with recovery orders. Their comments indicate that that can happen even when the father has a police record for violence and the mother is staying in a refuge. In those circumstances, because the mother is viewed as having abducted the child, she is likely to be treated harshly by the court and the wishes and feelings of the child will riot be taken into consideration at all. We shall come to that matter in a later amendment. That is made very clear in the following case provided by one of the survey respondents:
"One of the worst cases, still ongoing. Mother fled to another area with her young son. Father applied to the High Court for `seek and recovery' and ex parte residence order, and this was granted. Local police had to remove the boy forcibly and found this traumatic, as he became extremely distressed. Because this was an ex parte order, it could not be challenged. Mother returned to her home town to be near her son. She now has an order for contact to be supervised by the father at his house!This is because father says he fears she might abduct the child again. This enables him to continue being violent and abusive towards her. and she is terrified of him".
As domestic violence features in nearly three-quarters of cases where children are on the child protection register, the family justice system should recognise the need to protect children and mothers who are fleeing from violence. It is essential that family law should not enable perpetrators to track down their victims and obtain ex parte orders for contact or residence before the court is fully aware of the circumstances of the case. Amendment No. 12 should ensure that, and I recommend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Amendment No. 13, to which I wish to speak, has been grouped with Amendment No. 12. On the surface, it may appear as though it deals with quite a different subject. However, that is not necessarily the case because the evidence shows that about 26 per cent of children who were not properly supervised at contact centres were either abducted or involved in an abduction attempt. Therefore, in that respect, there is a relationship between the two amendments.
Amendment No. 13 would ensure that child contact centres in domestic violence cases are adequate to guarantee the safety of the children involved. The report, Safety and Justice, stresses that, once contact has been agreed, it must take place in a safe environment for all parties. Dedicated child contact centres can help to fulfil that role. It goes on to say that the objective is to ensure that children and families are referred to the child contact centre with the appropriate facilities for the family. That is particularly important when domestic violence is the issue. The problem is that that objective cannot honestly be fulfilled because in some areas of the country there are no adequate supervised centres.
The Government are right in their report. It is critical that all child contact arrangements take place in a safe, congenial environment for all parties but especially for the children. However, at present, there

GC 317
is an acute shortage of contact centres—in particular, those offering supervised contact facilities. The result is that a court order for supervised contact sometimes means that no contact can take place at all, so depriving children of the chance to keep in touch with both parents after their separation or divorce. I stress "both parents" because the lack of contact centres tells against fathers. I believe it is terribly important that we recognise that fact.
Funding and the geographical availability of contact centres have until now been entirely ad hoc, which is no longer a tenable situation. The Government must develop a national strategy for the provision of child contact centres, plus adequate funding to ensure that there is at least one accessible supervised contact centre in every local authority area. Not to do that would create a gap in an otherwise admirable Bill.
I appreciate that making arrangements for children to keep in touch with both parents after family breakdown is often difficult. In cases of domestic violence, contact visits can be fraught with danger. There is much evidence highlighting the risks of contact for children, and contact arrangements made by the courts are not always safe.
In 1999, a survey of 130 abused parents found that 76 per cent of the 148 children who were ordered by the courts to have contact with their estranged parents were said to have been abused in the following ways as a result of contact visits. Ten per cent were sexually abused during contact; 15 per cent were physically assaulted; as I said before, 26 per cent were abducted or involved in an abduction attempt; 36 per cent were neglected during contact; and 62 per cent suffered emotional harm.
In 2003, a survey involving 178 refuge organisations found that, since April 2001, 18 children were ordered to have contact with parents who had committed offences against children. Sixty-four children were ordered to have contact with parents whose behaviour had caused the children to be placed on the child protection register. In 21 of those 82 cases, unsupervised contact was granted, so there was no protection for the child whatever.
Research commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and published in 2002 found that in a significant minority of contact arrangements the well-being and safety of women and children was being compromised. According to Women's Aid, 23 children had been killed in England and Wales as a result of contact arrangements with violent parents. One means to keep children safe and protected during contact is ensuring that contact takes place in a supervised contact centre with professionally skilled and trained staff offering individual family support.
Child contact centres in this country have developed in an ad hoc manner, as I said, and there are uneven levels of provision across the regions. The majority of contact centres fall into the broad category of providing supported contact, which generally involves
GC 318
low vigilance of several families at a time in a large room. Many of those services are provided by the voluntary sector, charities and Churches and staffed in the main by volunteers. Nobody would want that to change—those volunteers do an amazing job—but local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that the proper facilities and provision are there to assist those volunteers.
A smaller number of centres has been set up to deal with contact arrangements where there are safety concerns or a history of domestic violence and/or child protection concerns. Those supervised contact centres involve high vigilance and are more likely to employ qualified staff. Within those centres, a worker will be present throughout the contact session and only one family will be in the contact room.
Recent evidence presented to the Lord Chancellor has revealed a large demand for more supervised centres to manage cases involving risk to children and parents. There is an acute shortage of centres able to provide individual supervision for high-risk cases. At the beginning of 2001, 99 per cent of contact centres were supported and only 1 per cent supervised. That shortage of centres means that supervised contact visits with a violent parent can far too quickly become unsupervised and high-risk cases can be referred to contact centres, which cannot provide high vigilance contact.
Funding arrangements for contact centres and. in particular, supervised centres, are unsatisfactory and piecemeal. Currently contact centres attract funds from a variety of sources, statutory and voluntary. Many services have been developed by putting together complex packages of funding from different government sources. Those include Legal Service Commission money for mediation work, CAFCASS, Sure Start and children's fund money from the DfES. I appreciate, as do the people working in this field, that in the past three years the Government have provided £1.7 million and we welcome the Government's announcement in 2003 that they will be spending another £2.5 million over the next three years for the expansion of supervised contact centres in England.
However, that does not deal with the concern about the current funding arrangements and the fact that some centres are facing potential closure. That is partly due to the unintended consequences of strategic decisions by the Legal Services Commission and CAFCASS. By April 2004, the LSC intends to contract only for fixed-price mediation and that could impact on the sustainability of some projects. CAFCASS is cutting funding for family mediation services. The overall cuts equate to 57.5 per cent in the past year.
Funding arrangements are at the discretion of local CAFCASS managers, constrained by budget limitations and high service demand. The impact of that, for example, on the NCH Family Mediation and Children's Support Service is an estimated shortfall of around £500,000 required to sustain family mediation and contact work in 2004.

GC 319
It seems to me that urgent measures need to be taken to ensure that we have a properly funded child contact service. I hope that those child contact centres would be properly equipped, in the right place, well supervised and safe. Only then can we be sure that the children will be safe and not come to the harm I listed earlier.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I should like briefly to support both amendments and to say a particular word about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. Those of us who served on the Children Act sub-committee heard disturbing evidence about the situations in which families and children are placed. Indeed, there has been criticism that not enough attention has been paid to the situation, both physical and emotional, in which children are placed, even under this very important and welcome Bill. Much evidence was given about the unevenness of the quality of supervision, not even the fact that in some areas there was supervision and in some there was not. It is crucial that the amendment, or one to this effect, goes into the Act, along with provisions on training, and the funds to ensure that all this happens.
At Second Reading I asked about the extent to which figures were available. We have heard some figures given today, but I remember hearing from the organisations that no official statistics are kept of deaths of children and adults which have resulted from these kind of situations. Therefore, it is important that we pay attention to these two amendments. Above all, I ask that some method is provided whereby a track can he kept of where serious damage or, indeed, death, occurs in situations of domestic violence.
Baroness Thornton: I want to make two comments in support of both amendments. As regards the first, I draw attention to the irony of a situation in which the Government's policy is to encourage women to report domestic violence to the police. Indeed, we would all want to encourage that. Women have to have confidence in the system to give them and their children proper protection. The briefings we receive from Women's Aid are clear. Numbers of such incidences are small but they point to that particular issue.
My second point concerns contact centres. I should like to put in a word for fathers. The inadequacy of provision of proper contact centres, a proper spread of contact centres and, indeed, supervised contact centres means that it must be heartbreaking in some circumstances for fathers who wish to have contact with their children and need to travel to do that. Fathers who want to re-establish contact with their children and build up to having unsupervised access are denied the opportunity to do that because of the inadequacy of provision.
There is a serious child protection and domestic violence issue here but there is also an issue that these fathers are being very badly served and, therefore, their children are too.
4 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I wish to raise a point which may be thought to go wildly outside the scope of the Grand Committee but, nevertheless, has ripples that effect it. That is the concept that an ex parte order has to be obeyed instantly, without any recourse if there are problems with it—perhaps it has been obtained by fraud. When I was still serving, I met a situation under what is called an Anton Piller order. An ex parte order is obtained so that one party can go to the premises of the other party, hang on the door and say, "I want all your documents". It seems to me manifest that that did not work as a practicl matter. I can remember giving judgment—though heaven knows where it is—saying that the practical way of dealing with this is, provided that the applicant can be reasonably satisfied that the documents will not be destroyed, there ought to be a standstill position while the aggrieved party or respondent is able to go to the courts and say, "Hold everything" and explain what the reasons may be.
It seems to me that the same problem applies to ex parte orders in the context with which this Committee is concerned. It is obviously important in some cases that one obtains an ex parte order—I suppose it is called something different now—without the other side knowing, because otherwise the other side will just decamp. That is clear. But having identified where the child is, and that he is not in any particular danger, there ought to be some machinery for providing a standstill in which the alleged abductor cannot get away with the child and the child is disturbed as little as possible, but the order is not carried out while there is an immediate application to the court to review the original order. I do not know whether that machinery exists, but it plainly ought to exist.
Baroness Anelav of St Johns: Both of these amendments are extremely important. They raise issues that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, should take us beyond the confines of the amendments themselves. I am glad that he has added the contextual background to this discussion. While recognising how important Amendment No. 12 is, I think extra thought will have to be given to it and I suspect that those moving it will wish to come back at Report to look at it again. It is only in that context that I want to ask one or two questions about the drafting.
I am sympathetic to the objective that, at all costs, we want to ensure that abused children are not in the hands of their abuser. I shall look forward to hearing from the Minister whether there are statistics available to show that courts are failing in their duty. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, raised this question. If there are statistics, what are they? If there are not, do the Government agree that the courts are failing in their duty? If so, what other measures do they believe are more appropriate than this to have redress? That is obviously for the Minister to answer.
My questions are on the drafting as I suspect we will see Amendment No. 12 again in either this or another form. I notice that subsection (5)(a) refers to "respondent" but subsection (6) refers to "defendant". Who is that? I am

GC 321
getting a bit puzzled, that is all. Subsection (4) refers to a police check of records to see whether either party has committed acts of violence—quite right, I agree with that—hut then subsection (5) states:
"If the records show that the applicant has a history of violence"—
it is the applicant here—
"the police will …not remove the child from the respondent".
But what about if that search of the records shows that the respondent has committed acts of violence? What do the police do with the children then? We are putting a very heavy responsibility on the police in this amendment and we need to take account of that. According to the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 12, the police do not remove from the respondent. Where no exception is allowed here, one has to look very carefully at that as there could be problems.
As a postscript on Amendment No.12, I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, says about ex parte orders—that perhaps there is something different now. I understand that they are now "without notice applications" so perhaps I could just tease Liberal Democrats by saying that when the courts are trying to be more modern and avoid Latin they have slipped back into the old terminology—and what is wrong with that?
Turning to Amendment No. 13, I have great sympathy with its objectives and, possibly, with its implementation but I see the problems for the Government on this. I wonder what the LGA view is about this amendment. I have not been able to contact it since I saw the amendment when it was published last Friday. At the end of last week, the LGA very properly circulated all noble Lords with an interest in the Bill with a briefing and a small leaflet that it publishes. I looked at it, but there was no mention of this issue at all, which concerned me. Even if I had not seen this amendment, I would have been concerned by the lack of mention of this issue.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. will he able to follow up contact with the LGA. I undertake that I will continue to try to do so. I have a complete disinclination to enable national government to tell local government what to do, even if it is a matter of good practice—whose good practice? The LGA may have completely good reasons for not wanting to have a specified contact centre in each and every area. It may well be that the area it covers is so enormous that it makes more sense to make use of a contact facility in a neighbouring LGA area. It may be cheaper to buy into that and far more convenient for the parents involved. So, while the direction of this amendment appeals to me because of its principled approach, it does not appeal to me because it directs the LGA to do this "or else". The "or else" may be more appropriate to both parents and children. Having said that. I wish to follow this up with the LGA.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I am, I think, an honorary vice-chair of the LGA so I will certainly
GC 322
take the matter up. When I saw its briefing, I was surprised that there was no mention of this at all. I will certainly be in touch with the LGA.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I will be very brief. I have no expertise in family law and have never tried a family law case, but I totally accept, and am sympathetic to, the objectives of Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 39. Using my common sense and having heard what has been said, I accept that urgent measures are required and are absolutely essential. Something should he done and it is important that some method must be found. Be that as it may, what worries me is the method proposed. I speak without expertise on this, as a general common law advocate. It seems to me that implementing regulations are needed because one is primarily concerned with matters of procedure. Generally speaking, these are not suitable provisions to embody in primary legislation.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all noble Lords who have raised this matter and most of all I welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I know that she has only just come back from Antarctica and I was amazed when I saw her present in the Committee on the last occasion. I want to salute her for having the dedication to come back to this issue. It is very important.
I hope that I will be able to explain how the system already works; how the provisions that we seek to introduce will amplify and accelerate the kinds of practice the noble Baroness seeks; and why, therefore, the amendment that she puts forward, Amendment No. 12, is not necessary. I want to make absolutely clear that I am in sympathy with her in relation to the concerns that are raised by women and, particularly, children but also by some men, too, as a result of these circumstances.
As an introductory note, I want to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, first, that, in dealing with ex parte orders in the family context, the good sense that he spoke about is well established in that jurisdiction. Noble Lords will know that when any party comes to court and asks for an order without the other party being present, there is a duty on that applicant to tell the court everything that he knows about the case, both to his advantage and possible disadvantage, so that the court can come to a proper conclusion. Secondly, it will be open to the court to set the parameters of the exercise of that order—for example, by giving timelines and saying the applicant must come back to court immediately or must not remove the child and other matters of that kind.
Perhaps I may go back to the mischief that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to cure and take a little time to explain how it works. Amendment No. 12 seeks to place additional duties on the court and on the police when an application is made under Section 34 of the Family Law Act 1986. In effect, Section 34 gives the court the power to enforce an order made under the Children Act 1989 to give up a child to another person. The order would give an officer of the court or a

GC 323
constable the right to take the child into charge and to deliver him or her to the person concerned. Where the applicant has a residence order, the amendment seeks to establish a presumption, returning the child to that party after an alleged abduction.
If I may respectfully say so, the proposed amendment does not sit well with the requirements of the existing Section 34(1) because it makes no mention of them. The section provides that there must, first, before reaching Section 34. be a Part 1 order—for the most part, defined as Section 8 orders under the Children Act 1989. Noble Lords will know that there will be an order either for residence, for contact or for matters of that kind. or an order for the enforcement of a Part 1 order requiring a person to give up a child to the person concerned before the authority can be given to an officer of the court or to a constable to take the child into charge.
Generally, the relevant Part 1 order will be either a contact order, providing precise details regarding when the child should be returned, or a specific issue order obtained following the failure to return a child to the applicant. The proposed amendment makes no mention of the requirement of an existing Part 1 order where the court will have already considered what is in the best interests of the child under Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 regarding whether or not the child should be returned to the applicant.
The proposed amendment, which provides for a presumption of return in favour of the party with a residence order, may not be in the child's interest. I believe that that was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The court will not be obliged to look at the precise arrangements for the return of the child or at whether the child should be returned at all, but, under the present system, it will have done that at some stage.
Therefore, while we fully understand the good intentions behind the amendment, we do not think that it can be right for an applicant who already has an order of the court to have to have the order reheard when a child is not given up as so directed by the court. The noble Baroness will know that in many cases—sometimes quite intransigent, difficult cases—a war almost goes on between the two parties: breach, counter-breach; breach, counter-breach. We must do all that we can not to exacerbate that situation but to make it easier to manage.
Respondents to children at Section 8 applications of course have the right to appeal and can seek variations of the order. So the Section 34 application is not the place for a rehearing of the facts of the case. The noble Baroness will know that there will be occasions on which a parent will become anxious about what is happening in the resident parent's home because something may occur which makes that parent concerned. If that parent does not wish to comply with an order returning the child to the resident parent, the proper course is to go back to court and say, "This is what has happened. I am very concerned. Please can I have a variation
GC 324
The proposed amendment is also unnecessary in that the existing remedies regarding the enforcement of residence orders against those who do not comply with them are, we believe, sufficient. First, the existing procedures under Section 34 of the Family Law Act 1986 provide appropriate measures to enforce residence orders while at the same time protecting the welfare of the child. Secondly, it is also possible to apply to make the child a ward of court and to apply for a location order or a collection order.
Those of us who did nothing but wardships in the early 1970s will know what a flexible tool it is. Basically, the judge in the High Court can order the parties to do anything. Technically. he can order that each party stands on his head and does cartwheels down the main road, if that is in the interests of the child. So there is a wonderfully flexible tool.
Under wardship, it will be possible for the court to give directions to the tipstaff—the tipstaff is the officer of the Supreme Court who is akin to a constable—to locate and/or to take charge of the child concerned. The tipstaff is usually directed to take the ward into his, or her, custody—we now have some female members of the tipstaff staff—and deliver the ward to a person named in the order. Once a child has been made a ward, the court determines what happens to the child and has wide powers indeed.
Thirdly, where a person is in breach of arrangements of a residence order made in any court, provided that person has been served with a copy of the order, the person in favour of whom the order was made may seek to enforce it under Section 63(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. That allows the court to order the person in breach to pay a sum not exceeding £50 for every day during which he is in default, or a sum not exceeding £5,000, or to commit that person to prison. Committal proceedings would also be available following the non-compliance of a court order.
In addition, under Section 34(3) of the Family Law Act 1986 a residence order made by a family proceedings court may be enforced under Section 34(1), even though it does not specifically require the person concerned to give up the child or specify when the child should be given up. The magistrates' court will do that only if it is satisfied that the settled arrangement under the order has been breached in that the child has not been given up to the person who should have had him under the order.
Perhaps I may say in passing that I understand why all of that is not plain on the face of the Bill. I know that one must put the structure together, rather like making a jigsaw puzzle. But it is all there.
Where neither party has a residence order—there are no orders at all—and accusations of violence are made, the amendment seeks to place additional duties on the court and the police to inquire into whether the allegations of violence are justified. If they were, the court would not return the child to the applicant, but the respondent would be advised to obtain legal advice.
No one disputes the need to ensure effective protection for women and their children who are in danger. However, to apply for an order under Section

GC 325
34 of the Act, there must first be an initial court order under the Children Act 1989 directing that the child be given up. The court will have had that opportunity.
So in deciding any issue in relation to the upbringing of a child, Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration. Section 1(3) of the Act also provides the court with a checklist to which the court must have regard. This checklist includes the physical, emotional and educational needs of the child and any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. In reaching this decision, the court may also request additional information, usually from CAFCASS, direct a local authority to investigate the child's circumstances if it believes that the child may be of such risk of significant harm that a care or supervision order may be necessary.
The proposed amendment also seeks to restrict the making of ex parte residence and contact orders to when there is evidence that a party is wilfully refusing to attend court. I hope that after all I have said Members of the Committee will agree that this is not necessary and, what is more, may not be in the best interests of the child.
From all the interventions made by the noble Baroness, and from those of all other noble Lords who have participated in the Bill—the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould, Lady Thornton and Lady Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—I know that our joint intent is to put the children at the forefront.
The amendment does not appear to be necessary. The court has developed strict guidelines as to when ex parte Section 8 orders should be made. For example, the Court of Appeal in Re H, (A minor)(Interim custody) in 1991 to be found at 2 Family Law Reports, page 411, held that it was undesirable for ex parte orders to be made except in the most exceptional circumstances, and only on very strong evidence.
I hope that through that quick but intensive, mind-numbing exposition of the law, your Lordships will understand why we believe that the added value we have brought in the Bill meets the need, and it is not necessary for us to have it further amended by Amendment No. 12, although we absolutely agree with the thrust of why the noble Baroness tabled it.
I turn to Amendment No. 13, tabled by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton. She made some very valuable points and I want to say to her and to my noble friend Lady Thornton how much I understand the thrust of their concerns on this matter. They were echoed, quite properly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. No figures have been collected at the moment. The reason is that it is difficult to collect such information because most contact is agreed between the parties without it ever going into an order. Indeed, the tragic deaths about which my noble friend told us today were not, as far as we are aware and can tell from our research, as a result of a court-ordered contact. Regrettably, as on many occasions, dispute between the parties has never come before a court and that causes some difficulties.
GC 326
I understand the reason why my noble friend has tabled the amendment. Local authorities already provide facilities for children in their care to maintain contact with their families. What I believe Amendment No. 13 seeks to address is supervised contact facilities for private law cases. We carried out a mapping exercise in 2002 that confirmed in some areas there was concern about lack of provision, as my noble friend highlighted. The Government are addressing this issue in partnership with the Child Contact Centre Implementation Group, which includes representatives from all interested fields, including local government.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families is currently considering applications for new supervised contact centres totalling £3.5 million. This includes £600,000 for training, research and to fund the National Association of Child Contact Centre's Change Programme, whereby it moves from an affiliated to an accredited organisation.
So, even with this significant injection of funds, we still recognise that provision will not be universal. We will continue to address this through working with the implementation group to establish better ways of utilising existing services as well as how we can extend service provision within available resources. Three initiatives, funded by the Treasury's Invest to Save scheme, are currently in progress in Inner London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands to develop on the ground partnership arrangements.
I should also mention that many families would not wish to use local authority contact facilities for fear of stigmatisation and so forth. We believe. as do all the key players in this field, that the voluntary sector is best placed to provide contact facilities. They are seen by families as neutral from the state sector (courts or local authorities) and that is a key ingredient in their success. People trust them; they feel comfortable about going there; and they do not feel threatened. We are working with the voluntary sector to devise a strategy not only to extend provision but also to sustain existing services.
I apologise for having spoken at such length, but I thought it only right that noble Lords know precisely what we are doing. The Government very much echo the concerns expressed by a number of Members of the Committee on this issue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question and thank her very much for her comprehensive explanation of the court's position. I am concerned with subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Amendment No. 12, which are wholly related to the police. Does the Minister agree that it is a matter for secondary legislation? It can be implemented——there are means of doing it but I shall not waste time on saying what they are. The Minister knows them perfectly well. Does she agree that it is a matter worthy of consideration?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says and I know the reason why he alights upon secondary legislation. It is because we are dealing with

GC 327
changing practice as opposed to having something static. We, too, think a proper emphasis may be in changing practice, and therefore the protocols that are being brought out, the guidance that is being given and the inter-agency working are issues on which we will concentrate. But those issues need not necessarily be in secondary legislation.
We need to have a good modus operandi—a good way of working together in partnership—which we all understand and can use to the betterment of the children and families we seek to serve.
Lord Ackner: The Minister in her tour d'horizon or tour de force mentioned the issue of a child being made a ward of court. Am I right in thinking that the ex parte application does not automatically make the child a ward of court, but that it enables the judge then to consider the merits of that application before the child is made a ward of court?
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There are two routes, of course. There is the route through the 1986 orders, which we have talked about. If there is no order—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about situations in which there may not be an order—and a child is improperly removed from a custodial parent, the non-custodial parent, or the person from whom the child has been improperly removed, can go to court and say, "My child has been removed from me by the other parent without my knowledge and consent. I wish you to make the child a ward and oblige the child to be returned to me". That is under the inherent jurisdiction, as opposed to under the jurisdiction of the 1986 legislation or the Children Act. Those are separate routes but they are both available.
Noble Lords will know that Section 100 of the Children Act provided that the inherent jurisdiction under wardship will not be capable of being exercised once the Children Act rights have been exercised and in relation to local authorities. But I believe that subsection (4) provides that in exceptional circumstances, even where it is a public law case, it can be done. So the inherent jurisdiction remains; it can be used where a child is at risk but it is available to parents where there are no orders in being between them, and a child is wrongfully removed.
Noble Lords will know that the Child Abduction Act 1984 deals also with the issue of a child being removed outwith our jurisdiction, and that Act brought the Hague Convention into force. So there is a panoply of provision which can operate, dependent upon the nature of the removal and the family circumstances and on whether there have been orders in the past.
Lord Ackner: Thank you so much.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her recognition of the intrepid nature of the activities of the Science and Technology Committee in the Antarctic. I commend her and the rest of the Committee to the report on international scientific treaties, which we propose to publish in June.
GC 328
I should like to give a view on Amendment No.13 before I speak to my own amendment. I, too, very much support the spirit of what the noble Baroness. Lady Gould of Potternewton, is trying to achieve, but I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, will be looking at other ways of ensuring that the spirit is fulfilled. It is important that fathers who may have had a very unfortunate relationship with a child and its mother in the past have the opportunity to rebuild it in a situation in which the child is safe.
On Amendment No. 12 and with regard to without notice applications, or ex parte applications—the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay teased me about this hut I think the Latin is much more elegant in many cases, as is the French—the very speed of their implementation, as highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made us insert subsections (4) and (5) into the amendment. However, I thank the Minister for her exhaustive and complicated tour d'horizon: through the jigsaw of legislation covering this issue. I hope that when the organisations which asked me to table the amendment look carefully at her answer in Hansard, they do not find a little blue bit or a little green bit missing. It would be tragic if the Government's intention, which is quite clearly expressed by the Minister and is very much in line with our own, were to be undermined by a little missing piece in the corner.
I will study the Minister's explanation very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 2, line 28. leave out "or vulnerable adult"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.13A, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 29A, grouped with it. We now reach one of the most innovative and, perhaps, controversial clauses in the Bill.
On Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that she was in listening mode with regard to amendments. That has been noted with keen interest not only by noble Lords but by voluntary organisations which have an interest in the Bill. I hope that we may prove persuasive with some of the amendments to Clauses 4 and 5 in particular in this part of the Bill.
I have grouped my amendments so that we can debate the main issues of the offence in Clause 4 in two major groups. I should like to give advance notice of how they fall; I have done a bit of grid to hand out to my noble friends, but it may assist other noble Lords if I give a partial explanation of the groupings. The group led by Amendment No. 15 will give us an opportunity. I hope, to have a general look at all the issues involved in holding somebody to account for the non-accidental death of a child in a household. In Amendment No. 25, I have imported a Law Commission definition of the household. Other amendments will tackle specific stand-alone questions. This group refers only to the position of vulnerable adults. It is right, at this stage, that I put on

GC 329
the record my overall view about Clauses 4 and 5 so that I can save time in later groups and concentrate at this moment on Clause 4. It means I will not have to repeat views when debating either my amendments or those of other noble Lords.
I made it clear on Second Reading that I support the objective of Clauses 4 and 5. We agree with the Government that it is unacceptable that a child's killer should go unpunished, that a way should be found of addressing the problem that exists where a child is killed in a household where more than one person is present, and it is not clear which of the carers has directly caused the death.
As the law stands, as a result of the Court of Appeal's ruling in Lane and Lane, it is likely that a trial would not proceed beyond a defence submission of "no case to answer". As a result, neither parent nor carer can be convicted and one or other parent or carer—or both of them—might well literally have got away with murder.
As the Law Commission points out in paragraph 1.2 of its consultative report No. 279 entitled Children: Their Non-Accidental Death or Serious Injury (Criminal Trials), even though one parent may not have struck the fatal blow or blows, he or she may be culpable through having participated in the killing actively or by failing to protect the child. In many cases of this type, it is difficult, or impossible, to prove beyond reasonable doubt who did what, and therefore neither parent nor carer can be convicted.
I agree that we need to take action, but I have serious doubts about the drafting of Clauses 4 and 5. We need to test the implications of the route the Government have followed and, in particular, ask them to justify why they have diverged from the Law Commission's proposals. This first group of amendments tackles the question of divergence from the Law Commission's proposals.
The offence created in Clause 4 relates to both children and vulnerable adults. My amendments remove the reference to vulnerable adults in order to ask the Government to explain why they departed from the Law Commission's proposals that were confined only to children. What was the genesis of the Government proposals? Which organisations were consulted and have those responses to consultation been published?
When I was writing my speaking notes over the past week and at the weekend, I took the chance to reread the briefing we received on Second Reading. I subsequently noted that the NSPCC briefing states that as far as it is aware, no consultation exercise equivalent to the work that has been done in relation to children has been conducted in relation to vulnerable adults. It therefore raises the question of whether this group has been given the attention it deserves prior to launching into legislation that does not appear to it to have been well thought out. Naturally and properly, the NSPCC adds that this is not its area of expertise; it leaves it to those who represent vulnerable adults to make their own representations. The problem is that, so far, I have received no representations either way from such groups, so I am rather in the dark.
I therefore thought it right that I should table this amendment to ensure that at least the matter receives some attention today. I shall certainly do my best to contact the relevant organisations to find out what has been going on behind the scenes and ask them for their views.
I can certainly understand the very good intentions behind trying to ensure that those who are unable to protect themselves as adults should be brought within the scope of Clause 4. But that would also be a good argument for ensuring that adult victims of domestic violence were covered by this defence to the offence. Flow far does the definition of a vulnerable person go in subsection (6)? Does the reference to "or otherwise" at the end of the subsection mean that all adults who are the victims of domestic violence are covered by that subsection? What do the Government intend the words "or otherwise" to cover?
In practical terms, how would the fact that somebody fell within the definition of "vulnerable adult" be verified after his death? What is the Government's expectation? Would medical records be required? Since the person is dead, what would be acceptable proof of his vulnerability, especially those who fall into the category of "or otherwise"? After all, children's details are easily verified by a birth certificate. There are simple physical records; one just has to prove age. But as soon as one enters the realms of vulnerable adults, I foresee difficulties in properly defining who should be protected by that definition. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support my noble friend Lady Anelay. Many of us who practise in the courts have been familiar with a situation in which a child has died but there is no evidence of which of two people committed the offence. I was amazed—if I have understood the figures correctly—to see how widespread that is.
According to Law Commission figures, no fewer than three children under the age of 10 were killed or suffered serious injury every week. Approximately one half were under six months old. And yet 61 per cent of investigations which reached a conclusion—which presumably means a conclusion that the child had been killed and an offence had been committed—resulted in no prosecution for any offence following a decision either by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. I presume that that means that more than 50 per cent of the cases where children of this age are killed are not proceeded against because of the particular difficulty of managing to prove which of the two or three people it involved.
Therefore, I accept that it is right and arguable that we should attempt to deal with that situation. I am sure that the Minister will also agree that we are creating a very serious new criminal offence which, if 61 per cent be right, may lead to considerable numbers of trials in the future. If we are introducing a new criminal offence, it is surely important that we should scrutinise every word of the definition of that offence. When it comes to Clause 5, we should also ensure that we have not so affected the burden of proof as to be unacceptable in the wording involved.

GC 331
If I may speak purely to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay, the Law Commission, which is accepted as a body of highly respected academics and practitioners, in recommending this offence, specifically said that it should be limited to children. What has led the Government to add the phrase "or vulnerable adult"? What is meant by "vulnerable adult"? I see that the phrase is defined in Clause 4(6) as,
"a person aged 16 or over whose ability to protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise".
One seems to be moving straight from an area where an offence which was, as I understand it, led by the concern of abuse to children, the perpetrators of which were unable to be successfully prosecuted, into the whole area of people whose mental facilities are failing as they get older. Is it really intended that we should make the offence as wide as that? I do not know. I do not know what the figures are—clearly, they are not 61 per cent.
I do not know what has led the Government to feel that vulnerable adults should be included, but I think that it will lead to considerable argument over the definition of "vulnerable". It takes the Bill far wider than one assumed was intended.
I ask these questions merely to probe the Government's thinking. Clearly, the situation in the courts requires new legislation; it is right that the Government should tackle it, but they should be cautious about how wide they go. When the Law Commission, with all its experience, has specifically recommended that the offence should be limited, as I understand it, to the death or abuse of a child, to widen it to cover vulnerable adults seems a major step.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: May I briefly follow up what has been said? In doing so, I have to confess that I am making a maiden speech in a Grand Committee, and I almost feel that 1 need to ask for the indulgence of noble Lords.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay for tabling the amendments. They provide a welcome focus on an aspect of the Bill which so far has not been dealt with in Committee. I may, therefore, be taking a slightly different view from that of my noble friends. The Bill, after all, deals with domestic violence. Such violence is not limited to children; it means violence in the home, and it applies to old people as well.
I shall not go into detail, but for many years, many years ago, I was Member of Parliament for a constituency which had a substantial number of old and retired people. Certainly, one could draw attention to the vulnerability of those people. I should say—I hope without causing offence anywhere—that the violence or abuse to which elderly people can be subject is by no means restricted to the domestic scene. It also arises in institutions to which elderly people have gone for the remaining years of their life.
GC 332
It will be within the experience of all noble Lords in this Committee that elderly people can be deeply harmed by verbal as much as physical abuse, by the harassment and intolerance that can take place, quite often in the home, by those on whom the elderly person is, necessarily, entirely dependent.
One could easily enumerate examples which cause one to welcome the fact that attention is being paid to the grievous harm to which many elderly people are subjected in their own home. I hope, therefore, that when she comes to reply, the Minister will take this opportunity to emphasise why the Government feel it is necessary that elderly people should be included within the terms of the domestic violence legislation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I certainly will take up the invitation given by the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I want to thank her for her interest in this important area and also for the way in which she has sought to analyse our proposals. I know that she has said, as has the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that she wishes to probe the reasons why we have formulated the familial homicide offences in the way we have, and she is certainly doing that. Before I turn to the specifics of the amendment, it may be helpful if I say a few words about why we have formulated the offence in this way.
I should, at this stage, answer the question raised by the noble Baroness about consultation. We consulted Action on Elder Abuse and Carers UK. Action on Elder Abuse has commented about this; I hope that many noble Lords will have seen the press release welcoming it. At its meeting with officials, the British Council of Disabled People welcomed these measures. We have also contacted Mencap and RADAR, and although we consulted them in writing, we have received no comment from them. The usual indication, when that is so, is one of assent. When they think we are up to no good, they tend to tell us rather rapidly.
This is a complicated area of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Baroness have indicated, it has been the subject of the Law Commission's report, Children: Their Non-Accidental Death or Injury (Criminal Trials), which we have studied very closely. We should pay tribute to the Law Commission and the NSPCC, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, did, for their excellent work in this area. They have made a major contribution to resolving some of the difficult cases and have made our proposals, and this debate, possible.
In brief, our proposals are intended to meet two objectives. First, we see the new offence as an important offence in its own right. It extends personal responsibility for household members for the well-being of the young and vulnerable in certain circumstances. I should make it clear that this is a significant change in how we view the responsibility of those in positions of care for vulnerable people who, quite often, either through age, disability— whether it be mental or physical—are dependent on others for their succour and well-being. It is not a step, as

GC 333
indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that we have taken lightly. We thought long and hard about doing it.
We believe that we all have a clear responsibility, as members of society, not to look away and ignore what is happening in such circumstances. If we are members of a household in which abuse or neglect is taking place, we need to do something about it.
Secondly, we believe this provides a means to "crack open" the classic "which of you did it" cases where there is a known risk to a child or vulnerable person within a household.
Unlike our single offence, the Law Commission's proposals are for two different offences covering these two objectives. On the Law Commission's second offence, we think it is too widely drawn. We think our definition of "household" provides a tighter, more justifiable, group to bring within the new responsibility.
We are also not convinced that the first offence would serve to "crack open" the cases in the way that we want. It builds on the existing child cruelty offences in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. There is no equivalent offence for adults. We strongly believe that we should offer the improved protection to vulnerable adults. I shall turn to explain why in a moment. But it would be odd, and give rise to questions in the court, if we were to construct two offences offering parallel protection to the two groups but which were constructed in fundamentally different ways.
We shall be discussing later—I hope in some detail—how we constructed our proposed offence; the definition of "household", which we have put forward rather than confining the offence to those with a duty of care; and various other points questioned by other noble Lords, certainly at Second Reading. We shall also be looking at how we hope procedures can strengthen the overall package, which is a combination also favoured by the Law Commission. Obviously, I shall not go into those issues now because the noble Baroness says that we will be looking at them in the next group.
However, I should say that I am happy our proposals should work well in practice and make a significant contribution in dealing with some of the most sensitive, serious and difficult cases faced by our courts. I, too, would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that when I came to scrutinise these figures I was shocked by the level of abuse that currently seems to be escaping proper attention.
I turn to the subject matter of the group of amendments. Members of the Committee are right to question whether this offence should apply to vulnerable adults as well as to children and, if so, how it should apply. I am also sure that noble Lords would support the attention and protection that we need to give to vulnerable adults.
If we look back at our understanding of child abuse and the need for protection for domestic violence cases, there are certain indicators that have caused us to be alert to a group of people who may be under the control of others, have an inability to protect themselves and are in
GC 334
need of protection. If one looks at the criteria that we have applied to one group and one applies it to others, one sees some very clear similarities.
So, we believe strongly that we should extend the protection to vulnerable adults. We know of at least one case where a vulnerable adult has died in domestic circumstances. The details of that case are very disturbing indeed. It perhaps would not be right for me to go into them here. Suffice it to say that one of the close family members must have been responsible for that person's death, but the prosecution was unable to prove which one it was. The family members all chose to remain silent.
That is a similar situation to the child who dies in domestic circumstances. In this situation, the other members of the household clearly have a responsibility to the vulnerable member to protect that person from harm and are complicit in the death. We have made death the important causal link, which makes it necessary or permissible for us to introduce these new procedures. That is determinant, not just abuse and serious harm but death.
So, we think that in terms of our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society we have a strong policy case for extending the provisions to cover vulnerable adults. As I said earlier, we do not favour a separate offence for vulnerable adults. It would be sending a signal that we regard the offences as different in kind from offences against children, which is not the case. We would be failing in our duty when we are faced with such cases if we have the opportunity to amend the law to help us solve them and we do not do so.
We think it is right that we should restrict this to vulnerable adults who are unable to protect themselves. It would be a step too far to place such a legal duty on all members of the household where the person concerned was healthy and well able to take care of him or herself, or summon the relevant help if necessary. We have not gone down the route therefore of a complex legal definition of a vulnerable adult. We believe that this is a matter of common sense and properly and safely left to the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked us about the term "or otherwise" which is in the definition. The term "or otherwise" should be construed in the light of the preceding words: that is,
"physical or mental disability or illness, through old age".
They are connected with those things. We think it is crucial that there should be a linkage in relation to that definition. But the crucial part of the definition is that the person's
"ability to protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired".
It will, of course, be a matter for the court to determine in each case whether that person's physical or mental disability through illness or age was significantly impaired. Of course it will be a matter of evidence whether it is medical, physical or otherwise. I refer to evidence from neighbours who will be able to assist in providing evidence to indicate the nature and extent of the vulnerability.

GC 335
In essence, although we absolutely understand that this was not something that the Law Commission chose to deal with, we consider that we would neglect our duty when looking at victims generally—the Bill also concerns victims—if we failed to take a step that we could and should properly take to protect an identifiable vulnerable group who are subject to similar concerns that we now have in relation to children.
5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: May I raise the "or otherwise" problem? Of course, people of my age group cannot speak English, but I always understood the words "ejusdem generis" could be construed in the same way as the words "going before". However, one has some difficulty to decide whether, for instance, words such as "or otherwise" are to be construed as "ejusdem generis" or whether they can be construed as meaning something quite different. The Minister says that they are intended to be construed as meaning "ejusdern generis", but it may be worthwhile asking parliamentary counsel whether they think that something could be added to make it clear that that is the intention.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Obviously the comments I have made will be recorded in Hansard. One of the things of which we are very conscious is, just as with domestic violence, definitions change rapidly. There may be a new species, which could include "or otherwise", about which we do not know. That is why we have included the measure. However, I certainly hear what the noble and learned Lord says.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: May I ask the Minister two questions arising out of the very interesting and full answer that she gave? First, I refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Eden. He referred to vulnerable adults in homes. Would they be covered or not? Would they come within the definition of "household"? If so, how do you justify the distinction between the person who is killed in a home by the people looking after him or her as opposed to the person living at home with his family? Secondly, while I fully understand—the Minister explained this very lucidly—the argument she put forward regarding why she wanted to include vulnerable adults in the Bill, the argument applies to all cases of murder, does it not? Does it not apply to all cases of domestic murder? I see that the Minister shakes her head but one can think of certain famous murders where parents have been murdered for their money by members of the household and where it may well be the case that one is unable to prove which member of the household did it. If the justification for going wider than the Law Commission intended is that it seems wrong to legislate for children but not for vulnerable adults, does not logic take us to the fact that the measure should concern any murder in a domestic setting?
Lord Eden of Winton: Before the noble Baroness answers my noble friend, I hope that I may labour one small point and in doing so possibly save the Committee's time. I am concerned about the impact on elderly people in the home in the event of a member of the
GC 336
household being found guilty of an offence against that person under the terms of the provision that we are discussing. This probably goes beyond what is in the clause under our immediate consideration. However, it is likely in some situations that a member of the family who is looking after an elderly person who is disabled for one reason or another is found guilty of violence against that vulnerable person. That person is then removed, presumably away from the domestic scene. What happens to the vulnerable person in those circumstances?
The second aspect of that, if I make myself clear—I probably do not—is that what happens to the' vulnerable person is of great importance, quite clearly, to that individual. I am sure it is often the case that an elderly person who has been abused in the home by an individual, a member of the family looking after the vulnerable person, does not in any way want that member of the family to be removed from the home, nor does he or she wish to be removed from that home. It is a very difficult situation. I fear that the Government will open up a whole minefield unless they also address those secondary points.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, that that is why we restricted the application of these provisions to cases where the vulnerable person has died. I refer to a death that has occurred within the household which is capable of only one explanation; namely, that the person has been killed unlawfully and there is no way of deciding, as in a murder mystery or whodunit. We believe that in those circumstances, as the vulnerable person in that household should have been able to rely on the care and protection of its members, that gives rise to a need for those members to give an explanation of what happened.
I absolutely understand the noble Lord's thinking in relation to serious injury. That is a matter with which we wrestled with regard to drawing an appropriate line. We are contemplating introducing something very radical in order to identify the perpetrators of unlawful killing. That is why we have said that the measure we are discussing is not about serious injury; it refers to the case where someone has had his life taken away by members of the household. How do we bring those people to account? How do we regularise the situation so that members of society consider that there is a realistic prospect of finding out what happened?
I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. He referred to the measure that we are discussing applying in certain circumstances and asked why it did not apply in all cases of murder in a domestic setting. We have taken the view that very special circumstances pertain when a person is within the sanctity of what they believe to be their own home which deserve special and extraordinary measures separate from the norm. We have not at this stage sought to extend the measure to public institutional care. The Committee will know that when elderly or other vulnerable individuals are placed in the care of an institution supervisory and regulatory controls apply with regard to how that person is managed and

GC 337
monitored and there is a degree of accountability that one can pursue. One of the differences regarding living in your own home is that most people believe that is an area where they are utterly safe, that it is private and that there is no external supervisor who comes into that home as of right to monitor the management and care that is given. Therefore, this is a very difficult, almost intractable problem to resolve. We seek to eat this elephant one bite at a time.
As we are doing something so radical in terms of addressing this issue and responding to what is a radical problem, we believe that we should be constrained and conservative in our aspirations to start off with. Of course, if we find that the provisions need to be extended in the future, we would need to consult on that matter very broadly with professionals to consider whether the ambit of extension was necessary. However, we do not think that it would be appropriate to do so now. We have some very specific issues to deal with. We know that there is a problem regarding the deaths of those who are vulnerable either through old age, youth or disability. Those are the people we think that we need to protect.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful indeed to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on Clause 4 in such thoughtful vein. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow for saying how important it is that we get our definitions right. As the Minister said, a radical step is being taken and we need to be very careful how we define those who will be caught by the Bill's provisions in terms of being protected and in terms of being prosecuted.
I was grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Donaldson, who referred to the term "or otherwise". I tabled the relevant amendment. As a layman, I am very concerned about how the term might be construed. When I asked staff of the Library here and experts elsewhere for advice, the information I was given made me even more worried as it was clear that there was concern outwith this House about how the term might be construed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would he helpful if the Government reconsidered that matter. I may consider bringing the measure back on Report to see what progress has been made on that.
I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton for raising an important issue regarding extending the provision to vulnerable adults. In my opening remarks I made it clear that I was probing the issue as I wanted to know the basis on which the provision we are discussing had been introduced. My noble friend was right to mention the fear of elderly people who are at the mercy of those who care for them and who may not—as the Minister made clear—have anyone outside the household looking out for their best interests whom they can trust. I was grateful to my noble friend for mentioning institutions. He couched his observations in a very careful way. He did not wish to imply that those who care for elderly people in institutions might do anything improper as a matter of course.
GC 338
From my limited experience of a mother-in-law who went into care, I am certainly aware of the extraordinary devotion that people can devote to that work. My mother-in-law received remarkable care at a time when her mental and physical state rendered her unable to care for herself. However, we are all aware of cases recorded in newspapers and reports regarding people in institutional care who have not been so fortunate. My noble friend was right to say that we need to consider those cases as well. I am certainly aware that the Law Commission tried to frame its provisions in such a way that they did not catch the social services or institutions as it was aware of the difficulties to which the Minister alluded.
I believe that this debate will range on, perhaps on the Floor of the House in Wednesday afternoon debates. It is very much fertile ground for noble Lords' consideration and concern.
I was certainly grateful for the Minister's comments and the care and consideration that she gave to the issues in her response. I was interested in what she said about the consultation and the groups who did not respond because, apparently, they were so pleased with the measure. I agree with her—often silence is taken to be consent. However, I shall "stir" things a little and be sure to contact them. The Minister would expect nothing less.
I was intrigued by the foretaste of what might happen in future debates when the noble Baroness said that the Government's definition of "household" was tighter than the Law Commission's. Goodness me, I thought that the Government's definition was much broader than the Law Commission's, which was why I incorporated the Law Commission's definition in my amendment.
I was particularly interested to hear the Minister refer to the definition of "vulnerable people" as those who are under the control of others, who need protection and who cannot supply it themselves—I paraphrase her remarks—and who could quarrel with that? However, when I look at Clause 4 it seems to my untutored eye that one could be defined as a vulnerable adult within the terms of Clause 4 and end up as a defendant in a case concerning a child who has died in that household. There are some intriguing matters here that I shall need to consider very carefully. I give the noble Baroness a chance to reply to that.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Is the noble Baroness saying that the person in question would be alive?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Indeed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The whole point of the way in which the noble Baroness describes the vulnerable adult is that the person who is now dead merited the kind of protection that we are discussing. I hope that the noble Baroness will never ever find herself in that position.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Me too!I realise, of course, that the vulnerable adult is the person who is dead in the circumstances that I am describing. There are two points here. First, this is a foretaste of the debates that we shall have on Amendment No. 14 with

GC 339
regard to serious harm and I shall not encroach upon that. Secondly, I mention this matter only because I shall discuss the position of people who I consider to be vulnerable adults; that is, people who suffer from domestic violence and may find themselves in difficulties as a result of the operation of Clauses 4 and 5. I agree with the noble Baroness entirely that the definition in Clause 4 that we are discussing is intended to refer only to the dead and not the living. However, I believe that there is not quite another world but certainly a cross-over in that regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 28, after "dies" insert "or is seriously harmed"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 23 and 26 with which it is grouped. We may already have heard part of the Minister's response to this group of amendments when she responded to the previous group. However, I shall soldier on.
The children's organisations and in particular the NSPCC are very eager to see the introduction of this new legislation to address the problems of cases involving the non-accidental death of children. However, as the Minister stressed in responding to the previous group of amendments, the Bill has omitted the causing of non-accidental serious injury (or harm) to children from the new offence in Clause 4 despite the fact that "serious harm" is referred to in subsection (1)(c) of Clause 4 and defined in subsection (6) of that clause. That omission is what we are questioning in tabling this group of amendments. In other words, we invite the Government to take one more bite of the elephant.
Both the NSPCC's "Which of you did it" working group and the Law Commission included serious injury to children in their examination of cases that cannot be prosecuted because it cannot be proved which of two, or a small number of suspects, actually caused the injury or death. That was a very substantial piece of consultation. The report of the "Which of you did it" working group contains research from the police that indicates that 83 per cent of the children unlawfully killed or seriously injured are under the age of two years and 50 per cent are under six months. The serious injuries that we are concerned about in relation to these vulnerable babies and children include violent blows to the head as well as children who have been shaken, poisoned or smothered. Arguably, a baby or child who has been left with severe brain damage has suffered as great an injustice as a child or baby who has been killed and this is why we want to include the relevant measure in Clause 4. To leave no remedy for these cases in this new legislation is totally unacceptable. Our amendments therefore allow the inclusion of non-accidental serious harm to children in the new offence.
Turning to vulnerable adults living in care homes, the same concern applies to them—as the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, mentioned in the debate on an earlier amendment—because care homes and residential services for vulnerable adults are just different descriptions for what people living in them actually call
GC 340
home, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. also emphasised. For this reason, any provisions aiming to protect victims of domestic violence must ensure that all vulnerable adults, wherever they live, are equally protected. Supervision does not always work. Time and time again victims with learning difficulties as well as other vulnerable adults in care are let down by criminal justice agencies that are unwilling to look behind closed doors to charge offenders and to support victims, who they often consider to be unreliable witnesses, to give evidence. The current non-statutory provisions of No Secrets are not enough to make sure that crime is appropriately dealt with. Instead assaults, thefts and other offences are dealt with by in-house disciplinary procedures and social care led vulnerable adult protection policies.
The problem of offences such as mistreatment and neglect—often actually amounting to common assault—going unchallenged has become so great that many organisations are calling for extra legislation to create specific criminal offences. In fact, Tom Burgner, who led an independent inquiry into the Longcare case —where a host of offences including rape, sexual assault and many other offences against the person were found to have occurred in privately run homes over a period of years before action was finally taken, and for which victims and their relatives eventually won record compensation—recommended in his report that a new arrestable offence of causing harm or exploitation of a vulnerable adult should be introduced with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, as with child neglect.
This group of amendments would provide the necessary additional protection for children and vulnerable adults both in relation to their death and in relation to serious harm as defined on page 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I understand entirely why the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has tabled the amendments in the group that we are discussing. Indeed, the information that she provided shows that a serious problem exists. No one could gainsay that. However, she is aware—the NSPCC is also aware of this—that I cannot support the amendments as the Bill is currently drafted for many of the reasons that the Minister gave. However, I go further. I am so concerned about the drafting of Clauses 4 and 5—I believe that they go very far indeed in terms of eroding human rights—that I cannot contemplate including further offences within them as they are currently drafted. That is not to say that I do not fully sympathise with the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I appreciate that we must find a way of dealing with those offences. However, I just do not think that the current wording of Clauses 4 and 5 constitutes the right solution.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Baroness made clear, these amendments would extend the offence to cover cases of serious injury. As I mentioned when discussing the previous group of amendments, at the moment it applies only where the child or vulnerable person has died. I must confess that this is something that caused me considerable concern and deep thought when we formulated our proposals for

GC 341
this offence. The line between death and serious injury can in practice sometimes be a pretty narrow one. Sometimes arriving just a few minutes later at the hospital can make the difference. Sometimes a child can suffer such serious brain injury that he or she has no real quality of life at all. Certainly, someone who has seriously harmed a child may have acted just as reprehensibly as the person who has killed a child. Speaking entirely personally, I have worried very much about this. The Law Commission produced proposals that included serious injury, although only in respect of failure to protect a child, and a seven-year maximum penalty. Its main offence concerned only cruelty contributing to death, with a 14-year penalty.
The question that the noble Baroness rhetorically asked—or maybe not so rhetorically—was: why we have confined ourselves to death? As we discussed earlier, the purposes of our new offence are two-fold. First, it is a serious offence in its own right. Secondly, we want it to function in a way that allows us to find the prime offender, so to speak, in "which of you did it" cases. As regards it being a serious offence in its own right, where someone is in a position of care over a child, such conduct, which amounts to cruelty short of death, will already be caught by the child cruelty offence, with a maximum penalty of 10 years. What will not be caught are other household members, as under our definition. For vulnerable adults there is no equivalent offence as the law is far less developed in this area.
In looking at this, I am conscious of the magnitude of the step we are already taking in our proposals in terms of attributing responsibility to those who do not already have a duty of care to a vulnerable child or adult. We are breaking new ground with this offence. Offences that result in the death of the victim have always been viewed in our legal system as particularly serious and meriting unique treatment. This makes a natural and appropriate starting place for extending the bounds of responsibility in the way we propose. I am not ruling out revisiting the question in the future, when we have seen how the new offence works in practice, and possibly extending it to serious harm. But I am very reluctant indeed to do so at this stage. We should be aiming for something clear, simple and well focussed initially to add to the statute book.
My view on this is strengthened if we look at the second purpose of the offence; its use to aid identification of the prime offender. For this to work, the maximum penalty needs to be set under the level of the prime offence. So both our proposal and the Law Commission's first offence set the maximum penalty at 14 years, given that the maximum penalty for murder and manslaughter is life. This provides the incentive for the lesser offender to break ranks and give evidence. The Law Commission's second offence has a maximum of seven years, again a level set under the standard child cruelty offence and the other offences in their list. So at the very least we would need a lesser penalty than that proposed if serious injury rather than death had resulted.
For children, we need to look at the role of the offence of child cruelty, which will continue to underpin the new offence. It is often possible to convict
GC 342
two or more people of the offence of child cruelty or neglect and there is a maximum sentence of up to 10 years attached to that. This in itself often provides a solution to the "which of you did it" conundrum where the child has suffered injury, even serious injury. In cases where a child has died, we can still use the offence of child cruelty and charge more than one defendant if that is what the circumstances warrant.
When the child has died, a 10-year penalty may not be adequate. Our package of proposals aims to ensure that we have as much evidence as possible to put before the court. After a great deal of thought, we concluded that we should confine the present proposal, at least for the moment, to cases of death and not include serious injury.
There are a few, perhaps more minor points, which I should make. First, in cases of serious injury, it may be less likely that we shall not know who did it. because the victim, unless he or she is too young, injured or confused to give evidence, is a source. Secondly, if the victim is injured but not dead, the other household members may have a greater incentive to give evidence, since it will help to protect the victim in future. Finally, we would need to consider carefully how to define "serious harm", and what it should cover. The Law Commission's proposal defines it quite widely, referring to a number of violent and sexual offences, and even attempts to commit those offences. We believe that that is probably too wide. The amendment would confine the definition to that which already exists in the offence of "serious harm"—that serious harm is harm that would be an offence of,
"grievous bodily for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861".
The amendment would therefore be clearer and simpler than the original Law Commission's proposals. However, we would still be faced with the question why we should confine the offence to "serious harm", and not say "harm" more generally. We must ask ourselves, if the harm caused is injury rather than death, whether a 14-year sentence is appropriate. The fact that we have heard a number of different answers to that question demonstrates how difficult it is. We wish to remain focused on where we believe there is a problem.
I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. However, I should also like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the reason we crafted the measure as we did was so as not to trespass against the provisions of the ECHR, so that we are proportionate and limited and can justify the reason for taking this course on clear and precise grounds.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: In the light of the Minister's comments, will she be good enough to clarify why it is necessary to have Clause 4(l)(c)? The phrase "at that time" presumably means at the time when the vulnerable adult or child died. Why is it necessary to import any reference to,
"the risk of serious physical harm being caused"?
The physical harm would have predated the death, since we are now talking only about death and what arises following the death, as the Minister made clear.

GC 343
Why is it necessary to introduce something that must have happened preceding the death, which would be covered by other provisions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are looking at the species of cases with which these provisions usually deal. In many of them, the death is not actually a one-off incident but a culmination of acts that happen over a period of time. Others in the household often say that they knew nothing of what was going on. The person who did not do the act will be guilty only if he knew of the risk of significant harm. He may say that he had no idea, that there was no history or indication that it might happen and that it happened spontaneously, out of the blue. There is a question about the responsibility of care that they have—should that person have done something and was there a duty on them to say something? That is why we believe that the provision is important.
As we move into a new arena, we have had to analyse the nature of the cases with which we have dealt. That is why we believe it to be proportionate and reasonable to ask whether there was any previous indication that what happened might or could have happened. Did the person know of the risk and do nothing? That is what would make him culpable.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Really one could argue about these matters for ages, I suppose. I am bound to say, speaking purely for myself, that if the Minister's concern is to limit the provision, I would rather that it were limited to death or serious harm to children, rather than widening it to include vulnerable adults and leaving out the question of serious harm.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says. However, we believe that those who are vulnerable, by way of age, infirmity or other disability, are in need of a similar level of protection. It was Shakespeare who talked about the many ages of man. Noble Lords will know that the beginning and the end tend to be very similar.
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, for raising a question that had also occurred to me. about the need to mention serious harm if the Government did not intend to include it as one of the offences. I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Government's position, and in particular for her recognition of the very fine line between death and serious injury. The problem is that child cruelty offences do not necessarily catch other household members, and certainly do not address the case in which it cannot be established which of the number of carers in the household did it.
I am particularly pleased to hear the Minister tell the Committee that the Government are keeping their mind open to the possibility of extending the offences at some time in the future, to include serious harm. It remains to be seen whether breaking ranks actually occurs, as the Government expect that it might, given the current wording of the Bill.
I accept that it is possible to charge more than one defendant with child cruelty, but I remain concerned about the omission of serious harm from the offence,
GC 344
particularly in view of what I believe was considerable consultation on the matter. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and I might be able to get our heads together and come forward with a slightly more limited amendment on Report, which would satisfy both of us at least partly about the clause. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—

"(i) was a parent and guardian of V. and

(ii) was present at the time the unlawful act took place'

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24 arid 29, which are grouped with it. This group of amendments seeks to probe the overall impact of Clause 4, leaving aside some Law Commission issues for later.
Subsection (1) sets out the circumstances under which a person is guilty of an offence of allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult. It draws the net widely and applies to all members of a household who had frequent contact with the victim. It makes the assumption that a person who has frequent contact must be held responsible for the death. However, what frequent contact means is left undefined, which means that the clause is fraught with difficulties.
Amendment No. 15 would redraw the definition of those who can be caught as a defendant by this provision. My amendment covers those who are a parent or guardian and were actually present. at the time that the unlawful act took place. Amendments Nos. 18 and 24 are consequential on that. Amendment No. 29 complements Amendment No.15 by defining "guardian" for my purposes as a person who has legal responsibility for the victim; or who is a partner or former partner of the defendant; or is employed as a carer for the victim.
Amendment No.16 would probe the circumstances in which a person could he held responsible to those in which the serious physical harm was actually being caused. That is to probe the Government's definition of "significant risk". We have already had some comment about significant harm. Amendment No.19 is consequential to it.
Amendment No. 20 is intended to raise a wider issue of the impact of the clause on people of different ethnic backgrounds. I recognise that it is not well drafted—I say that immediately, as many of my amendments are not well drafted. However, it is the only way in which I felt that I could approach the matter at this stage. before we have the Government's full explanation about Clause 4.
My concern is as follows. Family members from some ethnic and religious communities in the U K would be likely to visit their children regularly and perhaps stay with them, but would not necessarily be in a position to see whether a grandchild was being ill

GC 345
treated. If the signs of abuse are physical, it is very easy for the conniving and abusing carers to hide that abuse beneath clothing that covers arms and legs. After all, if that did not happen, teachers and social workers would be far more likely to spot the physical abuse early, when they were in contact with the family.
How does the Government's drafting protect innocent family members in those circumstances? Amendment No. 22 would knock out subsection (3), which provides that only those who are aged 16 or over may be guilty of the offence unless they are the parent of the victim. I am intrigued by the Government's use of the age of 16 as the dividing line. I am very grateful to the consortium that works for children for its briefing on these matters. Why do the Government not protect young persons up to the age of 18? Can parents under 16 and others between the ages of 16 and 18 really be considered able to take the decisions made necessary by this clause to avoid prosecution?
The summary of the issues the Government need to address today is as follows. Why does the clause apparently allow a person to be caught by it, even when they are not physically in the home at the time of death? How frequent does the frequent contact in subsection (1) need to he before a person can fall foul of the provisions? What is the Government's definition of "significant risk"? The Minister has just said, in criticism of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that significant harm would have to be defined. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: why not define "significant risk" in subsection (1)(c)?
Do the Government acknowledge that the clause could catch within its grasp the visiting grandparent who is not aware of child abuse? How does the clause appropriately respond to the circumstances within different ethnic and religious groups in the UK, and why are 16 year-olds liable to prosecution? I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I have a little concern about the wording of the amendment. The noble Baroness. Lady Anelay, can correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that removing subsection (l)(a)(i) and inserting the wording in the amendment would exclude some people who are very often perpetrators of this kind of abuse. I refer to the boyfriends of the mother of the child. Those people are not parents or guardians.
The amendment also says,
"and …was present at the time the unlawful act took place".
If the wording was "or", I might be a little more sympathetic to the amendment. As it is, I fear that it cuts out the boyfriends, who are often the violent perpetrators, from the offence.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I raise a parallel objection. There must be plenty of cases in which death ensues when it is extremely difficult to tell what was the time of the unlawful act. If the period extended for over an hour or so, we might certainly have a situation
GC 346
in which both parties said that they were not there, which would mean we were back exactly where we are at the moment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not wish to be accused of being repetitive by raising matters on the amendments after what has already been said. However, there is one matter that the Minister should deal with. There is a clear and very obvious distinction between the word "household" as defined by the Law Commission and as defined in the Bill. In the Law Commission definition, two parties are connected if they live in the same household. Yet in the Bill,
"a person is to be regarded as a 'member' of a particular household, even if he does not live in that household. if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it".
Obviously, that is a clearly thought-out decision by the Government. Has their choice of words, as against the words used by the Law Commission, widened the offence and the people who may come within the catchment of the offence? If so, since they have rightly said that we must be cautious when starting with a new major criminal offence, limited to a group which is definable and with which we can see how it works in practice, is it wise to have widened the definition of "household" as they have done?
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall go through all the points that were made, but I shall pick up the last one immediately. The Bill seeks to recognise the reality of the domestic arrangements that we now are faced with. Members of the Committee will know that there are many households in which the parties do not live together every day; they may live next door to one another or around the corner from one another, but they visit very regularly. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly highlighted the fact that quite often the perpetrator may he a frequent visitor but not a permanent resident. It may be a violent boyfriend or another disagreeable person who comes around regularly. If one considers the mischief that we are seeking to cure and analyses the species of cases with which we deal, the household would have to encapsulate those who are regular visitors.
We should perhaps recall the comments made by my noble friend Lord Desai. He talked about the extended family arrangements that there can be in other cultural set-ups, in minority groups, when the whole family and not simply the nuclear family is responsible for a child. That also reflects the need to be understanding about the households with which, in 2004, we have to deal. In considering the mischief that we want to cure, we decided that the Law Commission's definition was too narrow in that it might exclude many of the cases that currently fall through the net and which we wish to catch.
Before I turn to the other issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I shall address the issue of the age of 16. Members of the Committee will know that 16 is the age adopted in a number of other pieces of the legislation. For those who commit the offence. that is

GC 347
the age in the child cruelty offence. In addition, carers of vulnerable adults may be as young as 16. It is also given as the age of the child as the victim in a case of child cruelty.
The age will be relevant in deciding on the reasonable steps that a person could have taken in the circumstances. The court has another opportunity to consider the appropriate responsibility to be placed on that person. The reason why we made the exception with relation to the parent is that, regrettably, there are a number of parents below the age of 16 but they may have direct responsibility for their own children within a household. They would be caught as parents. as opposed to minors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly asked some probing questions, not only in her remarks but in her amendments. Amendment No.15, taken with Amendment No. 29, would do two things: it would change the group of people to whom the offence would apply and, in doing so, change the nature of the offence quite radically. Amendment No.15 would also make the offence apply only to those who were present at the time of the death—a point already taken up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
The next set, containing Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20, complement the previous amendments by concentrating the offence on the time of death and removing the references which make it apply to the person who was aware of the risk but did not take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Amendment No. 22 would remove subsection (3), which limits the liability of those under 16 other than the mother or father of a child. Amendment No. 24 would remove subsection (4), which expands on the definition of members of the household. Those amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 15. If taken together, they would produce a radically different scheme from the one that the Government propose.
In our discussion on vulnerable adults, I hope that I set out our policy on confining the scope of the offence to members of the victim's household who have frequent contact with the victim. In brief, the offence we have developed applies only to members of the household who have "frequent contact" with the victim. The rationale for this is that frequent contact, and the proximity to the child or vulnerable adult in its own home, should, we believe, lead to a responsibility for the member of the household, whether they wish to have that responsibility or not. You cannot be in the company of a child or vulnerable adult for long periods and simply ignore their ill-treatment or neglect.
Of course, I take full cognisance of the noble Baroness's remarks on physical abuse, which may be covered. However, she will know from her wide experience of the issue that physical abuse is quite often manifest in emotional disturbance. One may not see the marks on the child's body. but one notices the behaviour of the child change. If one is close to and interested in the child, that alerts one to the fact that something at home is wrong.
GC 348
The first group of amendments would provide too wide an application for the offence, in bringing in carers outside the household. That would have major implications for the child care sector that we would need to consider very carefully and look at in the context of other legislation, such as the Care Standards Act 2000, and the professional duties of those concerned. We would need to discuss it with the various bodies in the field, including professional groups. It is premature at this stage to go outside the domestic context, and the victim's own household, for this offence, as I believe I made clear earlier.
I also think the proposed definition limits the application of the offence too far. First, it would limit it to parents and those with a specific caring or legal responsibility. That would not, for example, cover the case of the vulnerable adult, who may be looked after by a relative who strictly has no legal responsibility towards the victim. It would also not cover the live-in lodger who has frequent contact with a child in the house and, while not caring for him as such, nevertheless can properly he deemed to have some responsibility to take action if he sees him being abused or neglected. That is why the offence as currently drafted talks about "frequent contact". The phrase is intended to encapsulate the responsibility of the close members of the household without being too limiting. We need to be very wary that family relationships in modern times are much more fluid and flexible than they have been in the past, and may become more so in future. We need to draft to allow for that.
Secondly, the proposed definition is too narrow in limiting its scope to those present at the time of death. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to that matter. That is also delivered through the second group of related amendments. In looking at this, we should bear in mind a crucial part of the purpose and point of our offence. It is to help us deal with the "which of you did it" cases, which have proved so difficult for so long. The way we have designed the offence, taken with the procedural measures, is intended to ensure that the court has the evidence before it to solve these cases beyond reasonable doubt.
In order to do that it is important that there is one offence with which we can charge all the suspects in the case—the person who caused the death and the person who failed to take reasonable steps to protect the victim. They can then all produce their evidence. In the circumstances where the new offence will apply, all the household members who have frequent contact with the victim may be guilty of an offence. Either they caused the death or failed to take reasonable steps to protect the child, having been aware of the risk and done nothing. So we feel that we are justified in saying that the group should all stand trial so that we can establish who did what and the degree of guilt which attaches to each individual.
I should stress again that no individual who takes reasonable steps will be caught by the offence as drafted. But equally, no member of the household who

GC 349
is aware of the risk and fails to take reasonable steps can be absolved of all responsibility, even if they were not present when the death occurred.
The second group of amendments, taken with the previous set, will catch the person who was present when a death or serious injury took place, when there was a risk of harm. But crucially, it would not catch the person who knew of the risk but happened not to be present at the time. That would greatly reduce the ability of the offence to help to solve the "which one of you did it" conundrum for many cases. It is often precisely because we do not know who was present at the time of death that we cannot bring the case to justice.
In addition, the amendments would put the point of required intervention at the time of death, which may be impossible, for example, for a battered wife. We want her responsibility to lie earlier, when reasonable steps, such as alerting the social services, may be possible. Under the amendment, she would have no earlier responsibility. That would undermine the philosophy underlying the whole offence.
I have some other misgivings about the amendment as drafted. For example, it is difficult to see how the courts would interpret having a "responsibility" to the victim, be it a child or vulnerable adult. "Frequent contact" is a term which is perhaps more readily understandable and one which we believe embraces, as I mentioned earlier, the idea of taking responsibility.
All the amendments reflect valid concerns; we need to take them seriously, and we will do so. But I hope that I have convinced Members of the Committee of the integrity and value of the proposals in the Bill as they stand. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
The term "significant harm" must be familiar to the noble Baroness from her days of sitting as a magistrate. It is a term that is peppered throughout our legislation, in the Children Act 1989 and elsewhere. People are very familiar with it and there is a good deal of case law and jurisprudence based on it. Therefore, one hopes that it will be an easy tool to apply.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have been convinced by the Minister's erudite arguments, but I have one scenario to put to her which might be worth thinking about, and which some organisations have been concerned about.
In volatile households extended members of the family, particularly grandparents, are often the people who ease the situation and enable the household to move on. One concern expressed to me is that, if those people became fearful, knowing that the household is volatile and that there is a danger to the child, they may decide that it is safer not to visit the household at all. That would put the child in even greater danger. I wonder what safeguards there can be in situations in which grandparents do not yet see that it is a matter for social services but realise that there is an aggressive boyfriend, husband or stepfather in the household. They may decide not to visit at all. I have an anxiety that that could cause real difficulties.
6 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is why I tried to underscore our clear intention that those who take reasonable steps have nothing to fear from these provisions.
The noble Baroness will know from her great experience of these cases that the difficulty is really getting people to say anything, to come forward and tell the authorities what is going on. It is also an issue, in terms of policy, of dealing with those who are fearful and who say "What do I do? What do I say? Is it my place to raise this?". We want to give them the advantage by saying, "Yes, it is your place. It is perfectly permissible if you think that about your grandchild, a child you see regularly, who is not related to you but you are a regular visitor to that home. There is a responsibility on you to do and say something and that is okay".
We will certainly do all we can to reinforce that message and to support those who feel that they are ambivalent as to whether they should or should not intervene. Those who have to decide whether or not a prosecution under these provisions is appropriate will look at the matter very carefully. The authorities will have a much better opportunity to assess the level of culpability, if any, of those who disclose.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for her response to this clutch of amendments. They were intended to open up our debate on Clause 4, which purpose they have served. I accept entirely the criticisms of drafting. I drafted the amendments in such a way as to provoke opposition in order to find out where the weaknesses were in the Government's situation as well as my own. My overall intention in the amendments has been to highlight my difficulty by the Government focusing on the words "frequent contact".
The Minister made it clear that the Government are imposing the responsibility on certain people whether or not they wish to have it. However laudable and objective that is, there are inherent difficulties, not least with how—if the Bill goes through in its current form and is enacted—one then fairly implements its provisions upon an unsuspecting public.
One of my problems still comes back to: will frequent contact, as a definition, catch people who are doing their best? The noble Baroness said that if they have taken reasonable steps they should not fall foul of that. I wonder. I was thinking of circumstances while the noble Baroness. Lady Howarth, was speaking. Perhaps you are a grandparent—grandmother, grandfather or whatever—and visit on a fairly regular, frequent basis and stay in the household so you are not living there but are in and out all the time. You notice that something is not right and you are the person who wants to act as an arbiter. You want to make it work if at all possible.
You care for all the people in the household, in the sense you do have a care about them. So you try to put the situation right by helping. You might child-sit. baby-sit and so on. You might talk to the people in the household. When you are away from the household you talk over the telephone to perhaps your daughter

GC 351
and she assures you, "Don't worry. We have done what you have said. We have gone to see social services and the doctor. We are sorting the matter out. We are having counselling. We are going the whole hog here. There is not a problem now".
You have taken those reasonable steps. Of course something may still go wrong after that. If those are reasonable steps at the inquiry, that would go a long way to allaying my concerns and those of others. If, however, the reasonable step is to do what the Minister indicated—that is, to tell social services yourself as a grandparent—that is when I get worried because the grandparent has been assured by a child, "Don't worry. We have sorted it. We are doing A, B and C".
Let us face it, the grandparents are not likely to approach social services, full stop—I try not to use that phrase, given the very good use that the NSPCC has made of it. They may not approach social services at all because there is always a fear—however unreasonable—at the back of people's minds that if they do, the family will never see the children again.
I shall need to look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said and to consider in great detail what "frequent contact" means and what implications that has for people who are trying to take reasonable steps but who may end up in a situation where a child dies. I gladly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One difficulty is that one cannot be prescriptive. In the circumstances that the noble Baroness has just described where there was no sign of overt physical injury identified by the grandparent, all those things may be entirely reasonable; one could not expect any more. So, really it will be on a case-by-case basis for the court to determine what was reasonable in the particular circumstances.
I say to the noble Baroness that we anticipate that quite extensive guidance will be issued in relation to the application of these matters where we can seek to assist those agencies making the decisions on these cases as to how they should be interpreted. It will be fairly impossible for me to set in stone for the noble Baroness, whether now or later, that if one does this, there is an absolute guarantee. One of our difficulties is that there are no absolute guarantees in these cases. One just has to do one's best, taking all the circumstances into account.
I am sure any judgment on what is reasonable will look at the nature of the relationship, the frequency, what was reasonable in those circumstances, what was the purpose of the intervention, whether it was reasonable to do A, B and C, and also to understand that we can never have a counsel of perfection. We are not looking for perfection but merely for people to do what they reasonably can.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Alarm bells are beginning to ring over this concept of guidance. It is for the courts to decide what is reasonable in all the circumstances. Guidance may be helpful to the authorities, but let us not run away with the idea that it could have any part in the trial of an action.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I want to quieten immediately the noble and learned Lord's trembling
GC 352
heart. I am absolutely relying on the good sense of the judge in the case as to what is reasonable. The judge will hear all the evidence and will make an assessment of the parties about what was reasonable to expect. That is one aspect. Another is what is the agency's response to it. We must have some kind of common understanding between the agencies in terms of how we work.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister says that it is the judge, but is it the judge or the jury?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is both, is it not, judge and jury working together? But it will be the judge giving the directions of law on the matter.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The judge will be giving directions on the law. The decision on whether it is reasonable surely in the Bill as drafted is not a decision for the judge but one for the jury, provided the judge decides that there is evidence on which they can come to that conclusion.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thought it was implicit. If it was not, perhaps I may say that I concur with the noble Lord.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for that intervention. I was going to ask a question along similar lines, and ask the Minister whether she could confirm the agencies she is thinking of. I assume it would be CPS and Police. I think she is signalling her assent.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I anticipate that it will. I tremble a little because of course the person who usually deals with CPS is the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I am surmising—I make it plain—at this stage that it would be he or the Home Office working together who will be doing this, in terms of whether it is a protocol or how these matters will be dealt with.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that. The Minister will not be at all surprised that the usual question of opposition when guidelines are mentioned is to ask who is going to have them and when they will be published. She might well find that we would be happy to receive a letter from the Home Office and the Attorney-General giving us some information about guidelines. Otherwise, it might just pop up as an amendment on Report. I give her the alternative of a letter instead if that is more appropriate. Such a letter could be placed in the Library of the House and so would be available to other Members of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
"(IA) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)(ii), in determining the reasonableness of the steps which D could have been expected to take, the court shall have particular regard to the extent to which D has been subjected to domestic violence or is in fear of being subjected to domestic violence."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 21 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I tabled the amendment in order to explore issues raised at Second Reading by Refuge and Liberty in their briefings. I thank them for that. Refuge points out that in determining whether an individual failed to take reasonable steps to protect the victim, it is crucial that consideration should be given to what constitutes "reasonable steps". We have had a small discussion about that but this part—I hasten to add—explores a different issue.
This time I want to look at the experience of being a domestic violence victim and how that affects whether one can take reasonable steps. It is crucial to understand the real risks involved in leaving a violent partner and a person's reasonable fear that he or she would be killed if he or she attempted to escape or seek help.
Where a woman's or a man's psychological health has been compromised by living with violence, or where that occurs in combination with real and persistent threats of harm, what is reasonable must he considered against this unreasonable reality.
Refuge has further concerns about this offence and its application to those who are aged 16 years. Again this is slightly different territory from that which the Minister has already approached. Refuge argues that as boys of this age—l6—are unable to move to refuge accommodation with the rest of their family, it is more likely that they and their mothers will remain with the abuser. It argues that we should ensure that mechanisms are in place to prevent silent and fearful 16 year-olds being charged alongside their mothers when a violent man kills a member of the household.
Liberty believes also that added protection is required to protect a person who on the face of it may have committed an offence under Clause 4, but whose failure to take the necessary steps was motivated by the fear, or indeed the reality, of domestic violence.
Recently, I received a briefing from Southall Black Sisters. It makes the very important point that one should not forget those women who are in a minority in this country, who are subjected to domestic violence and who are under immigration control. Although I considered the point in the context of asylum, I had not considered it in the context of the Bill. Southall Black Sisters make the point that of course these women have no recourse to public funds and that that restricts their right to leave a violent relationship. So again they are in a very fragile situation. Their ability to take reasonable steps to protect themselves and their children is against the background of what happens if they actually leave that relationship.
My amendment would provide protection by ensuring that domestic violence is made an explicitly relevant factor in considering the reasonableness of the defendant's failure to act. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: On behalf of my noble friends Lord McNally and Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who have added their names to the amendment, I support
GC 354
the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in what she is trying to achieve. If one listens to any of the organisations that work with women who have been subjected to domestic violence, it is very clear that the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim is a power relationship. In that situation, it is right that the court should "have particular regard"—I emphasise those words—to that situation when considering what has happened in that household.
The way the amendment is worded does not mean that there is never any responsibility at all on the part of someone—even though she has been subjected to domestic violence—when the death of a child occurs. But how the amendment has been worded is very reasonable, given this power relationship.
I, too, have heard from Southall Black Sisters. I am very concerned about the plight of women who have come into this country sponsored by husbands with a right to be here. These women are in their period of two years' probation, as it were. It is almost impossible for them to leave their situation, even if there is domestic violence, because they would find themselves as illegal immigrants with no means of support, either for themselves or for their children. For those various reasons, I support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: A number of attempts have already been made to try to improve the drafting of Clause 4(1). The amendment is a very important attempt and I am glad that the national Liberal Democrat representatives support it. Merely to say that D failed to take such steps as she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk leaves too much uncertainty. Amendment No. 21, tabled by my noble friend, which amplifies the position, is extensive.
In passing, when we reach the question of whether Clause 4 stand part, I shall have reason to stand up and say that I think that it is regrettable that the letters D and V are being used in the drafting in an unusual way. I think that it will be regretted in future years if we leave the provision like that.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may put forward a thoroughly unpopular view. I may have to try and find the English for it, but in my day it was called expressio unius exclusio alterius. It seems to me that the immigrants are a good example of that concept. It is quite clear that if one has an immigrant wife coming into the country who is definitely at risk from the husband, but it is an implicit risk rather than anything else, it would be unreasonable not to take account of that.
Once we start concentrating on that particular situation, as disclosed by the amendment, we will downgrade other considerations that might impinge on the whole concept of reasonableness. Rather like the man on the Clapham omnibus, reasonableness is indefinable, and was never intended to be defined: it is a jury question. I do not think that one should try to give juries directions in a statute as to what is or is not reasonable. That is not

GC 355
the function of a statute. One ends up by saying that something is reasonable and by implication saying that something that one had not thought of is not reasonable.
Lord Borrie: I can see the points the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has been making. There must be many examples, including the ones that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave, where it is clear that if someone has been beaten up, or is likely to be beaten up, it is hardly suitable that they should be regarded as responsible for allowing someone to be killed. I deliberately used the phrase "beaten up" because I think that if someone has been beaten up, or is likely to be, they can hardly be expected to look after some small child and take every possible care that the boyfriend or whoever does not engage in unlawful activity.
One has only to think of the variations on assault. Surely, there must be many borderline situations where instead of having been beaten up, or being likely to be beaten up, there is a risk of some unfortunate happening which is not quite so bad as that. Does one suggest that in all those circumstances under the amendment the adult, because he or she may be subjected to domestic violence, should he relieved from any responsibility for allowing a young child to be killed? That is what we are talking about here.
The very fact that there can be so many variations of such conduct means that one should leave the matter to the court, the judge or the jury, whatever it is, to determine whether D has failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take; and that the court will inevitably take into account how much violence that person has been subject to.
Therefore, the most serious examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, surely will come within that particular phrase in the Bill. I would not like it to be extended too far because I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Donaldson, that if one specifies one particular example then it suggests that the others will have a different conclusion.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I hate to take the opposite view from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, but in this particular instance, there is reason for concern. It may be that the concern of certain members of this Committee and beyond exists because of the extent to which they believe there is not a realisation of the fear that a particular person may have. That may well cause them not to take action when quite clearly you and I would take action.
Under those circumstances, this amendment is good because it draws attention to this issue and, in particular, it provides that the court shall have regard to the extent to which D—I agree with the point made about the titling of Ds and Vs and so forth—may have been subjected in the past to mental or physical domestic violence. I accept that putting too much detail in the Bill and fettering, or appearing to fetter, the discretion of judges is not what is intended and should not be
GC 356
intended. On the other hand, I think there is a case here. Dare I say it: It may he that there are not quite as many female judges as male judges.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Not yet.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say how much we agree with the spirit of the amendment, although we do not agree that it is in its proper place. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that it would be a great joy to see an increase in the female members of the judicial Bench, I remind Members of the Committee that there are a number of very honourable men who have discharged their duty with great efficiency, great effect and great humanity, for which I have regularly given thanks.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I agree.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: When the courts consider what reasonable steps a person might have taken, it is important that they look at all the circumstances of the individual, and what might be considered reasonable. There may be particular problems where the person who fails to take steps is a victim of domestic violence and, as noble Lords know, it is all too common that more than one person in the household is the subject of such violence. There may be little that the mother can do in those circumstances. She may he in fear that the abuser will turn on her if she tries to interfere to protect the child. She may be afraid that her children will he taken into care. She may fear that she will not be believed and that she will be blamed for the abuse. She may simply not know to whom she could report the abuse.
I am sure that we can sympathise with all of that. But even where the steps that she can take are limited, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, generously accepted, that woman still has a responsibility towards her children. As drafted, the Bill does not expect her to do more than is reasonable in the circumstances in which she finds herself.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it is not helpful to single out victims of domestic violence in the way that the amendment suggests. The Crown Prosecution Service will need to assess what were reasonable steps for any individual to have taken in deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed. The courts will have to look at each case individually and determine whether, as a matter of fact, reasonable steps were taken. We would also expect the court to take into account all the circumstances of the individual when it is sentencing so the victim of domestic violence might not be liable to attract the same severity of sentence as others who could have acted but who failed to take any action to protect the victim.
We are working very closely with the Crown Prosecution Service on guidance for prosecutors covering these difficult points. I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling this amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. Our debate will help to inform the preparation of the guidance and will allow Parliament's views to be taken into account.

GC 357
However, it would be wrong of us to put domestic violence cases in a separate category for the reasons that we have just explored.
Lord Eden of Winton: I would like clarification in the light of what the noble Baroness has just said. Until this point the whole emphasis of subsection (1) of Section (4) has been on the definition of the offence and on the degree of guilt or responsibility for the offence that D is deemed to have committed which resulted in the death of V. What my noble friend Baroness Anelay has put forward in her amendment highlights a substantially different point, namely the degree of provocation which might have arisen from the actions of V which led to D taking the action that he did, resulting in the death of V. This is a new and very important emphasis and it should be included.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have responded to why we disagree with that. One of the difficulties with which we are faced is that there are a huge variety of circumstances when this will arise. Therefore, it is impossible for us, as I think was highlighted, to cover the full spectrum. There may be different variants of grey: dark grey, mid grey, light grey, vaguely grey, almost white. What the prosecutor will have to decide is where on the spectrum the individual who may be accused of an offence under this section should appear. Was it reasonable? As I said earlier, the difficulty is that what is reasonable to expect in situation A may be wholly unreasonable to expect in situation B. That flexibility needs to be there for us to respond to the needs of the individual case.
"Reasonable" has stood us in very good stead for a very long time. It is like my elephant. It is difficult to describe, but we all know one when we see it. If it were a new term. which was awkward, not well understood or was difficult to apply, I would be far less sanguine than I am now in saying that this is a judgment that has to be made on a case to case basis and it would be wrong to single out one area in a way which would make it differ significantly from another.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, perhaps I may intervene briefly. This amendment is not concerned with provocation. It has nothing to do with that.
otland of Asthal: I did not respond to that point, but I am happy to clarify that the amendment has nothing whatever to do with provocation.
p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The debate was intended to be about what is reasonable in the context of subsection (1). The Minister rightly said that the term "reasonable" is of long usage in courts and is well understood by some, if not all. However, my point is that it is an old term but this is a new offence. I wanted, and have happily received, a debate about what "reasonable" might be seen to mean in this context. I agreed entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, when he spoke about the dangers of creating a new category of people who might find themselves exempted from
GC 358
an offence. I alluded to that in an amendment that I moved earlier. I agree entirely with the noble Lord on that point.
However, my other concern has been that, in creating an offence, one should not thereby include a category of people whom one does not want to be the target of the punishment that might then follow. I also agree (I have been in a very agreeable mood today) with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—as I usually do; heaven forfend if I did not!—that this is a jury point on direction by the judge.
I believe that the difficulty that arises is that there may well be a case where someone could be adjudged by the prosecuting authorities to come within the net and not to have taken reasonable steps and who would go through the whole process of being arrested. There may be other children in the family who would be taken into care. Here, we are considering a group of people who may be arrested and find themselves subject to prosecution. They may not be given hail. We do not know what the circumstances are. We are putting them in a very difficult situation. They may go through the whole gamut of prosecution only for a jury to determine that they fall within the definition of having taken reasonable steps.
That will happen. It is human nature and part of the prosecuting system. There will be occasions when, quite rightly, people will be acquitted. I am trying to ensure that we minimise the number of occasions on which people are put through that process when they should not have been. I am sure that the Minister is following exactly the same line. Everything that she has said persuades me that that is the case. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3. line 6. leave out subsection (4) and insert—"
() This subsection applies if D—

(a) is at least 16 years old;

(b)has responsibility for V; and

(c)is connected with V.

()D is connected with V if—

(a)they live in the same household;

(b)they are related; or

(c)D looks after V under a child care arrangement.

() D and V are related if they are relatives within the meaning of Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) (family homes and domestic violence).
()D looks after V under a child care arrangement if D

(a) looks after V (whether alone or with other children) under arrangements made with the person who lives in the same household as, or is related to, V; and

(b) does so wholly or mainly in V's home.

() It does not matter whether D looks after V for reward or on a regular or occasional basis."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 25, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27, which is grouped with it.
At the briefing on the Bill, which was helpfully given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, before we started this process, she said that subsection (4) imposes a duty of care on a particular category of persons. Therefore, my amendment has been tabled to ask the Government to justify why they have diverged from the Law Commission's proposals. References were made to this earlier, but I certainly believe that the Law Commission's proposals narrow the definition, whereas the Government say that they widen it—a source of some concern. When we reach Amendment No. 27 shortly, I shall address the issue of whether the Government have made it sufficiently clear that there is a duty of care.
Amendment No. 25 is supported by the NSPCC. As other noble Lords remarked earlier, the work that that organisation has done in this area of policy is outstanding. Its briefing makes it clear that it is eager to see the introduction of new legislation to address the problem cases involving the non-accidental death of children. However, it believes that there are two very serious flaws in the Government's legislation. We have heard of one—serious harm: my amendment addresses the other.
The wording that I have used is taken directly from Law Commission report No. 282 in its draft Bill at page 75. The Law Commission sat in as observers on the NSPCC's "Which of you did it?" working group, which examined the issues for more than a year and published its report on the findings in late 2003.
The Law Commission says that it has built upon the findings of the NSPCC working group and conducted a comprehensive consultation exercise to test its own proposals on these matters. It incorporated the results of its consultation into the report and the draft Bill.
The NSPCC points out that, by contrast, the Home Office has proposed this part of the legislation without the benefit of a specific consultation on the definition of who should have the duty of care in subsection (4). Therefore, the NSPCC feels that it has been drafted without the benefit of experts in the field from a wide range of perspectives, including, as it says, those who are particularly concerned with the legitimate rights of the defendant and those particularly concerned with civil liberties. It was on that basis that I tabled the amendment—that is, to ask the Government why they took this route and not that of the Law Commission.
My Amendment No. 27 is very simple. When I read the clause as constructed, it did not leap off the page at me that subsection (4) was creating a duty of care. When, in her briefing, the Minister said that that was what it was all about, I did not consider the subsection to highlight that. Therefore. I wanted to ask the Government why they adopted this drafting and not something that would hit one between the eyes—I
GC 360
should not use violent language—or which would have made it perfectly clear to all of us that that was what subsection (4) was all about. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to support the amendment. It has been laid out very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and therefore I intend to say very little. Clearly, the people who put forward the amendment are trying to define who has a duty of care for a child. The approach is to adopt the statutory formulation in Section 17 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. I believe that that is the correct and cohesive way to bring together all aspects of the different pieces of legislation. Therefore, we support the amendment.
Lord Renton: Briefly, I want to point out, as has been pointed out many times previously in debate on recent legislation, that ignorance of the law is no defence. However, when lay people see Clause 4 with its frequent use of "D" and "V" instead of the matter being expressed simply in the usual way, as has been done not only for generations but for centuries, they may find it difficult to ascertain what the law is. Therefore, although I agree with the substance of my noble friend's amendment—again, I am glad that it is being supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—I feel bound to point out that it will give rise to confusion among lay people.
Lord Borrie: I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this or any other matter. However, before we started our discussions and having read the Bill on my own, I believed that "V" for "vulnerable person" and "D" for "defendant" helped to alleviate the difficulty of understanding the clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I do not believe that I agree or disagree with anyone other than my noble friend Lady Anelay. I support the amendment basically because it is clear and more precise than the wording in the Bill. The way in which Clause 4 is drafted is related to a visitor and it is rather vague and imprecise. It really is too imprecise to constitute the basis of a serious offence, which this is. For those reasons, even if my noble friend has it slightly wrong, she has it right in principle because the Bill is wrong.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I thought we had this whole debate about half an hour ago on an earlier amendment. On that occasion, having heard the Minister, I was foolish enough to say that she had persuaded me that she was right and that the Law Commission was wrong in relation to the definition of the word "household". However, I may now be persuaded to take the opposite view.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Perhaps I may assist my noble friend. I very carefully separated this matter as it concerned a different argument. Earlier, I tried to treat subsection (1) as a separate issue. I believe that the difficulty with the Government's drafting is that we

GC 361
have to consider a multiplicity of subsections in order to gain any idea of who will be accused of "having done it".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Noble Lords cannot expect me to say anything other than that the drafting is a matter of beauty and delight.
Amendment No. 25 would make the offence apply to all those connected with, and having responsibility for, the victim. I recognise, and accept entirely, that its wording is close to the Law Commission's definition in relation to its second, wider offence. It would mean that fathers who live elsewhere, as well as childminders and babysitters, would be caught by the offence. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that he can stay with me because my further arguments do hold good.
Amendment No. 27 will impose a duty of care on the persons to be regarded as members of the household,
"for the avoidance of doubt".
However—I hope that Members of the Committee understood what I said in relation to this—the importance of the Bill as a whole is that there is a responsibility for being part of the household. We believe that that entitles us to place a duty in the Bill in the way that we have described.
As we have said, our proposed offence is confined to members of the household. It is drafted with the idea that members of the household will know enough about the activities of the other members that they can be expected to be aware of the risk to the victim and take action. They are "complicit" in the offence, either directly or by proximity, through standing by during the preceding abuse or neglect and doing nothing. Therefore, in this context, if one were to ask, "Am I my brother's keeper?", the answer would be, "Yes".
Those outside the household, such as absent fathers, may also have a duty of care. I agree that that is very important, but I do not believe that it means they should be, or need to be. included in this offence. Such people are in a different—indeed, arguably, a more difficult—position. The father may, for example, have a difficult relationship with the mother. To place on that father a duty to take "reasonable steps" to safeguard his child may only increase the pressure in an already difficult situation. He is outside the household and may possibly be perceived as holding a grudge or as being a trouble-maker. He may not, as a result of the orders made against him, be able to enter the household at all. In addition, where his neglect is of sufficient magnitude, lie may already be liable for child cruelty through his continuing duty of care for the child. But he is not complicit in the homicide, either directly or through close proximity to or association with the household.
Similarly, ad hoc babysitters or other carers may fall outside our proposed definition of "household". They may be in charge of a child while in the household. However, even when they are aware that the child is being neglected or abused, it is a very big step essentially to label them as complicit in the activity unless they take action, backed up by a criminal
GC 362
offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. Any carer who neglects or mistreats a child will, of course, still be subject to the full sanctions of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Therefore, we believe that drafting the offence so that it will not apply to those outside the household—whether parents or other carers—is right and justified. As the offence applies only if a person has frequent contact, it will not apply to a lodger who lives with the family but sees the child rarely. We believe that that is right. Such people are not in the same position as those who have frequent contact with the victim. In any event, they would probably not he in a position to be "aware of the risk" to the victim. Therefore, they would fall outside the offence for that reason, too. However, our definition of a household member who has frequent contact with the victim provides an extra safeguard.
We have left the term "household" to be interpreted by the courts. In the absence of any specific definition, the courts will adopt the normal English interpretation. Broadly, it will mean those living together as a family group in the same house. But we have qualified the word "household" to include the person who, though not resident, visits the household so often and for so long that it makes it reasonable for us to regard him or her as a member of that household.
Earlier, I talked about modern lifestyles having changed, and I was pleased to hear that Members of the Committee accepted that reality. As currently drafted, Clause 4(4)(b) deals with the situation where, for example, a child lives part of the week in one household and part of the week in another. The same might apply to a vulnerable adult where families share the responsibility and the vulnerable person splits his time between two households. In that type of situation, the vulnerable person can be part of two households. Each household should be responsible for the safety of that person while he is there. Hence, if an unlawful death occurs and the other circumstances of the offence are all met, all the members of the household may be liable for the offence. In that case, we believe that it would be wrong to treat the two households in the same way. Thus, members of the second household would not be responsible for the actions of those in the first household.
That leads me to Amendment No. 27 and the "duty of care". This amendment would place a specific duty of care on all members of the household covered in the new offence. Basically, it would be "for the avoidance of doubt". I do not believe that it is entirely right to talk about a duty of care in that way. We have drafted the offence in terms of "frequent contact" and the responsibility that that brings. However, I do not believe that that quite equates to a duty of care as we normally understand it. When we were talking about an explanation, I tried to describe the creation of a responsibility.
We need to consider the issue of credibility and public perception in relation to this matter. The lodger who has frequent contact with a child in a household should, I believe, accept that that gives him some

GC 363
responsibility to take steps if he sees the child being abused or neglected. But I do not believe that such a person would sec that as a specific duty of care, which carries a large amount of legal baggage in its train. We need to be careful about any duty of care. People need to be very clear about what their duties are and what the sanctions are if they breach those duties. I believe that the amendment is in danger of blurring those duties.
As the offence is drafted, the duty bites in very limited and closely defined circumstances. There must he frequent contact with the victim and the victim must have been at significant risk of serious physical harm. I believe that that type of phrase fits well with the criminal law but it would not equate to a general civil duty of care. I do not believe that this involves a disagreement of principle on who should be covered by the offence; rather, it is a matter of terminology.
I invite the noble Baroness to accept the explanation that I have given. I absolutely understand why the amendments have been tabled. I believe that, in trying to develop this matter, we have teased out many of the issues ourselves. I confess to the Committee that I have gone through both sides of this argument in my head. As I have set the arguments up, I have knocked them down. and this is basically where, ultimately, I have come out.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she appreciate that, with regard to the drafting of subsection (4)(a), beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Frankly, it is a hit of a mouthful to say,
"if he visits it so often and for such periods of time".
If it were simply to read in the terms that the noble Baroness used—that is,
"if he has such contact that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of the household"—
it would make far more sense. That is a fairly simple concept and the jury can work it out. However, the use of phrases such as "such time" and "such visits" seems to he a terribly complicated way of drafting the subsection.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I wish to say one word about Amendment No. 27. I can think of no more insulting amendment to a parliamentary draftsman than to insert "for the avoidance of doubt". If there is doubt, he should not be using the words.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As attracted as I always am by the productive suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I cannot yield on this occasion. The whole purpose of providing that definition is to differentiate between those who may come to the household infrequently and those who come regularly. It gives the clarity to some of the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that someone can visit the household but rarely see the child, and/or have seen nothing which would have alerted him to the risk that the child was experiencing at the time. Those are important hurdles for us to get over before we are entitled to place
GC 364
a responsibility on someone in those circumstances. We will hold him responsible and it is fair that we have very clear benchmarks that differentiate those who are culpable from those who are not.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We have had a lot of comments about the drafting. I suspect that the last person to be offended would be a draftsman because he knows that the role of the Opposition is to find any way they can to hang the argument on a convenient peg. Those pegs are sometimes very uncomfortable; this is one. I take his chiding, of course, but I will keep on trying.
I am very grateful to the Minister. I had the difficulty, which she referred to, about the imposition of a duty of care. I entirely take what she said, that the Government are constructing a legal responsibility here. We need to turn it around and look at that. We will need to look further at whether the definition of those who have this responsibility is appropriate.
The Minister has gone a long way today to reassure me about the route that the Government are taking, in particular when she was referring to when there is more than one household. One of the instances with which I have been concerned was hinted at earlier on in the debate we had about contact centres. That is when a child's care is shared between parents. It may well be that that care starts off by being in two households. It may be that on occasion the contact has to be through a third party, because of worry over violence. My concern has been about how wide is the group of people who might be caught in this net and how many households might be caught. It is not unknown for care to be shared between one parent and a grandparent. We need to look very carefully at how broadly we draw the responsibility that we are imposing on people, a responsibility that could have exceptionally serious consequences if things go wrong.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and I will look very carefully at my amendments. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that one that will certainly not come back is "for the avoidance of doubt". Amendment No. 27, but I cannot promise not to use "for the avoidance of doubt" again in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, leave out line I9.
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this is very brief. 1 tabled Amendment No. 28 simply because I found it very difficult to understand and I want an explanation.
I found subsection (5) difficult to follow and there vias no explanation in the Explanatory Notes, which are always extremely good. I appreciate that Explanatory Notes cannot cover every single small point. Subsection (5) describes what will be considered to be an unlawful act for the purposes of this section. Paragraph (a) is easy; it provides that an unlawful act is an act that constitutes

GC 365
an offence but paragraph (b) then states that it excludes the acts that would otherwise be an unlawful act, except where it is done by a person who is under 10 or someone who is entitled to rely on a defence of insanity. I am still with it there. The problem then arises out of the final proviso. It says:
"Paragraph (b) does not apply to an act of D".
If it means that the people described in paragraph (b) escape, is that not already made clear by the wording at the beginning of paragraph (b),
"would constitute a offence but for being the act or?
It is just a case of please explain. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's explanation because the amendment would remove the safeguard that we think we have built in to ensure that people lacking criminal capacity cannot have their behaviour deemed unlawful when it would not otherwise be possible to prosecute them. Paragraph (b) is there specifically to deal with the case where the death has been caused by someone who lacks criminal responsibility. No one will be charged with the murder, but the members of the household who stood by and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the death should be liable just the same. We think it is an important principle. We have designed the offence to leave no doubt that where members of the household have frequent contact with a child or a vulnerable adult, they have a duty to protect that person from harm by other members of the household. This is particularly evident with children, but the duty is just as pressing with vulnerable adults.
As I said at the outset, this is a significant change in the way we view our responsibilities that I believe is fully justified. That duty applies, perhaps even more. when the risk is from a household member who is not criminally responsible. However, the last line of subsection (5) provides a significant safeguard for the person who lacks mental capacity. It makes clear that a person cannot be charged with an offence by reason only of subsection (5)(b) when he would otherwise be deemed to lack criminal capacity. I hope that that clears up what seemed to be impenetrable.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful. It was the use of the word "only" and the noble Baroness's response satisfies me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and will not return to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 29 A not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
EFFECT OF INTOXICATION
(1) A person's voluntary intoxication is to he disregarded in determining—

(a)for the purposes of section 4(1)(d)(i), whether he ought to have been aware of the risk; and

(b)for the purposes of section 4(1)(d)(ii), what steps he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk.

(2) A person's intoxication is voluntary if he takes an intoxicant, or allows an intoxicant to be administered to him—

(a)knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant; and

(b)otherwise than in accordance with medical advice.

(3) "Intoxicant" means alcohol. drugs or anything else which may impair awareness.
(4) A person's intoxication is to be taken to be voluntary unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to whether it was voluntary.
(5) Where sufficient evidence is so adduced. the court is to assume that his intoxication was not voluntary unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was."
The noble Lord said: I can be very brief because I have already drawn attention to a most unfortunate type of drafting that we find in Clause 4. Indeed. it is the only clause in the whole Bill of 25 pages in which this method of drafting is used. We need to hear in mind that legislation, especially in criminal matters, should be drafted in a way that it can be understood by the millions of people in this country. If we go into this method of drafting, it could become even more elaborate when applied to other circumstances. Therefore, I implore the noble Baroness to consider having this clause redrafted in the normal way between now and Report. If that is not done, we shall have created a precedent that can do immense harm in the years to come.
Baroness Thornton: I recall other Bills where A, B and C were used. I think it was probably used in the Sexual Offences Bill. I found it very useful. Another point is that people do not read Bills. They read newspapers and reports of what the law says. I am not saying that our Bills should not be comprehensible, they should be. As my apprenticeship in the House is still going on, I find it hard to read Bills and understand them and I found this quite useful.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I shall simply reiterate that. As a lay person in terms of law. I found this extremely helpful. It may be that we who are new and see this change find it easier to follow. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. made it very clear.
Earl Russell: I apologise as a latecomer to the debate. If I had been here earlier I might have known exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Renton. was proposing. His suggestions on drafting matters are never to be taken lightly. The trouble that we have here is that we are trying to describe in the Bill conduct which itself as observed—as it might be observed through the medium of the cinema—is not understood by the ordinary member of the public when he sees it. That makes it extremely difficult to apply the noble Lord's principle as we would like to apply it. There is a kind of immobility that comes on a person in that frightened situation. The analogy of the rabbit in the gaze of a snake comes to mind, although it is not as simple as that either. One cannot describe what that feels like, and if one cannot do that one cannot describe with the clarity one would wish exactly what one would wish to do about it.

GC 367
That is why in the end the ultimate achievement of the clause, much though we want what it attempts to do. will be as much educational as practical. However, if the noble Lord has further suggestions later, I should be interested to hear them.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As always, I have listened carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in relation to the way in which Clause 4 is drafted. However, I think that there is some power in the utility of the way it has been drafted on this occasion because it is echoed from those Members whom we greatly respect who want to have a better understanding of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Thornton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who are not lawyers, have both said that this is of utility, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who most certainly is one of our finest members of the legal profession, found it equally helpful. It is very unusual indeed for that to happen and I should like to rejoice in that.
However, this methodology is not as innovative as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, believes. It was used in the Criminal Justice Bill, the Sexual Offences Bill and in the Police Bill, which is now an Act. We are dealing with quite a difficult complex arena where one has to chart one's way through some fairly choppy waters. Being able to use the symbol appears to work well. I shall of course consider what is said by the noble Lord, but I am much heartened that there is a buffer to the noble Lord's censure in the voices of other noble Lords around the table.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No.30:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
EFFECT OF INTOXICATION
(1) A person's voluntary intoxication is to be disregarded in determining—

(a)for the purposes of section 4(1)(d)(i), whether he ought to have been aware of the risk: and

(b)for the purposes of section 4(1)(d)(ii), what steps he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk.

(2) A person's intoxication is voluntary if he takes an intoxicant, or allows an intoxicant to be administered to him—

(a)knowing that it is or may be an intoxicant; and

(b)otherwise than in accordance with medical advice.

(3) "Intoxicant" means alcohol, drugs or anything else which may impair awareness.
(4) A person's intoxication is to he taken to be voluntary unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to whether it was voluntary.
(5) Where sufficient evidence is so adduced, the court is to assume that his intoxication was not voluntary unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was."
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 30 inserts into the Bill a new clause regarding the effect of intoxication and is taken from Clause 3 of the Law Commission's draft Bill at page 53 of its report number 282.
The amendment specifically excludes voluntary intoxication from consideration when the questions of the defendant's awareness of risk or the reasonableness of steps he or she could be expected to take are being considered. Thus, while those tests have elements of both objectivity and subjectivity, this provision prevents the defendant from taking advantage of his or her own voluntary intoxication in the court's assessment of what is reasonable for him or her to be aware of or to do. Intoxication covers not just alcohol but drugs or naturally occurring stimulants such as fungi.
There is, therefore, an evidential burden on the defendant to displace the presumption of voluntariness. Once displaced, the burden on the prosecution of disproving voluntariness is to do so beyond reasonable doubt. I should be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government's reasons for rejecting this proposal from the Law Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask my noble friends respectfully what this adds to the broad effect of extant law. I do not pretend to understand the law, but I should like to know what it is in this clause as it stands that is defective in the law.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell for his comments. We are trying to cure a defect in the new law rather than in the old one.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say respectfully that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, puts his finger on it. We already have solid jurisprudence on this, which applies across the piece. Intoxication can present particular problems for courts in deciding whether a person was responsible for his actions at the time when he or she committed a criminal act. The problems are clearly increasing because the use of drink and drugs for recreational purposes is increasing in our society. However, intoxication can play a particularly dangerous role because it creates circumstances where violence is more likely.
The Law Commission identified that in its work on child deaths. Noble Lords have also clearly and rightly identified this as a particular problem in the "familial homicide" scenario. But, frankly, I am not convinced that this amendment is the right way to deal with it. I do not disagree with the thrust of the amendment, but the case law on the effect of voluntary intoxication generally and the specific wording of the Bill make the amendment unnecessary. Indeed, spelling out the effect in this way in this case may be a recipe for confusion.
To begin with, I think it is important that the possible effect of intoxication is dealt with consistently across the piece as far as concerns criminal law. So I am very reluctant to consider treating a particular offence separately in this regard. It is well established that a defendant cannot escape liability for offences on the basis that he was too drunk to appreciate a risk that would have been apparent when sober. It is also clear from the wording of the Bill that the test in Clause 4(1)(d)(i) relates to a risk of which the defendant,
"was, or ought to have been, aware",

GC 369
and in (ii) the steps which,
"he could reasonably have been expected to take".
In any event, appreciating the risk of harm and taking reasonable steps to prevent the harm occurring are not in general single, self-contained events. They take place over a period of time. So I think it would be difficult for any defendant to put forward the argument that he did not realise there was a risk of harm because he was too drunk to make that assessment. He might have been too drunk on Tuesday evening to realise that there was a risk, but the risk would have been present earlier on the Tuesday, and on the Monday and Wednesday too. Nor can a defendant say that he could not reasonably take steps to prevent the harm because he was drunk because, again, he has time to take the steps when he is sober, so that will not do either. No doubt the court will take a view on whether it was "reasonable" for him to be drunk in the first instance. I know that some people think there can be given cause, although I am teetotal and have difficulty with that.
In short, intoxication is a general difficulty but I think the amendment before the Committee does not add any practical value to the provisions of the Bill. As noble Lords are aware, there is always a danger in legislating where it is not needed and in adding provisions which, by their very existence in one specific context, may affect interpretation of other areas of criminal law. I know from the strictures which have come at me from all parts of previous Committees that that is not something with which noble Lords find favour.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: For the avoidance of doubt, can the noble Baroness therefore confirm that involuntary intoxication by drink or drugs remains a defence to this new offence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It does because of the case law. It indicates that if someone slips you a Mickey Finn, he does something without your knowledge and somehow suborns your will. Let us suppose that one of your Lordships is minded to tell me that the orange juice he was giving me was in fact laced with vodka but I did not notice and there were consequences, certainly I would say that was pretty involuntary.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell for assisting in the clarification of this point and also to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and in the mean time beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"THE STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY
(1) A person who is regarded as a member of the household within the meaning of section 4(4) at the relevant time has the responsibility imposed by this section ("the statutory responsibility").
(2)"The relevant time" means—

(a) the time when the offence was committed (if known); or

GC 370

(b) any time during the period within which the offence could have been committed.

(3)The statutory responsibility is responsibility for assisting the court in any proceedings in respect of the offence, by providing as much information as the person is able to give about whether and, if so, by whom and in what circumstances the offence was committed."
The noble Baroness said: I rise with some trepidation to move Amendment No. 31 and wait to see what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will have to say on this. I have tried, as a matter of course, to give the Government the opportunity to respond on the record to the proposals by the Law Commission. There are organisations outwith this House which wonder why the Government have diverged from them. My noble friend's previous amendment was one such example and we received a robust answer on that.
I turn to what is called "the statutory responsibility". The objective of the Law Commission amendment is to create a statutory responsibility to assist the police and the courts. This is different from Amendment No. 27, which simply asked the Government to clarify the fact that Clause 4(4) imposes a responsibility upon a particular category of people so that they can fall foul of the offence in Clause 4 if they cause harm or fail to prevent harm occurring to a child or vulnerable person where that harm results in death. So, this is a different approach. The Law Commission adopted a completely different approach to the whole of Clause 5 and in a sense this is a precursor to the debates on Clause 5, which I now suspect we shall have on another day.
My new clause establishes a statutory responsibility in persons who have responsibility for a child or vulnerable adult who has been the victim of the offence that has led to their death. The responsibility is to assist the police and the courts by giving such information as they are able to do.
The Law Commission noted that on its own this proposal attracted little adverse comment as a matter of principle and amended its original proposals to avoid all opposition. The change it made was so that the responsibility to give information was limited to that which you were able to give. It was not just a straightforward case of "give information or else", but only information which you were able to give. This is the alternative approach to that which we are building up to in Clause 5. I beg, to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am extremely surprised to hear that this originates from the Law Commission. It seems to be contrary to natural justice. It is almost certainly a breach of the Human Rights Act and of various other things which one might add. What it is saying is, "You committed the offence and it is your duty to tell us whether you did. Put your hand up and say, 'I did it'." That does not make sense at all.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am saying nothing!
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am tempted to say just that I agree. However, I know that the noble Baroness wants me to put on the record what the thinking is so

GC 371
that those outside the Committee will understand it. As I always do what the noble Baroness invites me to do, 1 think I should.
The amendment seeks to develop the proposal made by the Law Commission in its report that those with responsibility for a child at the time that they are the victim of certain specified offences should be under a responsibility to assist the police with their investigations into the offence and the courts in any proceedings in respect of that offence. The responsibility is to provide as much information as the person is able to about whether and if so by whom and in what circumstances the offence was committed.
The amendment, as did the Law Commission's draft, focuses the responsibility slightly differently by linking it to the proposed new offence in Clause 4 and by limiting it to a responsibility to assist the court rather than the police and courts. However, the thrust of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is still there.
The Law Commission's work on this subject has been enormously helpful and has moved this whole area on a great deal. The commission saw its proposed statutory responsibility as an important part of the scheme linked very closely to the drawing of adverse inferences and the postponement of the "case to answer" decision that they also proposed. We have also developed proposals for adverse inferences and the postponement of the "case to answer" decision, which we shall shortly discuss in more detail, but—it is a very important "but"—we have linked this closely to the circumstances of the new offence rather than founding these in a statutory responsibility. We therefore think that our package of proposals will be effective in tackling the core cases at which they are targeted and that a statutory responsibility may not add substantially to this package.
However, the Law Commission certainly saw some attraction in setting out in statute a clear message that we expect those with responsibility for children and vulnerable adults to provide information where that child or vulnerable adult is the victim of a serious criminal offence, although I should make clear that this proposal was of course subject to the right not to incriminate oneself.
The proposal certainly merits further consideration. From the response of the noble Baroness and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I hear the indication that I should not trouble myself unduly in considering this proposal much further. If that indication is made by the noble Baroness at the end of my response, I should be happy to do so.
Likewise, the amendment before the Committee targets the responsibility at the court process rather than the police and courts as the Law Commission proposes. The benefits of these two different approaches perhaps needs to he considered if we were to go down this line.
GC 372
While building on the work of the Law Commission, the scheme that we propose differs in key respects. Therefore, a statutory responsibility would not have the same role to play in our scheme as the Law Commission saw for its proposed responsibility. However, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to chase this hare because I am waiting for the invitation from the noble Baroness to stop here.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the next clause, the Government do their best to drive a coach and horses through the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, and so on. Therefore, it is very nice to hear the noble Baroness standing on the side of the angels in relation to this matter. I suggest that the weakness of the amendment is that there is no sanction if a person says, "Well, I am a member of the household. You are giving me a statutory responsibility but I am going to be irresponsible". So where does that get us? It seems to me that if the Law Commission had a clause such as that, it certainly could not be extracted bleeding from its proposals in the way the amendment seeks to do.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I purposely extracted the measure bleeding from the Law Commission's Bill because I hoped to set in train the debate that we have had. I refer to the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If Members of the Committee think that this amendment breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, I wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, says about Clause 5 and whether that might also breach human rights. I am grateful to the Minister for putting on the record why this particular approach would not be appropriate, and I agree with her on that. Clause 5 is yet to come.
She tantalisingly said that she will always do what I invite her to do. Given the time, I am looking invitingly at the Government Benches and hoping that, as I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, the Government Whip will propose that we meet on another day to discuss the joys of Clause 5. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): In the light of the discussion we had earlier, it would not be appropriate to start Clause 5. I believe that the Committee should adjourn
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I were to invite the Committee to continue, I believe I would be accused under the European convention of cruel and inhumane punishment. Nothing that I have said in relation to the last amendment should give anyone any indication that I think that the proposals in Part 5 are not robust and compliant.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, 28 January at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Project Licence Applications
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Project Licence Applications
  Asylum Reform
  Asylum Reform
  Charities
  Charities
  Transpennine Rail Services: Blackpool-Scarborough
  Transpennine Rail Services: Blackpool-Scarborough
  Pension Credit
  Pension Credit
  Company Law Reform
  Company Law Reform
  Equal Pay Act 1970
  Equal Pay Act 1970
  Patent Infringements
  Patent Infringements

  Wassenaar Arrangement
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Noble Lords will wish to be aware of the outcome of the Plenary of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies which took place in Vienna on 10 to 12 December 2003.

  The Arrangement is the only multilateral export control forum dealing with conventional arms. Its purpose is to prevent destabilising accumulations of conventional weapons in sensitive parts of the world by promoting transparency and responsibility in transfers of arms and dual-use goods. The Government believe the Arrangement has an important role to play in improving arms exporting practices amongst its current participating states, and can help to spread good practice to other countries.

  The plenary meeting concluded a year-long review of the Arrangement, which has agreed a number of important changes to its operations, including: enhanced controls on conventional arms with special emphasis on strengthening capabilities of participating states to combat the threat of terrorism; increased transparency with the addition of mandatory reporting for all small arms and light weapons (SALW) exports, strict controls on Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) transfers; guidelines on arms brokering; and adopting end-use oriented controls encouraging member governments to impose export controls on certain unlisted items when necessary to support the United Nations arms embargoes. The question of admission of new participating states was discussed, although no decisions in this area were taken at the plenary. The plenary also agreed on the importance of work to explain the Arrangement's merits to non-participating states.

  A Ministerial Statement was agreed in the name of Ministers from all WA states and released at the end of the plenary. The purpose of this statement was to reaffirm the importance participating states attach to the Wassenaar Arrangement as a forum for the promotion of peace and stability, as well as to raise the Arrangement's public profile. It reads as follows:
  "Ministers of the thirty-three Participating States in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies are pleased that the quadrennial assessment of the functioning of the Arrangement has concluded with several important agreements to advance further the Wassenaar arrangement's non-proliferation and international security and stability goals.
  We wish to affirm the importance of the Wassenaar Arrangement as one of the pillars of multilateral efforts towards peace and stability. We believe agreements reached in the context of the Wassenaar Arrangement can play a critical role in preventing the diversion of legal arms transfers and in promoting responsible national export control policies for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. In this context, we strongly
  WS 44
  endorse multilateral efforts to develop strict controls on the transfer of Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) that continue to pose one of the most serious threats to the safety of international civil aviation.
  As we look at ahead and consider the future threats to international security and stability, we are convinced that countries committed to a stable international order must work together closely to prevent conventional weapons and sensitive dual-use technologies from being used to perpetrate terrorist acts. Terrorists must be stopped from diverting weapons from legitimate channels. Building upon the momentum developed during the 2003 Assessment, we believe that continued collaboration between the Participating States of the Wassenaar Arrangement will make a significant contribution to global security".

  The Government will continue to work for further changes to the Arrangement so that it becomes an even more effective forum for the promotion of responsible and transparent exporting practices for strategic goods.

  European Parliamentary and Local Elections: Pilot Regions for 2004
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  In December it was announced that, subject to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections Pilot Bill achieving Royal Assent, the north-east and East Midlands regions would pilot all postal voting at the combined European parliamentary and local elections in June 2004. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Mr Christopher Leslie can today announce that it is our intention that two further regions will also hold all-postal pilots. These regions will be Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west.

  My honourable friend is pleased to be able to announce these further regions so that the important work of preparing for the pilot elections can begin in earnest. We have identified Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west after discussion with electoral administrators and look forward to those regions, alongside the north-east and East Midlands, helping us to progress our electoral modernisation agenda.

  Commemorative Crown 2004
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today announced that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve his recommendation that a commemorative crown should be issued in 2004 to mark the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France.

  Collector versions of the coin will be released at a premium above face value and, during the course of the year, the coin will also become available at its face value of five pounds from banks and post offices.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health (Miss Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce that, after a two-year period of consultation and consideration, we propose to seek Parliament's approval for regulations, under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, to enable people conceived by donated sperm, eggs or embryos in future to know the identity of their donor.

  We propose that donors who donate from 1 April 2005 will do so on the understanding that any child born as a result of their donation will be able to obtain from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority identifying details about them when the child reaches the age of 18. This will not apply to people who have donated before that time. It means that the first donor-conceived people to receive identifying information about their donors would do so in 2023.

  I must stress that removal of anonymity will not lead to the donor having any responsibility, parental, financial or otherwise, for the child.

  In addition, as we announced on 28 January 2003, the regulations will provide for non-identifying information about donors to be given, on request, to donor-conceived people who were born after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's register came into effect in 1991. This will be available to 18 year-olds in 2010. The non-identifying information will be standardised so that, from 2022, all donor-conceived people who request it will be able to receive the same categories of information.

  The decision that it is right to remove donor anonymity has been informed by a public consultation on the provision of information to donor-conceived people; a programme of work with clinics and donors; consideration of the position in other countries; and a comparison with the information available to adopted people. We have also listened to the voices of donor-conceived people. Our conclusion is that the interests of the child are paramount, and that the position of donor-conceived people should be aligned more closely with that of adopted people, with access to identifying information about their donor when they reach age 18.

  We intend to use the opportunity of the removal of anonymity to encourage a change in the culture of sperm, egg and embryo donation. By bringing more openness to it, we want to see wider recognition of the value and importance of such donations, and greater public appreciation of the dramatic difference that the donors can make to lives and families. To support the transition to identifiable donors, we will raise consciousness of the need for donors and the contribution they make to our society through a campaign for public awareness.

  The regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

  We have also considered developments that are taking place more widely in the assisted reproduction area. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act has been in
  WS 46
  force since 1991. It was landmark legislation at the time, setting up the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and introducing the first regulatory regime in the world specifically for the newly developing field of assisted reproduction. Since then, over 73, 000 babies have been born in the UK as a result of treatment procedures regulated under the Act.

  Bearing in mind the speed at which new technologies in the fertility field develop, and the complex ethical issues often associated with them, the Act has stood the test of time remarkably well.

  However, any cutting-edge legislation, no matter how successful, at some stage needs to be reconsidered and any necessary readjustments made to ensure that it continues to be effective. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is no exception. Developments in new technologies, changes in public perception of ethical issues, and the effect of international developments ail have an impact and need to be considered.

  I have concluded, therefore, that it is time to review the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The review will begin in 2004 and will include a full public consultation exercise in 2005. The review will be carried out by the department, and will include taking account of the work of the Science and Technology Committee, which is considering human reproductive technologies and the law and plans to report later this year. We welcome the work of the committee.

  The review will be wide-ranging, but will exclude certain issues such as embryo research, stem cells and cloning which have been extensively and conclusively debated in Parliament in recent years. The issues that we envisage the review addressing include the range of procedures covered by the Act, checking the safety and efficacy of techniques, ethical considerations and effective regulation.

  The Act has been very successful landmark legislation. We believe that it is right to review it to ensure that it continues to be effective in the 21st century.

  Gulf Veterans: Mortality Data
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  As part of the Government's commitment to investigate Gulf veterans' illnesses openly and honestly, data on mortality of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict are regularly published. The most recent figures, for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2003, were published on 15 January 2004. The key tables from that publication are set out below. Table 1 gives the causes of death to UK Gulf veterans over that period; table 2 shows the deaths due to malignant neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans. As with previous information, the data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group, known as the Era cohort, which is made up of Armed Forces personnel of a similar age, gender, service, regular/reservist status and rank who were not deployed.
  WS 47

  Table 1: Deaths to UK Gulf veterans1 1 April 1991–31 December 2003

  Causes2

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  All deaths

  632

  643

  0.98

  (0.88–1.09)

  All cause coded deaths

  619

  627

  0.98

  (0.88–1.10)

  I — XVI

  Disease-related causes

  265

  321

  0.82

  (0.70–0.97)

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  6

  3

  1.99

  (0.43–12.30)

  II

  Cancers

  115

  130

  0.88

  (0.68–1.14)

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  6

  0.17

  (0.00–1.37)

  V

  Mental disorders

  13

  16

  0.81

  (0.36–1.79)

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  10

  11

  0.90

  (0.34–2.35)

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  88

  113

  0.77

  (0.58–1.03)

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  11

  8

  1.37

  (0.50–3.92)

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  16

  20

  0.80

  (0 39–1.62)

  IV, X—XVI

  All other disease-related causes3

  5

  14

  0.36

  (0.10–1.04)

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  354

  306

  1.15

  (0.99–1.35)

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  (0.39–196.03)

  Motor vehicle accidents

  124

  101

  1.22

  (0.93–1.60)

  Water transport accidents

  5

  1

  4.98

  (0.56–235.34)

  Air and space accidents

  26

  19

  1.36

  (0.73–2.60)

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  1

  0.00

  (0.00–38.81)

  Accidental poisoning

  14

  15

  0.93

  (0.42–2.06)

  Accidental falls

  8

  8

  1.00

  (0.33–3.04)

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  2

  0.00

  (0.00–5.30)

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  (0.07–13.73)

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  17

  7

  2.42

  (0.95–6.89)

  Other accidents

  32

  30

  1.06

  (0.62–1.81)

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  (0.00–5.30)

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  113

  108

  1.04

  (0.79–1.37)

  Homicide

  6

  5

  1.19

  (0.30–4.95)

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  (0.11–4.41)

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  9

  12

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  4

  4

  Notes

  1 Service and Ex-Service personnel only.

  2 Causes have been coded to the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD-9), 1977.

  3 Includes cases with insufficient information on the death certificate to provide a known cause of death.

  Table 2: Deaths due to Malignant neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans 1 April 1991–31 December 2003

  Major anatomical sites and specific sites with at least 5 deaths in one of the cohorts

  ICD Chapter

  Anatomical site

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality Rate Ratio

  95% Confidence Interval

  140–149

  Malignant neoplasms of lip, oral cavity and pharynx

  6

  4

  1.49

  (0.35–7.19)

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs and peritoneum of which:

  25

  31

  0.80

  (0.45–1.40)

  150

  Malignant neoplasms of oesophagus

  9

  4

  2.24

  (0.62–9.95)

  153

  Malignant neoplasms of colon

  4

  11

  0.36

  (0.08–1.22)

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasms of respiratory and intrathoracic organs of which:

  17

  26

  0.65

  (0.33–1.25)

  162

  Malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung

  15

  24

  0.62

  (0.30–1.24)

  170–175

  Malignant neoplasms of bone, connective tissue, skin and breast of which:

  16

  14

  1.14

  (0.52–2.52)

  172

  Malignant neoplasms of skin

  7

  6

  1.16

  (0.33–4.18)

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasms of genitourinary organs

  4

  7

  0.57

  (0.12 –2.24)

  190–199

  Malignant neoplasms of other and unspecified sites of which:

  23

  31

  0.74

  (0.41–1.31)

  199

  Malignant neoplasms of brain

  15

  15

  1.00

  (0.45–2.18)

  200–208

  Malignant neoplasms of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue of which:

  21

  14

  1.49

  (0.72–3.17)

  200–202

  Lymphomas

  10

  8

  1.24

  (0.44–3.63)

  204–208

  Leukaemias

  9

  6

  1.49

  (0.47– 5.10)

  235–239

  Neoplasm of uncertain behaviour or unspecified nature

  3

  3

  1.00

  (0.13– 7.43)