Sitting of 28 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]. (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
  That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Question again proposed.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Wednesday 4 February.

DR. DAVID KELLY
Ordered,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly CMG.—[Margaret Moran.]

Speaker's Statement
11.34 am
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Hutton is due to publish his report later this morning on his investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly. I am aware of the considerable interest in Lord Hutton's findings. In those exceptional circumstances, I have agreed that the Prime Minister may make a statement on this matter this afternoon. The statement will take place at a convenient moment after 2 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Millennium Development Targets
    David Cairns: What progress is being made with the millennium development target to make available the benefits of information and communications technologies to people in developing countries. [151163]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Good progress is being made in many developing countries in spreading the benefits of information and communications technology to their people. For example, people in developing countries now own 46 per cent. of all mobile phones, with countries such as Uganda seeing user numbers double each year. By the end of June last year, the number of internet users in China had risen to 68 million. That represents just 5.3 per cent. of the population, so it also demonstrates the considerable challenge that still remains to spread the benefits of ICT throughout developing countries.
    David Cairns: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. A couple of weeks ago, Martin McCluskey, a young constituent, went to Ghana as part of his gap year in order to teach villagers in a very rural part of the country how to use the computers that they had had for some time, but had lacked the experience and training to make them work. Does my hon. Friend agree that computing technology is a vital development tool, but that there is no point in providing people with computers if we do not also provide the training and expertise to make them work? What help and assistance can the Government give to voluntary schemes such as the one Martin is on, and what direct assistance can the Minister's Department provide for training and knowledge-based skills?
    Mr. Thomas: I commend my hon. Friend's constituent for going out to Ghana to work and provide training for people in the village. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the many volunteers who go out from this country to developing countries, and to the work of organisations such as the Voluntary Services Organisation, with which we are working closely in Ghana to provide information on how to use ICT there. We are also working directly with the Ghana education service to help it to use ICT to deliver better access to the curriculum for 30,000 untrained teachers in the country, so that the quality of education in Ghana can improve significantly.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in praising the work of Cisco Systems, which, together with the International Telecommunication Union, is establishing more than 20 internet training centres in developing countries? Will the Minister assure

    295
    the House, however, that, important as it is to try to reduce the digital divide, it will not take away resources from the important fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries?
    Mr. Thomas: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work not only of the particular company to which he referred, but to a whole series of private sector companies that are seeing what they can do to invest in ICT across the developing world. We need to play our part in the international community to ensure that the regulatory system is such that companies are keen to invest. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we view ICT as a way of spreading messages to help in the fight against HIV/AIDS, so there is no need for the two to be mutually exclusive.
    Ms Julia Drown: If we are to meet this and all the other development targets, there will need to be a massive increase in overseas aid and assistance. When does my hon. Friend believe that we might reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product on overseas aid? Given that Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have topped that target for several years, should we not be able to reach it, too?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will know that we remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. target. We believe that we will have reached 0.4 per cent. by 2005–06, when the budget for international development will have risen to £4.5 billion. My hon. Friend will also know how much that contrasts with the record of the Conservatives, who saw moneys on international development halved in their 18 years in office.

    Southern Asia (HIV/AIDS)
    James Purnell: If he will make a statement on the growth of HIV/AIDS in southern Asia. [151164]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): HIV/AIDS is a critical development issue for south Asia. At over 4 million, India has the second largest number of HIV infections of any country in the world. If current rates of growth continue, there may be 25 million people infected in that country alone by 2010. Although numbers of people infected with HIV in other south Asian countries remain low, the conditions are in place for a rapid increase in transmission without comprehensive action. The recent "Call for Action on HIV/AIDS", which the Government published on 1 December, recognises the importance of action in south Asia to achieve a more effective global response to this epidemic.
    James Purnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As he says, it is possible that by 2010 India will have more cases than anywhere else in the world. Does he agree that the world needs to focus as much on Asia as on Africa, because a similar potential tragedy is happening in Asia? In particular, what are the Government doing to work with the Indian
    296
    Government to reduce the impact on India, and with neighbouring countries to try to reduce the spread of this disease to Bangladesh and Pakistan?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right: there is a window of opportunity at the moment to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in south Asia so that it does not reach the levels in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. We are funding the National AIDS Control Organisation of India to the tune of £123 million and are working with it closely on the design of a more effective strategy. We are also working closely with similar AIDS-control organisations in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and shortly will be doing the same in Nepal. South Asian countries themselves are beginning to recognise the importance of further work on HIV/AIDS. We need to see their Governments taking more of a lead in the fight to prevent discrimination and stigma from halting and inhibiting the fight against HIV/AIDS.
    Tom Brake: In 2002, the Prime Minister pledged that Africa would be a priority in his second term of government. With an HIV/AIDS pandemic threatening in southern Asia, and with African populations devastated by HIV/AIDS, it is now time for the Prime Minister to turn his words into more decisive action. Does the Minister agree that making international development a priority of the United Kingdom presidencies of the EU and the G8 would give the international community the impetus it needs to preempt a disaster in southern Asia and make decisive, positive changes in Africa?
    Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate this Government on the fact that there has been a sevenfold increase since 1997 in the amount of money we are spending to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS. As he knows, we are committed to spending £1 billion in Africa by 2005–06. As for the £320 million that has not yet been allocated, we have said that we shall make HIV/AIDS a priority for that spend. I am sure that there will be further discussions about this during our presidencies of the G8 and the European Union.
    Tony Worthington: What steps are being taken to avoid making the mistakes in south Asia that were made in Africa? I am thinking particularly of mother-to-child transmission. What steps are being taken to ensure that reproductive health services and the AIDS services are brought closer together to stop the tragic transmission of HIV from mothers to children?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of mother-to-child transmission has been a big problem in the spread of HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. We are working very closely with south Asian Governments in designing effective prevention programmes that will prevent the mistakes that were made in tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic earlier in Africa from occurring in south Asia.
    Mother-to-child transmission is one of the issues on which we are working with Governments and AIDS-control organisations in southern Asian states. It is an

    297
    issue that we are continuing to talk very closely about with the Governments, because political leadership is at the absolute heart of a strong response in southern Asia.
    Alistair Burt: The Minister will be aware that there have been some claims recently that the number of people affected in Africa is not as great as was once claimed. Bearing in mind the importance of that, the difficulty of ensuring accuracy, and the crucial importance of maintaining confidence in what is happening, is the hon. Gentleman certain that there is a good system in place for measuring accurately the number of people involved, so that we do not get a fuss about claim and counter-claim, which is currently affecting confidence in tackling the disease in Africa?
    Mr. Thomas: It is certainly true that there have been a number of expressions of concern about the statistics. We are confident that the statistics used by UNAIDS—the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS—which we use in order to understand the HIV/AIDS epidemic, are accurate. The continuing worry about the level of the statistics is a matter of concern, but we need to get on with scaling up our response and the response of the international community, instead of worrying about the concerns or a small number of people about the statistics.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the efforts that his Department is making to improve standards of living in Zimbabwe. [151166]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The disastrous policies of the Government of Zimbabwe have led to economic collapse and a major humanitarian crisis. Zimbabwe has been suspended from the IMF, and maize production is a fraction of what it was a few years ago. The UK and other donors are trying to relieve the increasing suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans through humanitarian aid. DFID has contributed £62 million for humanitarian assistance since the crisis began in 2001, and provides further funds to help tackle HIV/AIDS.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but can he assure the House that there is a fair distribution of that aid in Zimbabwe, and that it is not used for political purposes?
    Hilary Benn: I can assure my hon. Friend that the international community, which is providing support to meet the crisis in Zimbabwe—the UK is the second largest contributor of humanitarian aid—is very clear and very firm in not tolerating any political interference in the distribution of food aid. A memorandum of understanding has been agreed with the Government of Zimbabwe. The same cannot be said about the operations of the grain marketing board, which is under the control of the Government of Zimbabwe. If any hon. Members have particular concerns about the operation and distribution of food aid, I ask them to
    298
    draw them to my attention, and I repeat my pledge that I shall investigate them. So far, despite the concerns, the system appears to be operating reasonably well.
    Mr. John Bercow: When inflation in Zimbabwe is running at approximately 600 per cent., 6 million people in that country face the prospect of starvation, and one quarter of all adults there are HIV positive, what assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the extent of currency manipulation of aid moneys by ZANU-PF officials and their business allies?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the scale of the economic catastrophe. I would add to the list that he has just given the fact that GDP has collapsed by 40 per cent. in the last three years. I have not, and the Department has not, made an assessment of the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about currency speculation, because we are rightly devoting our effort and attention to feeding the people who need to be assisted. The latest statistics indicate that the number of those in need this year will be higher than was previously thought, in particular because the assessment from!rural areas indicates that there are now more people in need.
    Mr. Bercow: I respect what the Secretary of State said, but I urge him to conduct an assessment, given that the European Communities Court of Auditors Report for 2002 shows that no less than 89 per cent. of EU aid money is wasted because ZANU-PF spivs buy hard currency at official rates, sell it at black market rates and pocket the exorbitant difference between the two. What plans can the right hon. Gentleman develop to ensure that donor states and the European Union can take control of the conversion of aid moneys into local currency, in the interests in Zimbabwe of the long-suffering people of that beautiful but beleaguered country?
    Hilary Benn: I shall gladly look further into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. But the most important step that we can take, and that I can take as Secretary of State, is to ensure that the development assistance that we give directly is not used in that way. Most of it goes on humanitarian aid. The other projects relate to health and HIV/AIDS. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have very strong systems in place to make sure that the problem he refers to does not occur in relation to UK aid.
    Mr. Bill Olner: Sadly, the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans has gone off the main agenda globally, but they continue to suffer intensely, particularly on food aid—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask that the House allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard.
    Mr. Olner: Has my right hon. Friend had talks with Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries with a view to their intervening to ensure that food aid is distributed fairly and is not distributed by ZANU-PF people?
    Hilary Benn: As I said in answer to an earlier question, we and the other donors work very hard to

    299
    ensure that the aid that the international community gives is not diverted in the way that my hon. Friend is concerned about. In all of our conversations and discussions with neighbouring countries, we raise the problem of Zimbabwe, because in the end this is a catastrophe for the people of that country. We are doing our bit to assist and to make sure that the people do not suffer any more because they happen to have a rotten Government, but a resolution within Zimbabwe itself is required if the situation is to be brought to an end.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Will the Secretary of State consider airlifting food aid to opposition areas if it can be proved that the corrupt regime in Zimbabwe is, for political purposes, stopping those people being adequately fed?
    Hilary Benn: As I said earlier, if hon. Members or others have any evidence of interference in the proper distribution of the international food aid, including that which the UK supports, I shall be happy to consider what needs to be done. I can only say that so far the system that we have, and the strong and determined response of the international community in making clear to the Zimbabwean authorities that we will not tolerate such interference, indicates to me that distribution is working reasonably well; but I will continue to consider all measures that are necessary to ensure that the food gets to the people who need it.

    Poverty
    Brian White: If he will make a statement on the steps being taken by the United Nations to increase its effectiveness in fighting poverty. [151167]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The UN and its institutions play a unique role in promoting development and fighting poverty. The UN's reform programme aims to achieve better co-ordination by the different UN agencies and better support for countries' own poverty reduction plans. The Secretary-General intends to hold an event in 2005 to take stock of progress towards the millennium development goals.
    Brian White: I welcome the Minister's response, and particularly the work of his Department, but he will be aware that many of the economic statistics that are used by international institutions do not fully reflect the work that goes into alleviating poverty and protecting the environment. Will he undertake to consider the proposals of various economists for new statistical measures that will more accurately reflect the work on poverty?
    Hilary Benn: I am always happy to consider the ideas of others for measuring as effectively as possible the progress that we are or are not making internationally on meeting the millennium development goals. The UN monitors progress towards those goals using information drawn from a number of sources, and it covers tangible matters, such as the percentage of the population that has access to clean water, literacy rates, and the percentage of the population that is being lifted
    300
    out of poverty. In the millennium development goals, we have a clear set of indicators against which we and the people of developing countries can judge whether we are making progress.
    Mr. Robert Key: What assessment has the Secretary of State made on the impact of the US Administration's withdrawal of funds to the United Nations Population Fund and its reproductive health policies, which is having a deleterious effect on many poverty reduction programmes around the world?
    Hilary Benn: I agree that that decision is regrettable. It is a matter for the US Administration, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are strong supporters of the UNFPA, because work on reproductive health in particular is fundamental to improving mothers' health and to a better life for children, and it is also fundamental to tackling the HIV/AIDS crisis.
    Ian Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider strengthening the links between training for democracy, citizenship, labour market development and industrial relations when awarding aid?
    Hilary Benn: We will shortly produce a policy document on labour standards, and my hon. Friend draws attention to an important contribution that the Labour movement can make in countries by putting pressure on Governments to increase people's living standards. I shall ensure that I send my hon. Friend a copy, because it deals with one of the ways, along with civil society and a thriving democracy, that Governments can be called to account on the extent to which they tackle poverty and improve health and education. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is very noisy, and it is unfair to the Minister and to the Members who are asking questions.

    Iraq
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the progress of reconstruction in Iraq. [151168]
    The Secretary of State for international Development (Hilary Benn): In spite of the security situation in Iraq, the coalition provisional authority, together with Iraqi ministries, is making significant progress with reconstruction. Large numbers of projects are under way, and finance pledged at the Madrid donors conference last October is now beginning to assist. DFID will publish its interim country assistance plan for Iraq shortly, and we are making good progress with our projects in the south of Iraq, which will significantly improve the provision of essential services to over 5 million people.
    Mr. Bacon: Given the many warnings beforehand of what would happen following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, why did the National Audit Office

    301
    team visiting Iraq find that plans to co-ordinate the civilian response following the armed intervention were not well developed?
    Hilary Benn: The planning was for the worst possible outcome, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the effort and money that DFID committed to that was to ensure that if the worst did come about, we were ready to deal with any humanitarian crisis. Thankfully, that proved not to be the case because the conflict was much less extensive in scale and shorter than people had anticipated, and since then we have rightly turned our attention to the improvement of essential services and infrastructure. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware because he can see the statistics, considerable progress has been made in recent months in improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, which is fundamental not just to their own future but to the success of the political process in which we are also now engaged.
    Julie Morgan: What can my right hon. Friend do to help my constituent Mr. Merzook's elderly parents from Baghdad, who wept in my office last Friday because they lost all their possessions—their clothes, their home, their car—when three American rockets hit their house, and they have been unable to get any help or compensation since that date?
    Hilary Benn: I am very concerned to hear about the case my hon. Friend raises. If she lets me have the details, I undertake to pass them on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State's previous answer just will not wash. After eight calls from this Dispatch Box alone for a comprehensive plan for reconstructing Iraq, on 3 February the Prime Minister told us:
    "We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol.399, c.36.]
    What does the Minister have to say, then, to the report by the National Audit Office that
    "coordinated plans to bridge the gap between what the Armed Forces achieved in the short term and what was required to be done in the … longer term were not … well developed."?
    Thousands of lives and the future of a nation were and are at stake.
    Hilary Benn: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is to be found in what has happened. There are 17,000 reconstruction projects in Iraq as a result of the coalition's work; the food distribution system is working; nearly all the 240 hospitals in Iraq are now functioning; medical supply distribution is working, apart from some shortages; routine vaccination for children has restarted; most of the children are back in school; water and sanitation are improving; and the electricity supply is now above what it was before the conflict. Those achievements are clear evidence of the
    302
    steps that we have taken to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis because that is what they are entitled to see. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the House. We have only two minutes remaining and we must be able to hear hon. Members speak.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I was pleasantly surprised to hear President Bush advocate the establishment of free trade unions in Iraq as part of the process of reconstruction, but is my right hon. Friend aware that under law 151 passed in 1987 under Saddam Hussein, trade unions are banned in the public sector, which means that, technically, only under privatisation can trade unions exist properly within Iraq? Should it not be made clear that the circumstances in Iraq are such that the free trade unions advocated by President Bush can develop?
    Hilary Benn: I welcome calls from any quarter in support of the principle of free trade unionism, for reasons that my hon. Friend and I well understand. I was aware of the law to which he refers. It is one of a number of things that Saddam Hussein did that led to the enormous suffering that the Iraqi people experienced over 30 years, and it is one of many things that Iraqi self-government will have to put right. In the end, of course, it is for the Iraqis themselves to determine the new structure of law. My hon. Friend is, however, right to say that free trade unions are a fundamental part of a free society, and I, like him, look forward to the day when they can operate in Iraq, because it will be a further indication that that country is recovering from the nightmare that it has experienced over the past 30 years.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    David Burnside: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28th January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my engagements for the day, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deep condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the British soldier who has been tragically killed in Afghanistan today. Our thoughts are also with those who were wounded in that attack.
    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 join the Prime Minister in expressing condolences to the family and friends of that serving member of our armed forces.
    The Prime Minister was probably not aware as we were preparing for the great education debate yesterday that, the day before, the Minister with responsibility for education in the Northern Ireland Office announced

    303
    that academic selection between the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland should end. The Prime Minister should be aware that Northern Ireland has in its secondary sector and grammar schools, such as Antrim grammar school and Ballyclare high school, the highest academic standards—better than all the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a great selling point for Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister personally intervene to defend our grammar schools, as something good and positive in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is right, in that that is what the post-primary review body has recommended. I heard what he said, and no doubt there will be strong feelings on both sides of that argument. I simply point out to him that if we were fortunate enough to get devolved institutions back up and running in Northern Ireland, this would be a devolved matter again. Perhaps I can look forward to his help in securing that.
    Mr. Siôn Simon: As we now learn on the anniversary of the miners strike that the enemy within turns out to be the BBC, had we not better privatise it sooner rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: This is a day for diplomacy, at least at this stage.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I first—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow shouting. If there is any more shouting, the Members in question will have to be removed from the Chamber.
    Mr. Howard: May I first join the Prime Minister in expressing my sincere sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of the British soldier killed in Afghanistan today?
    Will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that no one in or around No. 10 Downing street leaked the Hutton report last night?
    The Prime Minister: I most certainly will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has leaked that from the Government or any part of government—I do not believe that to be the case. The chairman of the Conservative party was on television last night saying that the leaking of this document was a despicable act from "a morally bankrupt Government." Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would now produce the evidence for that statement.
    Mr. Howard: Is not the best way of getting the evidence for there to be a proper inquiry entirely independent of Government? Will we have such an inquiry? And, by the way, who does the Prime Minister think benefited from the leak?
    The Prime Minister: As we have already made clear, we are very happy that there should be an inquiry, and that is why we are in touch with Lord Hutton. If he recommends a certain course of action, we will take it.
    304
    Let me go back to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said a moment ago. He said that the inquiry was a way of getting at the evidence. In other words, there was no actual evidence for what the chairman of the Conservative party said. He did not say, "It might be that the leaking of the document is a despicable act from the Government." He said that the leaking was from the Government. What was the evidence for that?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that we get a full inquiry independent of Government, and I advise the Prime Minister, to coin a phrase, not to prejudge that inquiry.
    The background to the Hutton report is what the Government told us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The head of the Iraq survey group, David Kay, has now said that he does not believe that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction exist or existed in Iraq. His replacement said that the reason that they have not been found is that they arc probably not there. What does the Prime Minister think?
    The Prime Minister: First let me return to the inquiry, because I do not think that this point should be let go. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not want to prejudge the inquiry, but that is precisely what the chairman of the Conservative party has done. I therefore ask him again either to substantiate the claim that the Government leaked the document or to withdraw it, because he is getting rather a reputation for making such allegations when there is no substance to them.
    As for weapons of mass destruction, let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he said way before the Hutton inquiry:
    "The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a danger that we ignore at our peril… The threat to world peace from Iraq is acute and we must combat it with all legitimate means at our disposal."
    So do not let him pretend that he has somehow been misled over weapons of mass destruction; it is just another example of his blatant opportunism.
    Mr. Howard: Of course we supported the war; we still support the war, but we also want to get at the truth. The Prime Minister may not understand that it is important to get at the truth, but we do. He may not understand that it is possible both to support the war and to get at the truth, but we do.
    Nearly eight months ago, in May last year, the Prime Minister said that he was waiting to publish "a complete picture" of intelligence, including "what we've actually found". Some material, he said, was not yet public and
    "what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly".
    When will he publish that material, which he promised nearly eight months ago?
    The Prime Minister: When the Iraq survey group completes its work, which is what we have said right from the very beginning. It is surely right that when we have a group in Iraq looking at the evidence, we wait until that group concludes before we publish it.
    Just so that we are quite clear as to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accused me of, I tell the House what he said back in August last year:

    305
    "There was and is, in my view, a valid and legitimate case for having gone to war with Iraq. There was no need to lie, there was no need to mislead people in order to make that case. And to mislead the House of Commons and the nation in order to gain support for going to war is a very, very serious matter indeed.
    He also said:
    "What people are increasingly coming to realise is that we have a Prime Minister who is a stranger to the truth".
    I hope that if that allegation is found not to be proven, he will have the decency to apologise for it.
    Mr. Howard: We all know, Mr. Speaker, that a wider inquiry than the one that the Prime Minister has set out is necessary to test that allegation, so there is nothing for me to withdraw.
    Why on earth does the Prime Minister need to wait before publishing the evidence? Eight months ago he said that he was going to publish the material that he had. Just before Christmas he said that there was
    "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists"
    and
    "plans to develop long range ballistic missiles."
    What is he waiting for? Why does he not publish that evidence now?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, that evidence has already been published by the Iraq survey group. Let me remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Dr. Kay said that the ISG has found documents and equipment at undeclared laboratories and facilities. Dr. Kay continued:
    "Secondly, they have found substantial evidence of research and design work on longer-range missile delivery systems."
    Regarding biological weapons, he said that there was evidence that
    "the Iraqis continued research and development right up until the end to improve their ability to produce ricin."
    So the evidence is there and has already been published by the Iraq survey group.
    I suggest that the inquiry that we need is into the blatant opportunism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The truth is that he seeks to conceal the absence of any proper policies for the country by making allegations against the integrity of the Government that he cannot sustain.
    Mr. Howard: Will the Prime Minister place in the Library of the House of Commons today the massive evidence that he says has already seen published of
    "a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long-range ballistic missiles"?
    He says that the evidence has been published; will he put it in the House of Commons Library today so that the whole country can judge whether it supports that allegation?
    The Prime Minister: The evidence is, of course, in the Iraq survey group report. Let me make one other point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: there is, of course, a legitimate debate about whether the conflict in Iraq was right. That is a legitimate debate in which there can be legitimate disagreements. It is completely unnecessary to have a debate that suggests that
    306
    somehow we deliberately misled the public on that case. The plain fact is that that allegation is particularly absurd coming from him and the Conservative party, as I recall that even before the publication of the famous dossier he and his colleagues were urging me to take action and accusing me of dithering for not having done so. Whoever else can make that claim, frankly it does not lie in his mouth to make it.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Some hon. Gentlemen are too near the Chair to start shouting.
    Liz Blackman: If children do not develop competence in core skills in their early years, their expectations of going to university remain extremely low. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further funding and progress in that sector lie at the heart of widening access to university, just as much as the provisions in the Higher Education Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I obviously agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to point out that at the moment university students are funded by the taxpayer to a far more generous extent than pre-school years, primary school pupils or secondary school pupils. Her other point is surely right: 90 per cent. of young people who get two good A-levels go to university, and therefore the biggest determinant of whether people go to university is the quality of the education that they receive prior to university. For that very reason, it is important to continue the investment in pre-school years, in primary schools and in secondary schools.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Moving on from the rather rapid rewriting of history that we have just been entertained by, will the Prime Minister revisit more recent history—the outcome of last night's vote on his policy on top-up fees? Looking back to yesterday evening and the events that led up to the Division, does he think that it was decided by the overwhelming merits of the argument or that his close friend and near neighbour the Chancellor bailed him out at the eleventh hour?
    The Prime Minister: It was, of course, a result of the combined efforts of the Government to present a wonderful case to the public. I would prefer to have a narrow victory trying to do the right thing for the country than to have a narrow defeat trying to do the wrong thing.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Chancellor's face says it all. Will the Prime Minister join me in making representations to you, Mr. Speaker, that—given the considerable public and parliamentary interest—the legislation should be considered on the Floor of the House by a Committee of the whole House? That way, Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom and all parts of the Labour party would be able to contribute.
    The Prime Minister: No, I think that it should be considered in the normal way. What could be considered on the Floor of the House is a return to the debate between us about the Liberal Democrats and

    307
    how they will fund their commitments. I have further information for the House on that one. It will be recalled that I was telling the right hon. Gentleman that he had a whole lot of spending commitments that he could not finance. The Liberal Democrats have recently published a document with a list of their spending commitments, several of which seem—mysteriously—to have vanished. That includes one on transport, on which the document states:
    "Policy: Nearly £2 billion more for the railways…Liberal Democrat response: no longer a commitment due to changed circumstances."
    In relation to public sector staff, it states:
    "Policy: Training places for at least an extra 4,600 doctors and 27,500 nurses…Libdem response: these policies are now 'out of date'".
    I suggest that we should indeed have a debate on the Floor of the House, but that it should be on his spending policies.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC, under its charter, has a right to provide news and current affairs that is independent, objective and balanced? Does he think that the coverage of the leak of the Hutton inquiry report last night measured up to that standard?
    The Prime Minister: It is surely right, especially if there is to be an inquiry into it, that people do not make a judgment until they hear the facts. I can personally tell the House that I want nothing to detract from the Hutton report being heard in an unalloyed and unadulterated way by the British public. I hope that the media today allow that to happen.
    Bob Russell: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the decision by the Conservative-controlled Essex county council to abolish the school meals service from April? For many children, it is the main meal of the day, and for some children it is the only hot meal of the day. Will the Prime Minister engage ministerial colleagues in seeing what can be done to change that decision? For a start, will he revoke the Government's 1999 order behind which the Tories are hiding for their dastardly deed?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, in the end such decisions are for local authorities, but we believe that the provision of school meals for pupils, especially from the poorest backgrounds, has a beneficial effect on their education. Unfortunately, some of our youngsters go to school without having had a proper meal. It means that they do not learn or pay attention in their lessons as well as they should, and it is for that reason that we are deeply committed to ensuring that the funding is there for local authorities to provide that service. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: May I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the time, effort and commitment he spent on freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein? Will he give similar time, effort and commitment to freeing the Palestinian people of the illegal separation wall and
    308
    barbed wire fence that runs through their land and to freeing them from the tyranny and repression of the Israeli occupation of their land?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the strength of feeling on that issue. We have already made it clear—the Foreign Secretary has done so—that we do not agree with the building of the wall on Palestinian land and we have urged the Israeli Government to reroute the fence away from Palestinian land. It is important to emphasise two other points. First, we want to try to get back to negotiation on the road map as soon as possible, as that is the only prospect for long-term peace. Secondly, in the meantime, the immediate priority is to get an initiative together on security that allows the Israelis some confidence that they will not continually have suicide bombers coming into Israel and killing large numbers of innocent people. The Palestinians are suffering in this situation, and the Israelis are suffering. The only way to bridge between where we are and where we need to be—a renegotiation on the basis of the road map—is a proper security initiative that at least gives us the confidence that 100 per cent. effort is being applied on the Palestinian side.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why are the balance of payments deficits and the fiscal deficits so hopelessly out of control?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that for an instant. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to the time when I used to shadow him in the House of Commons, back in the late '80s and early '90s, he will find that the deficits on both were a darn sight worse than they are today. What is more, that was without our economic record—the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment and the highest employment for decades. I would have thought that he would be congratulating us on having got rid of the old boom and bust under the Tories and replacing it with economic stability.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: I know that the Prime Minister agrees that the aerospace industry is of crucial importance to the United Kingdom economy. I am sure, therefore, that he will share my pleasure at Monday's announcement that the AirTanker Ltd. proposal has been selected by the Ministry of Defence for its future strategic tanker programme. That was welcome news for the workers at Rolls-Royce and Airbus in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the complex negotiations needed for that very innovative contract will be completed as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although obviously there is a long way to go, because the negotiations are, necessarily, detailed. This week, the Government announced that we have begun negotiations with Air Tanker for the MOD's £13 billion pound future strategic tanker aircraft. If successful, the AirTanker bid will obviously be good news for the UK, creating several thousand jobs across the country, including in my hon. Friend's constituency—that comes along with a more optimistic CBI industrial trends survey, issued today. I recognise the tremendous

    309
    importance not just of the jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency but also of the skilled workforce who would benefit from such a bid being successful.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister intend to become the last person on the planet to maintain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being deployed in 45 minutes?
    The Prime Minister: It is not merely I who have maintained that Saddam Hussein had such weapons; it has been maintained by almost every country that has looked at the issue. That is why, in November 2002, the United Nations unanimously declared the existence of those weapons a threat to the world.
    Chris Ruane: The Prime Minister will be aware of my constituent's son, Joseph Scholes, who committed suicide at Stoke Heath prison at the tender age of 16 years. My constituent, Yvonne Scholes, is calling for a full public inquiry into her son's death—not just an inquest, a full public inquiry—to examine all aspects of his death, including sentencing and the practice of allocating young, vulnerable people to adult prisons. Will the Prime Minister do all that he can to ensure that that inquiry comes about?
    The Prime Minister: I offer my sympathies to the family of Joseph Scholes on his tragic death, which happened, I think, in March 2002 when he was only 16 years old. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the ombudsman for the Prison Service is conducting an investigation into the death, and I understand that a coroner's inquest will also be conducted. I also point out that the Prison Service has implemented the safer custody programme to help prisoners, especially young people and those in prison for the first time. The Youth Justice Board is specifically involved in that programme. I will look into the details of the investigation and write to my hon. Friend to try to give him some idea of what its time lines will be.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If it turns out that Saddam Hussein transferred his weapons of mass destruction to another country in the region, and given the Prime Minister's logic in taking this country to war with Iraq, what Action would he take against that country?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we should wait to see whether those claims are justified. I know that the Iraq survey group is specifically looking at the evidence for any such suggestion. There is one major difference between Saddam Hussein and any other country: Saddam Hussein actually used those weapons, not merely against his own people but against a neighbouring country.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: May I remind my right hon. Friend that next week there will be another important Second Reading? The Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill will be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) with cross-party support. May I urge my right hon. Friend to give Government support for the Bill, which
    310
    will benefit the 9,000 carers in my constituency? If any Ministers are wavering, they can have a private meeting with me in my office and I will persuade them.
    The Prime Minister: On behalf of Ministers, I thank my hon. Friend kindly; I have had a few private meetings with them over the past few days.
    I understand that the private Member's Bill will be responded to carefully and fully in the near future. We are looking closely at its proposals to see whether we can give it backing and I shall talk to Ministers about it. I hope that my hon. Friend understands, however, that the national carers strategy, which we introduced some years ago, has made an enormous difference in that area. The carers grants, introduced in 1999 to support local councils in arranging short-break services for carers, now have investment of more than £300 million. We shall be increasing that amount, and I am told that that will allow extended care and 130,000 further breaks for carers. We shall examine the private Member's Bill carefully and come back to my hon. Friend with a response in due course.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Which will come to light first, the identity of the leaker or the existence of the weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: Should not we simply allow any inquiry that Lord Hutton orders to take its course? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is particularly invidious for anybody, including the chairman of the Conservative party, to state that the Government have done something when it is apparent that there is absolutely no evidence to support that.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What help can the Prime Minister promise Liverpool and the rest of the north-west for housing regeneration, to match assistance already given to the south-east? Does he look forward to the prospect of a strong, elected North West regional assembly replacing the regional housing quangos and campaigning for a fair deal for the region?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for those reasons that we have given people a vote on the issue of regional assemblies. I think that about £500 million will he going into nine pathfinder areas, to work with regeneration authorities to tackle the position to which my hon. Friend refers. The other tremendously important thing is that we keep money going into regeneration projects, the new deal, Sure Start and dealing with antisocial behaviour. Those are all important parts of rebuilding those communities.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Prime Minister accept that the headlines which followed the publication of his dossier in September 2002 and which we know that his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, was extremely anxious to orchestrate, were wholly misleading?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that we misled people in any shape or form. The report that will be published later today will deal with all those issues and the hon. Gentleman should wait for it.
    Claire Ward: Does my right hon. Friend believe that investment in youth

    311
    services is an important part of tackling antisocial behaviour, and if so, what impact does he think that the cuts of £46,000 in the Watford area youth service budget and of £84,000 in play and early years staffing will have when they are implemented, as proposed by Liberal Democrat-controlled Watford borough council?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, for 2003–04, we shall provide about £500 million to the youth service. We think it extremely important that those programmes be maintained, and I am sorry if they are being cut in her area. I am sure that will do nothing either for the young people in her area or to tackle antisocial behaviour. It is not merely spending that is important, but also support for the antisocial behaviour legislation, and I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats voted against it.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What exactly did the Prime Minister mean when he promised the British people that "We will not introduce top-up fees"? Does he understand that many people now find that promise somewhat misleading?
    The Prime Minister: The existing fee structure was the payment of up-front fees, with no maintenance grant for students, and top-up fees were an unrestricted, existing fee top-up. What is now being introduced is not that at
    312
    all. What is being introduced is the abolition of up-front fees, so that no family has to pay those up-front fees, with maintenance grants reintroduced for the poorest students and a far fairer system of repayment for graduates, once they have graduated, plus a cap, set in legislation, until 2010. Surely that is better than the policies—in so far as one can understand them—of the Opposition.
    I have just been doing a little research into the Opposition's policy on university education. The leader of the Conservative party wrote to party members after he was elected leader to say that he was going to scrap all tuition fees. That is one policy. Secondly, earlier in the week, the Conservative spokesman on this issue said that
    "the principle that students contribute is there. We are not saying the whole system is completely tax-payer funded."
    That is the second policy. The third was outlined in The Independent by the chairman of the Conservative party, who said that he was limiting Tory opposition to the Government's present proposals—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: There are at least another five policies, but I have run out of time—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

Avian Influenza
12.30 pm
Hon. Members: On a point of older, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order comes later. I would ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.
Andrew George(urgent question): Will the Minister make a statement on the outbreak of avian influenza in Thailand last week?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): When avian influenza was confirmed in Thailand, the European Commission immediately suspended imports into the European Union from Thailand of fresh poultry meat and poultry products indefinitely. We have prepared a risk assessment—available on the Department's website—which concludes that the risk of the disease being transmitted to the UK poultry flock is low. But we must be on our guard, so we have taken the additional precaution of asking ports to be extra vigilant and to prohibit the importation of consignments that do not fully comply with the rules. Waste from commercial plants is already subject to strict controls, but we have reminded the Meat Hygiene Service and local authorities to exercise more vigilance over the disposal of animal by-products to mitigate further any risk. There is already heightened awareness across the industry and the state veterinary service, but I would urge the farming community and the poultry industry to be on their guard and to ensure that their biosecurity arrangements are tight.
The Food Standards Agency has advised that there is no risk of acquiring the avian influenza virus through eating chicken. There has never been a case of humans contracting avian influenza by eating meat. The deaths reported in south-east Asia are the result of close contact with infected birds. There have been no known cases of human-to-human transmission during the current outbreak. The action that we have taken so far is proportionate to the disease risk, but we are closely monitoring the situation in south-east Asia. The situation will be reviewed again next week and we will press the Commission to take any further action that we consider necessary.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. The Government have certainly acted quickly in response to the potential threat to the UK, and to the poultry industry in particular, from the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza that was reported in south-east Asia last week. As the Minister said, avian influenza is a highly contagious poultry disease that can be transmitted to humans through contact with poultry. The foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 coincided with a human outbreak of "benefit of hindsight disease", but at least we now have the benefit of foresight, and I hope that robust measures will be put in place to protect the biosecurity of the country and of farmers—in this case, poultry farmers in particular—following the lessons learned from the foot and mouth outbreak.
Will the Minister confirm that EU Commissioner Byrne made a public statement on Monday last week to the effect that there was no outbreak of avian influenza
314
in Thailand, yet by Friday he had changed his opinion and acknowledged that there was an outbreak, which precipitated the EU ban? How confident is the Minister in the competence of the European Commission to monitor the progress of this disease? Although we have been assured that they involved a different strain of avian influenza from the one that we are now concerned about, will the Minister confirm that there were outbreaks of the disease in other EU countries, namely Holland and Italy, last year? What assessment has he made of that situation, and of the ability of other EU nations to establish adequate biosecurity arrangements to deal with the disease if it were to be brought into the EU?
In view of the delay in Thailand's admitting that there had been an outbreak of avian influenza, what reassurance can the Minister give that imports, particularly of frozen poultry, into this country are safe? There is a ban on fresh poultry imports from Thailand, but is it wise to permit the import of heat-treated products? Will the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the theory that wild migratory birds are carriers of the disease? If so, what implications would that have for such birds? We have been told that the import ban applies only to Thailand and not to any other south-east Asian country, on the basis that no other south-east Asian country exports to the UK. Will the Minister confirm that that is accurate and, if so, that it is adequate? What other measures does he think might be necessary?
What implications does this outbreak have for the Government's efforts to control illegal meat imports? In answer to a recent question, the Secretary of State told me that intelligence in respect of such imports into the UK—they are still coming in—was not all that it could be. If that is the case, is the Minister content that existing measures are sufficiently robust? Now that the ban has been implemented, will the Minister tell us how long it is likely to last, and at what point it will be reviewed?
Will the Minister acknowledge that this is a good opportunity to promote the benefits to consumers of purchasing high-quality British-produced foods? Poultry farmers have established excellent measures in this country, particularly under the farm assurance schemes—characterised by the little red tractor label—which confirm high-quality production, traceability, health, hygiene and biosecurity. Would it not make good sense for consumers in this country and elsewhere to be made fully aware that, when buying British produce, they are buying high-quality goods that have been produced to high livestock production standards?
Mr. Bradshaw: I thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for his kind comments when he said that he was grateful for the way in which the Government had dealt with this matter very quickly. He cited some comments made by Commissioner Byrne. I suspect that they were related to when the Commissioner was first satisfied that the outbreak had been confirmed. There will always be a time lag between reports of the suspicion of an outbreak and their confirmation, but, yes, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we do have confidence in Commissioner Byrne and in the work that the permanent veterinary councillor of the European Union does in Thailand. He is there all the time to monitor exactly the kind of risks that we are talking about.

315
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we had a serious outbreak of avian influenza last year in the European Union, centred in Holland. I would suggest that that outbreak posed a much greater risk to the United Kingdom than the outbreak currently taking place in south-east Asia. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the disease is spread by migratory birds. We are very close to the continent, and many birds from the continent move here, particularly at this time of year. He is right about that, and right to say that that outbreak was more serious.
I am satisfied that we reviewed our contingency plans following that outbreak in the Netherlands. As hon. Members will know, we reviewed our overall plans to cope with animal disease following the foot and mouth outbreak. Our contingency plans for an outbreak of avian flu are better than they have ever been. The most recent outbreak in this country—in 1992, on a single property—was dealt with very swiftly, and I am confident that we could do so again if necessary.
On heat treatment, we are advised by the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for food safety, that it is perfectly safe to consume meat products, especially if they have been treated to 70°.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the danger posed by migratory birds from south-east Asia. My understanding is that this country does not receive birds that have migrated from south-east Asia, but I am happy to send him the map that I pored over this morning showing the migratory habits of birds in that part of the world, which shows that they do not come here.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the ban applies only to Thailand. That is because, as he said, Thailand is the only country in south-east Asia that is allowed to export chicken to this country, and we are not about to allow any other country to do so given the current circumstances.
On illegal imports, I would simply add to my comments about how we have tightened up our system since foot and mouth. I am confident that our monitoring of imports is better than it has ever been. The chicken products that are—or were—imported from Thailand come in big batches from big food manufacturers, not small-time importers, so they are subject to very rigorous controls.
The ban will be indefinite, as I said in my statement.
Finally, I join the hon. Gentleman in taking this opportunity to congratulate the excellent work of the British poultry industry. I urge consumers always to consume British products if they can, especially British poultry. Our poultry is produced to standards that are unmatched anywhere in the world. I always choose British chicken, and I would urge everybody else to do so.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Yesterday, I tabled a number of written questions on the subject of avian flu. Will the Minister let me know when he intends to reply?
The House and the public will be pleased to hear that cooked chicken meat presents no risk to human health. Can the Minister confirm that cooked poultry meat and
316
canned poultry meat may still be imported from Thailand? If so, is there any way of limiting the relevant areas to those where flocks are free of avian flu?
The Minister referred to other Asian countries. To date, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Cambodia have reported instances of avian flu. Has he discussed those outbreaks with the authorities in those countries? What measures has he taken to discuss the possibility of travellers from those countries bringing infections into this country?
The Minister mentioned last year's outbreak of avian flu in Holland. Although that was a different strain, many lessons could be learned, as he rightly says. In April 2003, an important conference was held at Garderen, which made specific recommendations, especially on vaccination. Have those been acted upon?
Mr. Bradshaw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, his written questions will be answered as soon as possible. He is inundating our Department with questions at the moment—as is his right, of course. Officials are very busy dealing with the immediate threat posed by this outbreak and other problems that we face, but I assure him that we will answer his questions, numerous as they are, as soon as we possibly can.
On cooked meat, as I said to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), according to the advice of the FSA and its European equivalent, there is no danger from meat that has been heated to 70°, so the import ban does not extend to products that have been thus heated.
Discussions have been held with the Thai Government and with other Governments in the region. The advice to UK travellers there would be to avoid, if at all possible, anywhere where they may come into contact with poultry.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As my hon. Friend will know from his previous incarnation as a Foreign Office Minister, we have good relations with the countries of south-east Asia. However, is it not of paramount importance that there is candour as to what has happened, and that to achieve that we must offer help? One practical piece of help would be to approach the university of Edinburgh and the research organisations centred around Edinburgh, which have internationally famous expertise in tropical diseases and, indeed, in poultry research. Will my hon. Friend approach Professor Ian Maudlin or other heads of department to see whether it is possible that a small group could be sent to help in south-east Asia?
Mr. Bradshaw: I absolutely agree with the Father of the House about our good relations with the countries of south-east Asia. That is particularly true of Thailand, which is very friendly towards the UK. We have used those good relations to avoid some of the danger that might have been posed by the outbreak. I will consult my officials about his kind offer. We are as interested as anybody in exchanging expertise on the matter, and if it was felt that such a visit would be helpful at this stage, we would consider it very positively.
Mr. Michael Jack: Anybody who has heard the BBC's "Farming Today" broadcasts from Thailand will understand the devastating effect that the

317
outbreak is having on local communities there. Following the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), what steps are being taken to encourage throughout south-east Asia a regime of openness about outbreaks of this or any other animal disease conditions? For example, there are reports that ducks in China now have the same condition.
What contribution is the UK scientific community making to monitoring the possible development of mutant species of the condition, which may jump species or even affect human beings? Those are the unknowns: what are we doing to address them?
Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of openness. I, too, have read some of the more alarmist media reports suggesting a cover-up, but we have no evidence of a deliberate cover-up in Thailand. The matter has been handled well by contrast with the way in which China handled the severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—outbreak last year. However, one of the lessons that we have learned in Britain and in wider Europe is that when it comes to food safety and animal health, openness is essential if one is to maintain consumer confidence in one's product.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House's attention to the dangers of the virus mutating, because that is when it could become really dangerous to human beings. If it mutated into a virus that could be passed from human to human, as happened more recently during the 1952 outbreak, we could face real problems. He will be well aware that the World Health Organisation, as well as UK health authorities, is keeping close watch on the situation.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Minister made some nice and accurate comments about the poultry sector, which, as he is aware, receives no Government funding. If he is as satisfied as he says about the biosecurity actions taken by the Government to protect the British poultry sector, will he guarantee to pay compensation if the disease gets to Britain?
Mr. Bradshaw: It is a notifiable disease, so of course compensation is considered in the event of stocks having to be destroyed. The hon. Gcntleman is right to congratulate the poultry industry on being a part of our agriculture sector that does not, in general, rely on subsidy—it would be nice if that practice was more common throughout the sector.
Sir Robert Smith: The Minister highlighted the importance of people recognising the quality of British-produced poultry. Coverage of this incident might have brought home to people who take good animal welfare standards seriously the different standards that are operated by producers in different parts of the world and the importance of backing the British poultry industry. To that end, is it important to get across to them the fact that whenever they buy produce made from chicken, the chances are that it will come from imported chicken?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right. Not just the quality of the product in the UK, which is superior, but our welfare standards are second to none in the world. Consumers should take that into account habitually when making shopping decisions. Labelling, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is the responsibility of the FSA. At present, processed meat in food products is not labelled as clearly as he and others might wish.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has spoken of the devastating effect of the virus in the far east, but obviously we are worried about any implications for the United Kingdom and our citizens travelling abroad. I understand that the new H5N1 virus is resistant to the old generic flu drugs. Have the Government been able to establish whether the newer drugs, such as Tamiflu and Relenza, would be effective against it? Can the Minister tell us what is the current position in regard to their supply?
Mr. Bradshaw: In vitro work is under way in a number of countries, with the use of the H5N1 virus isolated from humans. The virus is expected to be susceptible to the neuraminidase inhibitors, but preliminary sequence data suggest that the Vietnam strains to date have a mutation in the viral M2 gene that will render the viruses resistant to Amantadine—although experimental confirmation is required. I will ask a ministerial colleague from the Department of Health to write to the hon. Lady comprehensively about vaccines.
Mr. Roger Williams: The Minister will know how dependent this country has become on imports of poultry meat from Thailand. Just before Christmas he wrote to me apologising for not being able to meet a group of poultry producers because of lack of time. They wanted to discuss threats to the poultry industry.
The country will now depend on those producers even more now. It will depend on them to fill the gap left by the lack of imports from Thailand. Will the Minister reconsider his decision?
Has the Minister made any assessment of how the country will fare in terms of its favourite dish, which I take to be chicken tikka masala?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that the UK has become dependent on imports from Thailand. Most of the chicken consumed here is still home-produced. It is true, however, that after Brazil, Thailand is the main source of imports, particularly of chicken for the processing industry.
I am sorry that I had to decline the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation to meet his local poultry producers, but I meet poultry producers fairly regularly. For me, one of the highlights of the run-up to Christmas was presenting the awards at the annual British Poultry Council award ceremony. As the hon. Gentleman says, our poultry industry makes a massive contribution to our rural economy. It is highly successful, very skilled and makes products of great quality. I am sure that the recent scares, which have been exaggerated in some media reports, will not prevent people in this country from enjoying their favourite dish, whatever it may be.
Mr. Simon Thomas: At least the Minister does not look like a turkey over this one. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does."] Well, possibly. Anyway, will he look at the effect of the EU ban on the Thai economy? Producers in Thailand may be tempted to try to get around it, which could increase the difficulties we already face in regard to illegal imports.
We hope that the ban will be lifted when a solution is found. What work will the Minister undertake at EU level to ensure that labelling is better in future, thus improving consumer choice? We may think about that when choosing chicken from the United Kingdom in supermarkets and butchers' shops, but we may not think about it in McDonald's or Wimpy bars. It might useful to consider what we can do at EU level to support homegrown industries that have better environmental and welfare standards.
Mr. Bradshaw: I have no doubt that there will be a serious impact on the Thai economy, because chicken production is very important to Thailand; but Thailand has had a robust economy for a number of years—perhaps the most successful economy in the south-east Asian region. We will do all we can—both Britain and the EU as a whole—to encourage further trade with Thailand, and to help it to recover from any setback that this causes.
I have nothing much to add to what I have already said about labelling. It is the responsibility of the FSA. It has improved significantly under the present Government, although it has still not improved as much as the hon. Gentleman and others might wish. I can only repeat that most fresh chicken, and indeed most meat on the shelves in shops in this country, is labelled, and I recommend that people look for the British label.

Motor Vehicle Insurance Disc
12.54 pm
Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require users of motor vehicles to display on the vehicle a disc certifying that a policy of insurance or security in respect of third party risks is in force; and for connected purposes.
Have you ever had the feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all the action may be happening somewhere else? I certainly have. I can assure the House, however, that what my Bill lacks in timing it more than makes up for in the quality of its proposals.
Driving without insurance is an antisocial, selfish and irresponsible act, on a par with drink-driving and carrying a similar social stigma; but the existence of a sobering 1.25 million uninsured cars on our roads shows that it is all too easy to get away with it, and that a worrying number of our fellow citizens are prepared to try. One in 20 of the motorists driving around Britain's towns, cities and villages at this very moment are uninsured. They have the potential to wreak havoc and wreck lives, but they are able to remain anonymous, and the public have no easy means of identifying them. It is a terrible game of Russian roulette, in which the losers are always the law-abiding motorists and innocent civilians.
The high levels of evasion show that the current system is not working. There is a requirement for drivers to produce valid insurance to renew vehicle excise duty, but the policy could run out in days, or could easily be cancelled. We need a simple means of placing public pressure on all drivers to keep their insurance up to date. In addition, police, traffic authorities and, most important, the general public should have an easy and instant means of spotting those who do not. The Bill achieves those twin aims by amending and inserting two basic measures into the Road Traffic Act 1988: a duty for drivers to display a simple disc on their windscreens as proof of valid insurance, and a duty for insurers to issue a standard-form it detachable disc, akin to the tax disc, to people taking out new insurance policies.
While I would claim credit for that idea, I must admit that it was put to me by someone else. In a small way, this is a vindication of our parliamentary system. About two years ago Mrs Doreen Gill of Findlay street, Leigh, visited my advice surgery to express concern about a friend who had been unfortunate enough to have an accident with an uninsured driver. That person had been left out of pocket and out of sorts by the whole experience, and Mrs Gill felt strongly that something should be done. She proposed the introduction of an insurance disc, and having thought about it carefully since then, I have concluded that she is absolutely right. Yes, there are practical questions to be asked, and discs can be forged; but to those who always seek obstacles to any change, I say that if it is good enough for car tax it is good enough for insurance.
Arguments against my Bill are arguments for scrapping the vehicle excise duty disc. The process need not be complicated: it simply means making the insurance policy a public document for windscreen display rather than its being kept in a drawer at home. If discs help to cut tax evasion, they will help to cut uninsured driving. At the risk of annoying the

321
Chancellor of the Exchequer, let me say that it is arguably more important for people to be insured than to be taxed. We cannot forget that there is a much greater financial incentive for the avoidance of insurance than there is for the avoidance of tax, given the relative cost of each.
There are different classes of insurance evader. There is without doubt a hard core who will drive without licences, tax or insurance. They are unlikely to be moved by the need to have an insurance disc, but they would be easier for us all to identify. There is another group of evaders who are prepared to take a risk, perhaps delaying obtaining cover for a month or two. That group could be swayed by the requirement for an insurance disc. They could no longer enjoy the anonymity that the current system affords them: friends and family would notice their failure to display a valid insurance disc. A third group comprises the well-meaning but absent-minded. I dare say that many Members—including me—fall into that category. Such people see the renewal reminders arrive from the insurance company and keep meaning to do something about their policies, but never get around to it. A daily and embarrassing reminder on the windscreen would cut that sort of evasion.
I hope that sceptical voices in the insurance industry will take note of the emphatic public backing for an insurance disc that RAC research revealed this week: 87 per cent. of drivers would support a disc if it could be shown to reduce insurance premiums. I hope that they will also take note of the strong and effective campaign of the Daily Express on the important issue, and its unequivocal backing for the Bill as part of the solution. The editorial in Monday's edition said:
"Rarely has an issue been so straightforward. Make insurance discs compulsory now."
I accept that the Bill is not the only solution to the problem; it should be part of a package of measures to tackle driving without insurance. We need to review the punishments for insurance evasion. It cannot be right that the fine—usually around £150—is a fraction of the cost of insurance. The incentive for people to take a risk is too great. First, we need stiffer penalties, for example, higher fines, instant driving bans And community, even custodial sentences for repeat offenders, such is the gravity of the offence.
Secondly, I would support moves for more integrated use of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database and the new insurance database. I hope that the police can have access to that to identify and target people whom they know to be driving without insurance.
Thirdly, the insurance industry should consider what more it can do to reduce the soaring cost of motor insurance. I represent an area where public transport is poor and job opportunities are limited. Many people are on low incomes and have to travel to work. Some are being priced out of driving a car—that is a form of social exclusion. I heard on the radio this week that a first-time driver was quoted more than £2,000 for insurance. Young men are statistically the most likely to cause accidents, and, as a society, we have a vested interest in their being insured.
322
I urge the industry to consider moves towards a more even pricing structure, perhaps with cross-subsidy between policyholders. There is already a levy on insurance policies to pay for claims against uninsured drivers through the Motor Insurers Bureau. A cross-subsidy pricing scheme could mean that the cost is used to cut evasion rather than to pick up the pieces of uninsured accidents, as happens now.
The Co-operative Insurance Society is taking a lead and I should like more insurers to follow its scheme, whereby new drivers can reduce the cost of their policy by hundreds of pounds through undergoing further training, especially on motorway and night driving.
The Government have initiated a review of the issues under Professor David Greenaway of Nottingham university, which shows that they are aware of the severity of the problem, and he is due to report his findings later this year. I hope that he will seriously consider the measures that I have outlined, listen to the arguments for an insurance disc and come down firmly in favour of it. It would overlay and complement the other measures that are being considered to tackle driving without insurance. I hope that Professor Greenaway will look abroad to France, Italy, Ireland, Australia and, even closer to home, Jersey, where an insurance disc scheme appears to work well and there is less insurance evasion than here.
The costs of failing to act mount year after year. This week, the RAC estimated that we shall all soon pay £60 on our insurance policies to cover the cost of uninsured driving. It also stated that the death, damage and injury that uninsured drivers cause may lead to a £1 billion bill. Of course, prosecuting offenders means huge costs to society in police and court time.
If an insurance disc cut evasion by 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., it would be worth introducing. That makes the Bill a win-win measure. It is good for motorists and insurers, but most important, it is good for the public. The only losers are those who flout the law and expect the law-abiding majority to pick up the bill. Objections about practicalities crumble in the face of the potential benefits.
The Bill is a workable solution to a growing scourge in our society and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Andy Burnham, James Purnell, Jim Knight, Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons, Mr. Eric Joyce, Siobhain McDonagh, Jim Dowd, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. Wayne David, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Richard Page and Ms Christine Russell.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE DISC
Andy Burnham accordingly presented a Bill to amend Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require users of motor vehicles to display on the vehicle a disc certifying that a policy of insurance or security in respect of third party risks is in force; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 46].
Orders of the Day

  National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.5 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  We have reached the final stages of our deliberations. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that the measure has all-party support. It may not be unprecedented for not a single amendment or new clause to be tabled on a Government programme Bill, but it is unusual. It demonstrates clearly that the provisions are undeniably sensible and useful and therefore rightly welcomed by all interested parties.
  The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said on Second Reading that the Bill was an
  "uncontroversial and constructive Bill." —[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 204.]
  He said that he had asked employers' representatives and other tax and national insurance practitioners whether they had any difficulties with the measure, and found that they did not. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) agreed that although the Bill was technical—that was our conclusion, too, when we had finished the Committee proceedings—it included matters that
  "affect every employee and company in the land."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 January 2004; c. 42.],
  so it was important. He, too, offered his support.
  We received one representation, which arrived rather late for consideration during our proceedings. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales welcomed the Bill and did not disagree with any of its provisions. However, it wanted to draw my attention as Paymaster General to some additional matters for which further relaxation of the rules about the way in which employers meet their national insurance obligations could be considered.
  Some changes to the provisions for employers' recovery of primary national insurance contributions could be addressed through changes in regulation. Inland Revenue officials will continue to speak to employers' representatives about such details. However, I have concluded that there should be no such changes to regulations and that changes to the Bill at this stage were undesirable. For the benefit of Opposition Members, and for the sake of the completeness of our consideration, however, I thought that it would be helpful to respond to the points made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I, too, think that the Bill is a sensible measure. My right hon. Friend has helpfully included a glossary of abbreviations in the explanatory notes—an extremely helpful document—but to assist lay people such as me, and, I hope, members of the public who have to interpret such things, particularly those in small businesses, will she do her best to explain the meanings of some of those
  324
  terms? For example, ITEPA 2003 keeps cropping up. I have worked out what that means, but I would struggle with many of the other abbreviations—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is getting rather lengthy for an intervention.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to try to assist my hon. Friend when I can. He was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I draw his attention to the considerable discussion in Committee of the fact that the Bill is intended to align the treatment and recovery of national insurance with the procedures that currently exist in the income tax regulations and Acts. Of course, as the Committee agreed, that will be of great benefit to employers, because they will have one procedure and one form of operation for the recovery of any outstanding payments of either tax or national insurance. That is particularly welcomed by employers.
  Norman Lamb: The Paymaster General mentioned the representation that she has received. Is she saying that she has decided not to legislate further with regard to that representation at the moment but that she might consider doing so at a later date, or is she rejecting the representation out of hand? Perhaps she can outline on which issues she intends to take further steps.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I thought that, in courtesy to the House, I should explain where the Government stand with regard to each of the proposals made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I hope to make it clear that the Government stand open to representations and further consultation on this matter, as on any other. I shall turn briefly to the issues raised by the institute, and I think that my response will cover the hon. Gentleman's specific inquiry.
  The institute asked for an extension to the provisions in clauses 1 and 2, which provide extra flexibility in the way in which employers can recover primary national insurance paid on behalf of their employees on securities-based earnings. It may help if I explain briefly to hon. Members why we have detailed rules governing the way in which employers meet their national insurance liabilities. That framework exists to achieve three broad aims: first, to provide fairness to employees; secondly, to create administrative simplicity for employers; and, finally, to protect the income of the national insurance fund, which, as hon. Members know, provides the funds for state pensions and other contributory benefits and pays towards the national health service.
  The Government's first duty is to protect the employee. It is important to have a clear set of rules to prevent the employer from making unreasonable deductions from an employee's earnings, which could result in the employee facing economic hardship—a matter that we discussed in Committee. For example, if there were no rules about recovery, an employer could make a mistake and under-deduct from the monthly earnings and then make good his mistake by recovering the whole of the under-deduction in one go, leaving the employee with no cash earnings for that month.

  325
  Pursuing that principle, I do not think it reasonable to amend the rules governing the recovery of primary national insurance contributions to allow recovery from all employees—not just ex-employees—in the following year, whatever the form of earnings, as the institute requested. However, to pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government's view, if I do not agree with the proposals now, I accept that in some specific circumstances, the normal recovery framework may present employers with difficulties. We are keen to invite employers and their representatives to provide examples of particular issues that are creating difficulty. I am aware that new financial products are continually being developed. As with previous legislation, the Bill has been drafted to provide the flexibility to deal with those changes, when we agree with those who make the representations that it would be appropriate to do so.
  Many changes could be dealt with by regulations. Again, we discussed that in Committee. For example, the recovery period for specific types of earnings could be extended in that way. So we have responded to specific difficulties, and we would seek to do so in the future. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that last year, we introduced regulations extending recovery time where payments of earnings are made by intermediaries or in the form of shares. We are planning regulatory changes before April 2004, when payments are made to workers seconded abroad and the primary national insurance liability is allowed to be paid later than at the end of the tax year, and where an employer has made an error in good faith and under-deducted the primary national insurance that is due.
  Obviously, I cannot guarantee that we will always agree with the points made in representations in future. The Government do not wish to encourage employers to seek ways to pay earnings that are designed simply to reduce tax or national insurance liability, and have no further commercial value. For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants also requested that the changes that the Bill and its regulations will make to the recovery rules for securities-based earnings should be extended to all non-monetary earnings. However, unlike shares, earnings paid in other non-monetary forms do not necessarily provide employees with a real stake in the company that they work for and are not therefore a form of earnings the Government want to encourage through special provisions.
  I am trying to strike the correct balance, and to recognise that changes could be made to the future nature of those encouragements that would provide a stake in a company, that representations should be made and that the flexibility in the regulations will allow us to respond—but all that is underpinned by the crucial point that the stake in the company has to be an encouragement to the employee, and not intended to reduce tax or national insurance payments.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: The Paymaster General anticipates me in looking into parts of the representation, and it is excellent that we are getting those on to the record, but may I draw her back to our discussion in Committee, where we considered the definition of non-monetary earnings in clauses 1 and 2? That definition obviously goes wider than security-based earnings. She has responded to the first part of the institute's representation, but will she respond to its
  326
  comment that, notwithstanding her earlier comments, it would be simpler for businesses if there were one rule for all situations concerning all non-monetary earnings?
  Dawn Primarolo: I have tried to explain that, unlike shares, earnings paid in other non-monetary forms do not necessarily provide employees with a real stake in the company that they work for and are not therefore a form of earnings that the Government want to encourage through special provisions, because of the dangers—this does occur—of payments being designed to reduce tax and national insurance liability. Of course, the national insurance fund, and therefore all of us, would lose out in those circumstances.
  I am trying to steer a delicate path through recognising a possible change in environment and putting in place a method to respond by regulation, while explaining clearly that we will need to judge whether the forms of payment provide employees with a real stake. Therefore, a general sweep through all non-monetary forms of reward would be a step too far.
  It may help the House if I move on to the series of points that the Institute of Chartered Accountants made on clauses 3 and 4. It also wanted us to go further in those clauses, which extend provisions for joint elections and agreements to transfer secondary national insurance liability to employees when gains arise on restricted and convertible shares. It asked for the measure to be extended to other forms of securities-based earnings, such as restricted stock units.
  The Government argue that the tax and national insurance treatment of earnings from restricted stock units will depend on the nature of the award. In some cases, therefore, such earnings might already fall within the scope of the legislation and thus allow the transfer of employers' class 1 national insurance to the employee. In others cases, that would not be appropriate because there is no unpredictable liability—that is the test—which is what the measure is designed to address. I am trying to respond by recognising that if something is not in the Bill, it does not satisfy the unpredictable liability test.
  Secondly, the institute wanted the clauses to extend to national insurance liabilities that arise on the discharge of an amount treated as a notional loan, which is a form of earnings that arises when someone who is not ordinarily resident is granted an employment-related share option. As the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for North Norfolk are probably aware, officials in the Treasury and Inland Revenue are currently conducting an extensive review of the tax rules surrounding residence and domicile. They are aware of, and are continuing to examine, problems with securities-based payments for internationally mobile workers, and they will examine that issue as part of the review. I think that that is a more appropriate way to consider such issues, because of the difficulty of the challenges.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Paymaster General confirm, therefore, that it is the intention of the Treasury. and the Government in general, to have as broad an input from business and industry as possible in that review? The

  327
  professional impact of the measures will have a significant impact on the mobility of workers, which is a crucial part of this country's competitiveness.
  Dawn Primarolo: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that such a broad view and access to wider consultation are at the heart of the consideration of residence and domicile. It is important for the system to be fair and for the rules to be clear. The system should not undermine our competitiveness, yet we must ensure that the rules of the United Kingdom are not used in ways that would be detrimental to the vast majority of taxpayers in this country. The regulations can deal with such points.
  I have outlined the principles underpinning how we would assess representations about suggestions made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. We would welcome it if employers or their representative groups contacted the Inland Revenue if they had specific difficulties that arose from the Bill. The overall support for the Bill demonstrates that the Inland Revenue is working well with employers' representatives and others to identify real areas of concern and find sensible ways of addressing them, while keeping the rules clear, easy to operate and fair to all taxpayers.
  On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to working with business representatives, which relates to the point recently made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. That is relevant not only to the Bill, but, frankly, throughout the Inland Revenue's areas of interest. I shall again spell out the routes available. On employer-related matters, the Inland Revenue meets representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and payroll practitioners, among others. That umbrella group provides a forum for the discussion of, and consultation on, policy changes and their operational impact on the taxation of employment income and related matters that might impact directly or indirectly on employers. It acts as a confidential sounding board for proposed policy initiatives and as an avenue for the discussion of representatives' concerns and proposals for change. That clearly provides a route through which discussions on the Bill may be taken forward, should they be required after it has become operational.
  The Inland Revenue has an excellent working relationship with many share scheme interest groups, such as ProShare and the share scheme lawyers group. There are regular discussions between the Inland Revenue and groups interested in the promotion of employee share ownership, to ensure that concerns about the administration and technical interpretation of share scheme legislation are brought to the Government's attention. Regular dialogue not only allows areas of difficulty to be properly understood, but helps officials to develop clear and helpful guidance about the operation of share scheme legislation. When it came to putting together the measures in the Bill, the Inland Revenue was already in a good position to
  328
  understand what employers wanted. Every measure was drawn up with an eye to representations or other forms of consultation.
  Mr. John McFall: I thank the Paymaster General for referring to a point that I made on Second Reading. She will know that income tax officials have come to the Treasury Sub-Committee to help with our inquiry on the administrative cost of tax compliance. I must say, in support of what she is saying, that they have acquitted themselves well. Lessons have been learned from the past and officials are communicating with business. Given the criticism that they have received in the past, it is only fair to put that on record.
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments. Everyone in the House understands that we require tax inspectors and tax officials to pursue a dual role on behalf not only of the House, but of all our communities. We require them to operate a tax system that is fair to all and ensures that everyone pays their rightful amount, and to design and develop a tax system in consultation with all interested parties so that employers and employees can understand legislation, and so that it is operational. The delivery of that set of principles is difficult, but the Inland Revenue acquits itself extremely well.
  I have said that the Bill was not contentious. No amendments were tabled, and there was broad support both inside and outside the House for the measures that it contains. However, that is not to say our debates in the House and Committee were without rigour. Indeed, the discussion of the clauses in Committee entailed a thorough scrutiny of their details, and relevant details that are to be set out in the regulations. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Hertford and Stortford for the positive way in which they conducted their discussions in Committee to ensure not only that the Bill received proper scrutiny, but that the record showed clear indications about how the Government wish to proceed.
  I am pleased to be able to conclude that the Bill has received thorough scrutiny, both in the House and as a result of extensive preparation with interested parties outside. As I said, I have been helped greatly by constructive contributions from Members of all parties who were involved in discussions on the Bill, for which I thank them. Finally. I reiterate that the purpose of the Bill is to fulfil our commitment that the Inland Revenue will work with employers' representatives and others to reduce technical differences in the administration of tax and national insurance. It extends employers' options for meeting their national insurance liabilities when paying earnings in the form of shares or other securities. It also helps to protect employees' rights to statutory sick and maternity pay by improving measures to tackle the very few employers who fail to meet their obligations. It is a technical Bill, but a useful one, and I commend it to the House.
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Prisk: I thank the Paymaster General for her opening remarks, particularly her detailed and thorough exposition of the submission by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  329
  As the Paymaster General said, the Bill is a technical measure, and is therefore complex both in form and purpose. I suspect, however, that on this occasion that is not the reason why we do not have the full attention of the House. The Paymaster General, other hon. Members and I are performing what may best be described as the parliamentary equivalent of an intermission. We may be unwatched and unseen, but nevertheless we are providing a convenient filling-in moment between two exciting instalments of a political drama. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
  The Bill and the measures that it contains are important because they affect both employers and employees, and a number of clauses are directly relevant to people's working situation. For example, clauses 1 to 4 will help to remove a potential barrier to widening share ownership. Some people may say that other aspects of the Bill are inconsequential. For example, clauses 5 and 6 apply to only about 4 per cent. of the national insurance fund, and some people will argue that that is of little consequence. That may be true, but for tens of thousands of self-employed people it represents 100 per cent. of their contributions. Given the fact that the self-employed are usually treated poorly by the Government, the change deserves our attention and, on this occasion, our support.
  Following our various debates on the Bill, it is clear that it consists of two distinct parts. First, it seeks to amend the way in which employers administer national insurance contributions for securities-based earnings. We have touched on the question of non-monetary earnings and how broad that definition is, but the Bill deals specifically with securities-based earnings. That follows the Chancellor's ill-considered decision to impose an additional 1 per cent. on employees' primary contributions over the upper earnings limit. The second part of the Bill, as we learned in Committee, is intended to align the administration of statutory payments for maternity and sickness pay with that for national insurance contributions. The changes seek to tidy up previous incomplete legislation dating back, in some cases, more than five years. The two principal features of the Bill therefore arise from past errors and oversights by the Government. It is a refreshing change for the Government to accept their past failings. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, I have no hesitation in welcoming that admission of failure and the improvements introduced by the legislation. I only hope that that governmental contrition will set the tone for rest of the day, although I suspect that we shall be disappointed.
  My party has, throughout the passage of the Bill, sought to provide constructive scrutiny. Where we have differences with the Government we shall express them, and I am sure that the Paymaster General will understand that I shall continue to do so firmly and persistently. However, in this case the measure is corrective and largely beneficial, so we shall not oppose it for the sake of partisanship. However, our ability to fulfil our important parliamentary role has been hampered by the fact that the regulations underpinning much of the Bill were not made available to the House until the morning of the day on which the Committee sat. For the benefit of Members who did not serve on the Committee, the regulations are extensive. They are 22
  330
  pages long—five pages longer than the Bill itself—and affect six of the 10 principal clauses. Following the Minister's promise that the draft orders would be ready in time for the Committee stage, I accept that there was an administrative error by officials, which resulted in the draft orders arriving on the day of the Committee's deliberations. Indeed, I received my copy as I arrived at Standing Committee D. I accept that the Paymaster General intended to try to get the orders to us, and I know that she will share my disappointment at the error that resulted in their delay.
  I should like to challenge something else that has arisen in our debates, particularly in Committee. Significant measures in the Bill will be brought into effect based on details in the 22 pages of statutory instruments. The Bill is a framework, and it lacks detail about the exact way in which the rules will operate. The Paymaster General commented in response to an intervention that, as the Bill was a technical measure, the omission of the details was less important. In fact, the reverse is true. In a technical Bill, the detail is the most important part of the legislation. The broad policy is not in question—it is the practicalities and minutiae that matter. I suspect that most hon. Members would share that view and I hope that on reflection so will the Minister.
  We have learned much during the passage of the Bill. It has emerged, for example, that the roots of the changes set out in clauses 5 and 6 go back as far as the 1998 Budget and the accompanying Taylor report. Indeed, the Government denounced the dual systems of income tax and national insurance as unduly onerous for the 1 million or so employers who had to operate them simultaneously. On 8 February 1999, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), spoke of the two sets of rules and the two Departments with which businesses had to deal and concluded that the case for change was "overwhelming". Nearly five years later, the Government are seeking to complete the task. I fully accept that it took up to two years for the original changes to bed down, systems to be established and training to be completed. However, a delay of five years is deeply disappointing. I know that the wheels of Whitehall grind slow, but to take five years is to progress at less than a snail's pace.
  In Committee and on Second Reading, I raised the many concerns of business and professionals about the poor administration of national insurance. The Paymaster General, true to form, rose to the challenge and proudly declared that things were improving. If that is the case, that is welcome. However, she did not answer my basic question, although I trust that she will in reply to this debate. Are the standards of performance better now than they were before the merger, as promised by the Chancellor? I am not asking whether they are better than they were in 2002, when the Institute of Chartered Accountants complained, but better than the pre-merger performance. That was the promise made by the Chancellor—has it been kept?
  During our deliberations, we learned of the unintended impact of the Chancellor's decision to impose an additional 1 per cent. of the national insurance charge on employees' earnings over the upper earnings limit. When an employer makes a securities-

  331
  based payment of earnings, there is no national insurance liability until those payments are realised—for example, when options are exercised to acquire shares. At that point, the employer is liable to pay both primary and secondary national insurance contributions due on the employee's gain. Until 5 April last year, most employees would already have paid their contributions up to the upper earnings limit through the usual PAYE system. However, from 6 April 2003, there has been an additional 1 per cent. due on earnings that exceed that limit, so employers now face serious difficulties in recovering those additional primary contributions payable by employees.
  As the Paymaster General mentioned today and in Committee, the Bill is designed to enable employers to recover those contributions through new agreements or through joint elections. We touched on the suggestion that these might be amended in the future, subject to the comments from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The decision to enable employers to recover these contributions is generally welcomed by employers and outside organisations.
  Our debates have also revealed a welcome Damascene conversion by the Labour party on share ownership. Gone are the old days of Bennite adherence to state ownership. Instead, we have the Blairite passion for share ownership. We will have to see whether that survives any future leadership change. The amendments in clauses 1 to 4 will remove a potentially serious barrier to employee share ownership. Now, promoting wider share ownership is a Conservative value. Indeed, more employees bought and owned shares under the last Conservative Government than ever before. That is why we on the Opposition Benches welcome the correction, as do those in business—including ProShare, the independent organisation whose purpose is to widen share ownership.
  The Bill seeks to correct the omissions and errors of the Government's previous actions. As such, and rare as that is, it is to be welcomed. During our debates we heard of the five-year failure to align correctly the administration of national insurance contributions and statutory payments, and the burden that that delay has placed in particular on the self-employed. We have learned about the worsening administrative burden since the Government legislated in 1999, despite the Chancellor's original promises. We have heard how the decision by the Chancellor to increase employees' primary contributions over the upper earnings limit has had serious unintended consequences for promoting wider share ownership, which are corrected in the Bill.
  Consideration of the Bill, although constrained by the absence of the details in secondary form, has nevertheless been constructive and purposeful. Given the benefit of the various measures that the Bill seeks to implement, I can confirm that it has our support and that it is not our intention to oppose it in the Lobbies at the end of the debate.
  1.43 pm
  Norman Lamb: As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) suggested, this event is akin to an intermission. I suspect
  332
  the full Public Gallery has little to do with our current consideration of this exciting Bill. It is surprising that the public are not out getting their ice creams.
  As has been observed, the Bill is technical and uncontroversial. I congratulate the Paymaster General on keeping going and speaking about it for the third time for the best part of half an hour—a remarkable achievement. I thank her also for the way she has conducted herself during our deliberations on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. In her speech she dealt with the one representation received, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Never before, I imagine, has one submission from a professional organisation received such detailed consideration by a Minister on the Floor of the House. Her constructive comments and response to those points were welcome.
  On Second Reading there was one Back-Bench speech and a few valiant interventions from a Labour Member—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). In Committee, as we heard, no amendments were tabled by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or the Government, and it was all over in one and a half sittings. There is little of substance to add today. In a moment, I shall mention one or two questions I have on the draft regulations.
  To summarise, the Bill is largely a tidying-up measure that increases the ease with which employers and employees can deal with national insurance. First, for instance, it makes it easier for employers to recover national insurance contributions by agreement from employees and ex-employees in respect of securities-based earnings. Secondly, it allows employers and employees by agreement to transfer the liability for employers' national insurance to the employee in respect of restricted and convertible shares, extending the facility that is already available in respect of earnings from share options.
  We accept that that reduces a current disincentive to employers, who may be put off rewarding employees in this way because of uncertainty about the extent of national insurance liability when what is known as a post-acquisition chargeable event occurs. The employer cannot predict what the share value will be and therefore what the national insurance liability will be. To remove that unpredictability seems entirely sensible. Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, we support the idea of improving and increasing employee share ownership.
  The Bill deals with a number of miscellaneous issues, aligning periods of notice required for distraint action between tax and national insurance. It unifies powers with regard to tax and national insurance and to the gathering of information for tax and national insurance purposes, and it removes overbearing powers in relation to national insurance. That is to be welcomed. Finally, the Bill removes criminal penalties with regard to non-compliance for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, with the introduction of civil penalties. The Government clearly recognise that criminal penalties are
  "wholly disproportionate to the compliance risk."
  On the draft secondary legislation, the point was made on Second Reading that measures in the Bill were overdue. In part, those measures result from a consultation process that was completed two and a half

  333
  years ago. Two and a half years of deliberation later, the Bill emerged, but it depends substantially on secondary legislation to implement the detail. It is bizarre that a Bill can be introduced without the accompanying regulations that were produced at the same time, and that the Bill can reach Committee stage without members of the Committee having had sight of the draft regulations. That is not the best way to scrutinise legislation, and the Government must ensure that draft regulations are available before the Standing Committee considers such a Bill in detail.
  Since then, I have been through the draft regulations. I assume that that is the sum total of draft regulations; I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. Can she also confirm the time scale for implementation? In the draft Social Security Contributions (Amendment) Regulations—the first set of drift regulations— paragraph 2(2)(a) refers to "non-monetary earnings". However, paragraph 2(2)(b) refers instead to "relevant securities-based earnings". That relates to former employees. Is there a reason for the different terminology, or does the drafting need to be reviewed?
  In the same regulation there is an obligation on the employer to account to the employee or former employee for the proceeds of sale of the securities that were not required to discharge the liability for national insurance—in other words, if there is an amount over and above that required for discharging liability, it needs to go back to the employee. Should there be an additional obligation to provide a statement to the employee confirming the sale proceeds and how much of it was required to discharge national insurance liability? That may have been covered elsewhere already, but I would again be grateful if the Paymaster General dealt with it.
  Reference is made to the fact that the draft regulations impose no extra cost on business, but the proposed regulations relating to Northern Ireland would impose a cost in limited circumstances. That is entirely justifiable, but should not the explanatory notes make it clear? Further, is any regulatory impact assessment anticipated with regard to those regulations, or is the Paymaster General relying on the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the Bill? I am not sure what the guidance on regulatory impact assessments says about that.
  I want briefly to mention the proposed statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay regulations. The explanatory notes say that no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared because the regulations do not impose any new costs on business, but the civil penalties may impose new costs, so is it accurate to say that no costs will be incurred? Will the Paymaster General deal with that?
  There is also a statement that the draft Social Security Contributions (Amendment) Regulations, which deal with elections in relation to restricted and convertible shares, do not in themselves impose any new costs on business, but there are costs associated with the regulations. There is provision, for example, for the transfer of cost from the employer to the employee with regard to secondary class 1 contributions. The regulatory impact assessment refers to the cost of£3,000 in respect of professional advice on preparing a form of election and obtaining Inland Revenue approval. Will
  334
  the Paymaster General deal with that? Surely it is right that the explanatory notes to the regulations should be clear.
  Those are specific concerns about the draft regulations. I would be grateful if the Paymaster General dealt with them, either now or in a letter. These are important matters with regard to the detail of the regulations, but I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill.
  1.52 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I should respond, perhaps briefly, to this afternoon's debate and the points raised by hon. Members. I sense that the House is gearing up to move on to other business, or perhaps those Members who were watching the monitor in their offices suddenly developed an undying interest in the Bill.
  As I said in opening the debate, the Bill reduces the technical differences between the administration of tax and national insurance. It makes important improvements in the system and helps to protect employees' rights. We had a useful if not brief—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members who have recently come into the Chamber please have some respect for the Paymaster General, who is on her feet concluding the debate?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) referred to an intermission. When I was a child, the intermission was taken up by fish swimming around on television, which shows how old I am. I have a feeling that this intermission is quickly coming to an end.
  This afternoon's debate has ensured that all Members and both sides of the House have agreed that we have undertaken detailed scrutiny of the measures before us. I hope that I have made it clear that we have been willing to respond to representations made to us. I should say to the Institute of Chartered Accountants that I was replying to its representation out of courtesy, as it was the only one we received. I sincerely hope, however, that hon. Members will accept that I am not setting a precedent here. None the less, everyone accepts that the main principles in the Bill are correct and recognises the importance of what we propose. A number of specific points have been made.
  Ann McKechin: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern over the former penalty for failure to pay statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, which involved a criminal sanction and which had not been used for many years? Can she confirm that the new civil measures will be used to impose appropriate sanctions, particularly given that the Equal Opportunities Commission has already started a major investigation into discrimination at work involving women in the workplace?
  Dawn Primarolo: I regret that my hon. Friend was unable to join in this afternoon's debate, but I can

  335
  confirm that, in moving from the old procedures under the social security legislation, the Government are seeking to—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I once again ask all hon. Members to reduce the level of conversation while the Paymaster General is responding to the debate?
  Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The procedures for civil action against employers are proportionate to the small number who seek not to fulfil their obligations under the legislation—[HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Substantial penalties, none the less, can be imposed, although I am not sure whether my hon. Friends were cheering that. The point is to remove inappropriate criminal penalties that have not been working successfully and, by the use of civil penalties, to try to ensure that all employers comply with the legislation from the start.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) again made a point about why things have taken so long. In the year since transfer, a great deal has been done to align the rules on tax and national insurance. Much has been achieved. The Revenue now operates joint employer compliance reviews covering tax and national insurance; new teams have been introduced for the joint handling of expatriates' tax and national insurance affairs; and we have made changes to regulations—for example, to align the national insurance treatment of foreign travel and foreign travel expenses for overseas employees with that of tax.
  The Bill brings those changes together. That required primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all Governments have to prioritise the measures that go into their legislative programme. We have been able to deliver those legislative changes at this point.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, may I make a plea to hon. Members to reduce the level of conversation in the Chamber while the Paymaster General is replying to an important debate?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for North Norfolk raised various
  336
  queries about the regulations. If the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford looks again at the regulations, he will see that four sets regarding statutory payment inspection powers are identical, as is required to cover the various jurisdictions. The hon. Member for North Norfolk—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dawn Primarolo: I sense that the House would like me to conclude. Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for North Norfolk that I will reply in writing on the points that he has raised about the regulations and ensure that the letter is placed in the Library—those Members who are interested will be able to scrutinise it.
  The Bill takes forward the Government's commitments. It makes useful improvements to the administration of national insurance contributions; takes forward the Chancellor's commitment that the Inland Revenue would work with employers' representatives and others on reducing technical differences between the administration of tax and national insurance; builds on the Government's work to promote productivity by encouraging employers to give their employees a financial stake in the company through extending employers' options for meeting national insurance liabilities when paying earnings in the form of shares; and helps to protect employees' rights to statutory sick and maternity pay by improving and tackling employers who fail to meet their obligations.
  Clauses 1 and 2 give employers flexibility as to how they recoup employee national insurance liability when employers must pay that liability on behalf of their employees. Clauses 3 and 4 extend the range of securities-based earnings for which employers and employees can agree to transfer unpredictable employer national insurance liability to employees. On both those measures, the Bill contributes to the Government's drive to increase employee share ownership by removing disincentives. Clauses 5 and 6 align the procedures for the collection of national insurance debt owed by the self-employed with those on tax. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Lord Hutton's Report
  2.1 pm
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement following Lord Hutton's report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly.
  I am immensely grateful to Lord Hutton, his team and inquiry staff for the work that they have carried out. The report itself is an extraordinarily thorough, detailed and clear document. It leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. We accept it in full.
  Lord Hutton has just finished reading the summary of his findings. Before coming to those, I want to echo one thing that Lord Hutton said about Dr. Kelly himself. Lord Hutton makes his findings about Dr. Kelly's conduct in respect of the matters at issue here, but as he says, nothing should detract from Dr. Kelly's fine record of public service to this country. He was respected here and abroad. I am sorry that as a result of the gravity of the allegations made it was necessary to have this inquiry and that the Kelly family have had to go through reliving this tragedy over the past months. I hope now that it is over, they will be allowed to grieve in peace.
  Lord Hutton has given a most comprehensive account of the facts. It is unnecessary for me to repeat them. But let me emphasise why I believed it right to establish such an inquiry. Over the past six or more months, allegations have been made that go to the heart of the integrity of government, our intelligence services and me personally as Prime Minister. There are issues, of course, as to how the case of Dr. Kelly was handled in personnel terms, and I shall come to those.
  But those have not sustained the media, public and parliamentary interest over all this time. What has sustained and fuelled that interest has been, to put it bluntly, a claim of lying, of deceit, of duplicity on my part personally and that of the Government. That claim consists of two allegations: first, that I lied over the intelligence that formed part of the Government's case in respect of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction published on 24 September 2002; and secondly, that I lied or was duplicitous in respect of the naming of Dr. Kelly, leaking his name to the press when it should have remained confidential.
  In summary, Lord Hutton finds the following. First, contrary to the claim by the BBC that intelligence was put in the dossier against the wishes of the intelligence services, the dossier of 24 September was published with the full approval of the Joint Intelligence Committee, including intelligence about Saddam's readiness to use some weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so. Secondly, the allegation by the BBC that the Government deliberately inserted this 45-minute claim probably knowing that it was wrong was, to quote Lord Hutton, "unfounded". Thirdly, the allegation by the BBC that the reason for it not being in the original draft of the dossier was that the intelligence agencies did not believe it to be true was also, to quote Lord Hutton, "unfounded". Fourthly, no one, either in the JIC or Downing street, acted improperly in relation to the dossier. Fifthly, the BBC claim that it was "sexed up" in the sense of being embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false was also, to quote Lord Hutton, "unfounded".
  338
  Sixthly, Mr. Gilligan's key allegations repeated by the BBC were never in fact said, even by Dr. Kelly himself. Seventhly, there was
  "no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media."
  Eighthly, on the contrary, it was reasonable for the Government to conclude that there was no practical possibility of keeping his name secret and that the Government behaved properly in relation to naming him. Ninthly, the suggestion that either I or Sir Kevin Tebbit in our evidence were in conflict with each other or that one of us was lying was, to quote Lord Hutton,
  "incorrect and is not supported by the evidence."
  Tenthly, and for good measure, he also dismisses the allegations surrounding what I said on a plane to journalists in these terms:
  "Some commentators have referred to answers by the Prime Minister to questions from members of the press travelling with him on an aeroplane to Hong Kong on 22 July and I have read the transcript of that press briefing. As I have stated, I am satisfied that there was not a dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy on the part of the Prime Minister and officials to leak Dr Kelly's name covertly, and I am further satisfied that the decision which was taken by the Prime Minister and his officials in 10 Downing Street on 8 July was confined to issuing a statement that an unnamed civil servant had come forward and that the Question and Answer material was prepared and approved in the MoD and not in 10 Downing Street."
  Let me now return to the two central allegations. On 29 May 2003, following the end of the conflict in Iraq, the BBC "Today" programme broadcast a story by its defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan. It dominated the morning bulletins and reverberates to this day. It alleged that part of the September 2002 dossier—that Saddam could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so—had been inserted into the dossier by Downing Street, contrary to the wishes of the intelligence services, and that moreover we
  "probably knew it was wrong even before we decided to put it in".
  There could not be a more serious charge. The source for this extraordinary allegation was said by the BBC to be
  "a senior official in charge of drawing up that dossier"
  and an "intelligence service source", implying a member of the JIC or assessments staff who would be in a position to know. If true, it would have meant that I had indeed misled the House on 24 September and the country, that I had done so deliberately, and that I had behaved wholly improperly in respect of the intelligence services.
  From that day, 29 May, onwards, that story in one form or another has been replayed many times in the UK, and around the world. It dominated my press conference the next day in Poland, and Prime Minister's questions when I returned. It led that week to the Foreign Affairs Committee deciding to conduct an inquiry into the issue. In particular, on the Sunday following the story, Mr. Gilligan wrote an article in The Mail on Sunday, not merely standing by the story but naming Alistair Campbell as the person responsible in Downing street. The headline read:
  "I asked my intelligence source why Blair misled us all over Saddam's weapons. His reply? One word…CAMPBELL".
  That, again, was completely untrue, and not merely stood up but further inflamed the original allegation of deceit.

  339
  The BBC has never clearly and visibly withdrawn this allegation. This has allowed others to say repeatedly that I lied and misled Parliament over the 24 September dossier. Let me make one thing plain: it is absolutely right that people can question whether the intelligence received was right, and why we have not yet found weapons of mass destruction. There is an entirely legitimate argument about the wisdom of the conflict. I happen to believe now, as I did in March, that removing Saddam has made the world a safer and better place. But others are entirely entitled to disagree.
  However, all of this is of a completely different order from a charge of deception, of duplicity, of deceit—a charge that I or anyone else deliberately falsified intelligence. The truth about that charge is now found. No intelligence was inserted into the dossier by Downing street; nothing was put in it against the wishes of the intelligence services; no one, either in Downing street or in the Joint Intelligence Committee, put any intelligence into it,
  "probably knowing it was wrong";
  and no such claim to the BBC was made by anyone
  "in charge of drawing up the dossier".
  Indeed, Lord Hutton's findings go further. He finds that the claim was not even made by Dr. Kelly himself.
  The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. I simply ask that those who have made it and repeated it over all these months now withdraw it fully, openly and clearly. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister speak.
  The Prime Minister: Furthermore, Lord Hutton deals with the issue of the 45 minutes claim. Instead of this, as has been claimed, being disputed by the intelligence services and inserted in the dossier at the behest of Alastair Campbell or Downing street, the true position was that a concern about it and how it was phrased in the dossier was raised by Dr. Jones in the defence intelligence staff, was rejected by the head of defence intelligence and never actually came to the attention of the chairman of the JIC, let alone anyone in Downing street.
  In any event, Dr. Jones—again contrary to reports—did not say it should have been omitted from the dossier. On the contrary, Dr. Jones thought it should be included as it was "important intelligence". Dr. Jones told the inquiry that Dr. Kelly thought the dossier was, and I quote, "good" and Mr. A, from the counter-proliferation arms control department, said of himself and Dr. Kelly:
  "Both of us believed that if you took the dossier as a whole it was a reasonable and accurate reflection of the intelligence that we had available to us at that time."
  Lord Hutton does fairly comment:
  "However I consider that the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which, whilst consistent with the available intelligence, was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, may have sub-consciously influenced Mr
  340
  Scarlett and other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment".
  However, he then goes on to say:
  "Although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett, the other members of the JIC, and the members of the assessment staff engaged in the drafting of the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC."
  Lord Hutton also says, in terms, that John Scarlett
  "only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence."
  I hope that from now on the wholly unjustified attacks on the chairman of the JIC, John Scarlett, and the JIC will cease. Those people are people dedicated to this country and its well-being. The publication of intelligence by the Government—which we did, let me remind the House, because of the clamour for it—was a unique exercise never done before, and difficult for all our agencies. But in the interests of openly sharing intelligence with people, they worked hard in good faith to release it properly.
  Let me also remind the House that when this dossier was published, it was routinely described at the time as "low key" and by Mr. Gilligan, no less, on 24 September 2002 as "sensibly cautious and measured"; and actually moved public opinion hardly at all. Only in retrospect has it been elevated into the single thing that conclusively persuaded a reluctant country to war.
  The dossier itself reflected independent reports such as that of the International Institute of Strategic Studies published on 9 September. It reflected precisely that evidence which led the UN Security Council unanimously in November 2002 to agree Saddam and his weapons posed a threat to the world. The 45 minutes claim, for the record, was in fact mentioned once by me in my statement in this House on 24 September and not mentioned by me again in any debate, not even in the debate on 18 March or indeed by anyone else in that debate. Again, only in retrospect has history been rewritten to establish it as the one crucial claim that marched the nation into conflict. Lord Hutton establishes clearly why the 45 minutes was put in the dossier, what its provenance wasߞand whether or not subsequently it turned out to be correct. It finds it was put into the dossier entirely in good faith by the JIC. So much for the first charge of dishonesty over the dossier.
  The second charge was over the naming of Dr. Kelly. Again, throughout these past six months, the context in which this has been debated has largely been that Dr. Kelly's name should not have been revealed, it should have remained confidential and therefore anyone, including myself, who discussed or acted upon the issue was acting improperly.
  In hindsight, of course, the name of Dr. Kelly and his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee has taken on a different and altogether more tragic aspect. Rightly, Lord Hutton puts it back into its proper contemporary context. The truth is that, by early July, the FAC was actively engaged in examining the truth of the Gilligan allegations and due to report on 7 July. The Intelligence and Security Committee was about to begin its

  341
  deliberations the same week. The Government had already given evidence to the FAC and all of us, myself included, were due to give evidence to the ISC, beginning with the chairman of the JIC on 9 July.
  Suddenly in late June, Dr. Kelly came forward and said to his managers that he believed he might have been at least part of the source for the Gilligan story. That information was given to me personally on 3 July. By Monday 7 July, it was apparent that in all likelihood he was indeed the source of the Gilligan story. The dilemma we were in, therefore, as Lord Hutton accepts, was how we could possibly keep that information secret not just from the FAC, which had just taken evidence on that very point, but also from the ISC, who were about to interview us all about the intelligence relating to Iraq, with the first session on the morning of 9 July.
  The evidence, very frankly given, of both my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the FAC, and at least one of the Committee's members, was that if they had been told that the MOD knew the source and had interviewed him, the FAC would have wanted to do the same—as, of course, they did. Indeed, they told the Hutton inquiry that they would have liked to have been told sooner.
  The context therefore for the meetings on 7 and 8 July, which I chaired, was how to act properly in relation to those two Committees when we were in possession of information plainly relevant to their inquiries and when one Committee was on the point of publication and another was about to begin proceedings.
  The evidence of Sir David Omand to Lord Hutton was that it would be "improper" to keep this information secret and that moreover we were under a duty to reveal it to Parliament. So, as Lord Hutton accepts, the whole basis of the claim that somehow Dr. Kelly should never have been named or that his name was leaked in breach of a duty of confidentiality is based on a false premise. On the contrary, our duty was to disclose his name to the Committees and to allow them to interview him if they so wished; and Lord Hutton finds expressly that our concern at being accused of misleading those Committees was "well-founded".
  In any event, again as Lord Hutton finds, no one in fact "leaked" his name—not myself, not the Secretary of State, not the officials. As Lord Hutton finds, the decision by the Ministry of Defence to confirm Dr. Kelly's name, if the correct name was put to it by a journalist, was based on the view that in a matter of such intense public and media interest it would not be sensible to try to conceal it.
  So, there was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to name Dr. Kelly. He was named for the reason we gave. And again I ask that those who have repeatedly claimed that I lied over this issue or that Sir Kevin Tebbit lied, now withdraw that allegation also—unequivocally and in full.
  Lord Hutton does, however, find that the Ministry of Defence was at fault in not telling Dr. Kelly clearly and immediately that his name would be confirmed to the press if it were put to the MOD. The MOD accepts these findings. However, Lord Hutton goes on to say:
  "However these criticisms are subject to the mitigating circumstances that (1) Dr Kelly's exposure to press attention and intrusion, whilst obviously very stressful, was only one of the factors placing him under greater stress; (2) individual officials in the MOD did try to help and support him in the ways which I have
  342
  described in paragraphs 430 and 431; and (3) because of his intensely private nature, Dr Kelly was not an easy man to help or to whom to give advice."
  I believe that the civil servants concerned were acting in good faith, doing their best in difficult and unusual circumstances. Lord Hutton indeed has not criticised any individuals in the MOD. Some have been subject to trenchant media criticisms far beyond anything that they should ever have had to bear. So has Sir Kevin Tebbit and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Both are cleared of any allegations of impropriety. My right hon. Friend in particular has been subject to a constant barrage of such claims as parts of the media have alternated between wanting his scalp or mine. I hope that these attacks on him also over this issue now cease.
  I come to the final issue: the cause of Dr. Kelly's death; in effect, why he took his own life, since it is now beyond doubt that he did.
  Lord Hutton finds that no one could have foreseen that Dr. Kelly would commit suicide. He finds further that, in all probability, he did not decide to do so until the day of his death. He finds that the reason he did so was not for any reason of conspiracy or dark motives. The truth is that Dr. Kelly did speak to Mr Gilligan, and, whatever the distortion, it was an unauthorised meeting, as was his conversation with Susan Watts, the "Newsnight" journalist; and he was surprised to be asked about this at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Lord Hutton finds that the existence of a note of that conversation must have weighed heavily on his mind. Finally, on the day of his death he received notice of a series of parliamentary questions about his contacts, which he was going to have to answer.
  Dr. Kelly was a decent man, whose very decency made him feel wretched about the situation in which he found himself.
  No one wished this tragedy to happen. All of us felt, and feel still, desperately sorry for Mrs. Kelly and her family. None of us could have foreseen it, because none of us, at that time, knew what Dr. Kelly knew.
  Lord Hutton puts it in this way at paragraph 15 of his report:
  "I also consider it to be important to state in this early part of the report that I am satisfied that none of the persons whose decisions and actions I later describe ever contemplated that Dr Kelly might take his own life. I am further satisfied that none of those persons was at fault in not contemplating that Dr Kelly might take his own life. Whatever pressures and strains Dr Kelly was subjected to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that those pressures and strains might drive him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so."
  In conclusion, I repeat what Lord Hutton said in his summary, at page 322 of his report:
  "The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media."
  That is how this began: with an accusation that was false then and is false now.

  343
  We can have the debate about the war, about weapons of mass destruction, and about intelligence. But we do not need to conduct it by accusations of lies and deceit. We can respect each other's motives and integrity, even when in disagreement.
  Let me repeat the words of Lord Hutton:
  "false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others…should not be made".
  Let those who made them now withdraw them.
  Mr. Michael Howard rose—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Howard: David Kelly was a fine public servant, who did an immense amount of public good for this country, and I am sure would have done so again in the future. I pay tribute to his memory. I pay tribute, too, to Mrs. Kelly and her family, who have behaved with great dignity throughout the events of the last six months.
  I also thank Lord Hutton for his report. We accept his conclusions. The report is about the chain of events which started with the publication of a dossier, led to a feud between the Government and the BBC, and then finally to the death of a distinguished scientist in the Oxfordshire countryside.
  The report's findings about the BBC speak for themselves. We have long argued that the board of governors cannot both run and regulate the BBC. Does the Prime Minister agree that the case for independent regulation of the BBC has never been stronger?
  At the beginning of his report Lord Hutton refers to the controversy and debate about weapons of mass destruction—whether they exist, and what the Government told the country in the run-up to the war. Lord Hutton is quite clear that these issues are beyond his remit. Will the Prime Minister therefore now undertake to establish—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was heard. It is only right and proper that the Leader of the Opposition be heard.
  Mr. Howard rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate anyone shouting, including Ministers.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Prime Minister now undertake to establish an independent inquiry into these wider questions? That kind of inquiry took place after the Falklands War. Is not the case for holding such an inquiry now overwhelming?
  Lord Hutton finds, in paragraph 228(8) of his report, that on one level the September dossier was indeed sexed up. In paragraph 228(7) he says that he cannot rule out the possibility that the Prime Minister's attitude
  344
  "may have subconsciously influenced Mr. Scarlett"—[Interruption.]
  That is what he says:
  "and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment."
  Is that not a very serious finding indeed? Does it not go to the heart of the reliance which can be placed on any published intelligence material in future—at least while the right hon. Gentleman remains Prime Minister? And does the right hon. Gentleman now agree with the evidence of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service that, with the benefit of hindsight, the 45-minute claim was given undue prominence in the September dossier?
  Lord Hutton chooses his words very carefully—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that I will not allow shouting. If I see an hon. Member shouting, I will ask that person to leave the Chamber. The leader of the Opposition must be heard.
  Mr. Howard: Lord Hutton expressly finds, at paragraphs 402 and 403 of his report, that there was no conflict between what Sir Kevin Tebitt said to the inquiry and what the Prime Minister said to the inquiry. As the Prime Minister well knows, the questions I have put to him are about what he said on the plane to Hong Kong and eventually repeated in this House. On that, Lord Hutton merely says, in very carefully worded language, at paragraph 411:
  "the answers given by the Prime Minister to members of the press in the aeroplane cast no light on the issues about which I have heard a large volume of evidence."
  Of course they do not. Lord Hutton never heard evidence about what was said on the aeroplane. The Prime Minister never sent him a transcript of what he said on the aeroplane. If he had not been sent it by one of my right hon. Friends, Lord Hutton might never have even seen that transcript. Lord Hutton says, at paragraph 416 of his report,
  "I am satisfied that the decision to issue the statement which said that a civil servant. who was not named, had come forward was taken by the Prime Minister at a meeting in 10 Downing Street on 8 July".
  So the Prime Minister chaired the meeting that decided to issue that press release. That press release led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly. David Kelly knew that, and it says so in the report, at paragraph 439. The Ministry of Defence knew that. It says so in the report, at paragraph 409. Alastair Campbell knew that. That is why he wrote in his diary, "That meant do it as a press release." Anyone with any sense would know that if one issues a press release like that, the name will come out. That is why the press got David Kelly's name the very next day.
  Is the Prime Minister the only person who thought that issuing that press release would not lead to the naming of David Kelly? Is that what he is asking us to believe? Is he really that naive? Is it not clear to everyone that the release of the statement, authorised by the Prime Minister, led inevitably to the naming of David Kelly? Is the Prime Minister really telling the House that he had no idea that that would happen?

  345
  Listen to what Lord Hutton said at paragraph 407. He said:
  "The issuing of the statement authorised by the Prime Minister did give rise to the questions by the press as to the identity of the civil servant and these questions led on to the MoD confirming Dr Kelly's name".
  It is no wonder that Lord Hutton says that there was no plan or strategy to do this covertly. There did not need to be. It was all going to happen anyway, as night follows day, all because of the decision made by the Prime Minister. The best that can be said about the answer that the Prime Minister gave on the plane, and repeated in this House, is that it is at odds with what Lord Hutton concludes.
  When all is said and done, I suspect that what will remain in people's minds is the blinding light that this inquiry has shed on the innermost workings of the Prime Minister and his Government. Is not the picture painted in that evidence an extraordinarily vivid one? Vital meetings are unminuted, crucial telephone calls are unrecorded. In Lord Hutton's words in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the notes made by private secretaries were
  "very sparse and of no relevance."
  Whatever happened to the recommendations made by the Hammond inquiry into the Hinduja passports affair? [Interruption.] Oh, yes—just listen. That report, given to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Howard: That report, given to the Prime Minister five years ago, recommended that proper records were taken of meetings and telephone conversations between Ministers and their advisers. Why has nothing been done to implement those recommendations? What a picture the evidence to the Hutton inquiry portrayed of the state of mind of the Prime Minister's closest advisers and confidantes.
  Alastair Campbell wrote in his diary:
  "The biggest thing needed was the source out."
  And what was the reason for this? The reason, as he agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence, was that that would stuff Gilligan. "Stuff", of course, was not the word that he used. I cannot repeat in the House the language used by the man hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be his director of communications.
  The Secretary of State for Defence said that he had made great efforts to ensure Dr. Kelly's anonymity, yet he agreed to a course of action that he knew would lead to the naming of Dr. Kelly, he did not bother to tell David Kelly what he was going to do, he did not tell David Kelly that he would be named, and he did not give David Kelly the support that he needed as he was thrown into the media frenzy. Is not the Hutton report quite clear on this point? Paragraph 432 says:
  "the MoD was at fault in the procedure which it adopted in relation to Dr Kelly after the decision had been taken to release the statement."
  The Secretary of State for Defence then went to great lengths to deny what he had done. He denied it on television immediately afterwards and he denied it to the inquiry. He said that he had made great efforts to ensure Dr. Kelly's anonymity.
  346
  Is not there the starkest contrast between David Kelly, the dedicated scientist and weapons inspector who had done so much for our country, and the cabal of Ministers and advisers, including the Prime Minister himself, which was so obsessed with its war with the BBC that it gave scant attention to his welfare? Is not there the starkest contrast between the hours and days that it spent working out different ways of releasing his name to the media, and the two and half minutes that it spent informing him of the consequences of its actions?
  No one in Government can look back on this episode with pride. The nation will in due course deliver its verdict. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If this conduct continues, there is a danger that I will have to suspend the House, and I do not want to have to do that. Nor do I want hissing throughout the Chamber. I can tell some hon. Ladies that they are close to being asked to withdraw from the Chamber. The behaviour of this gathering is important, particularly to the Kelly family.
  The Prime Minister: Let me first deal with one or two points of detail. First, as the right hon. and learned Member knows, there will be a thorough review of the BBC's charter and all these issues should be considered in the course of that.
  Secondly, I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier in the day on the inquiry, other than to say also that the Iraq survey group should be able to complete its work.
  Thirdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the subconscious of the chairman of the JIC, which was mentioned in paragraph 228(8). The report goes on to say that Lord Hutton finds specifically that there was no improper interference, nor was any intelligence put in the dossier that should not have been.
  As for the 45-minute claim, Lord Hutton finds specifically, as he was bound to do from the evidence, that any doubt that occurred in one part of the Defence Intelligence Staff was never actually put to the JIC chairman, never mind to myself as Prime Minister.
  In relation to the plane and the naming of Dr. Kelly, let me read the rather fuller version of what Lord Hutton says. On page 323, he says:
  "On the issue whether the Government behaved in a way which was dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous in revealing Dr Kelly's name to the media my conclusions are as follows:
  (i) There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media."
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he agrees with the report's conclusions, how on earth could he make the allegations that he does?
  Lord Hutton goes on to say:
  "I consider that in the midst of a major controversy relating to Mr Gilligan's broadcasts which had contained very grave allegations against the integrity of the Government and fearing that Dr Kelly's name as the source for those broadcasts would be disclosed by the media at any time, the Government's main concern was that it would be charged with a serious cover up if it did not reveal that a civil servant had come forward."
  He concludes by saying:
  "It was reasonable for the Government to take the view that, even if it sought to keep confidential the fact that Dr Kelly had come forward, the controversy surrounding Mr. Gilligan's

  347
  broadcasts was so great and the level of media interest was so intense that Dr. Kelly's name as Mr Gilligan's source was bound to become known to the public and that it was not a practical possibility to keep his name secret."
  I was going to say that I expected, but actually I did not expect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman to respond to this in a measured and sensible way. It is a severe lack of judgment that he did not. As he knows perfectly well, the allegations of impropriety or dishonesty have been found not to be true. That is absolutely clear from Lord Hutton's findings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might therefore have had the decency to come to the Dispatch Box and withdraw the allegation about lying to the House over weapons of mass destruction which he made last August, and his statement that I or Sir Kevin Tebbit lied, which he made when he questioned me in the House a few weeks ago.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had really wanted to respond to this in a sensible way, he would have done so. I simply say to him that yesterday was test of policy for him, and he failed it, and today is a test of character, and he has failed that too. What he should understand is that being nasty is not the same as being effective, and opportunism is not the same as leadership.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: We express our gratitude to Lord Hutton and his colleagues for their very thorough work, and we extend our sympathy to the family of the late Dr. David Kelly.
  The Prime Minister has acknowledged that several constructive lessons emerge from the inquiry's completion, and it is surely sensible, therefore, to reflect on the need for the actions that need to flow from those lessons. Lord Hutton's report, without doubt, sheds considerable light on the key workings at the top of this Government. Lord Hutton acknowledges in paragraph 9 the tightness of the remit set for him by the Government which excludes, for example, specific consideration of matters ranging from the reliability of the intelligence material to the 45-minute assertion. Lord Hutton is therefore explicit, at the beginning of the report, about the fact that it necessarily leaves unanswered the most fundamental question of all, which is of course the basis on which this country went to that war in Iraq.
  Incidentally, listening to what has just been said, I have to reflect and remark on the fact that, if I may put this in the terms used by Lord Hutton in a different context, the leader of the Conservative party almost seems to have subconsciously forgotten the support that he expressed for that war at the time.
  The question for the House, surely, is whether there was adequate justification for the Government to seek the endorsement of the House of Commons on the basis that they did for our forces to go to war in Iraq without the express approval of the United Nations. In the absence of the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, surely as things stand today the decision and judgment on that question would have to be no. The Prime Minister, as he himself said in his statement, cannot therefore dodge or escape profound questions about the basis on which his judgment was made.
  348
  The Prime Minister referred to the relationship between the intelligence services and Downing street, and he read those carefully crafted words of Lord Hutton about that. Surely the way in which business has been done on this issue between the intelligence services and No. 10 will have to lead to some reassessment as a result of what has been learned through the inquiry. A prime lesson in the middle of all this has to be that the independence of the Joint Intelligence Committee has to remain sacrosanct and must not be seen to be compromised, and the JIC must not become embroiled in the presentation of a policy of the Government of the day, as opposed to informing the intelligence basis on which that policy is arrived at. That is a most important principle.
  There are also big questions over the way in which Downing street is now seen to operate, as a result of what has come out. In the report, the role of the Cabinet Secretary as all these vital decisions are arrived at seems almost to have been supplanted by the role of Alastair Campbell. Is that something that the House can be sanguine about? Is that something that should ever be allowed to happen again?
  The Prime Minister has acknowledged the fair criticisms of the role of the Ministry of Defence in paragraph 432 of the report. He used the word "mitigation" of the description of the MOD's role. Let us remind ourselves specifically of what Lord Hutton said. He said three things. First, it would have been better to name Dr. Kelly with his consent. Secondly, it would have been better to tell him to his face that it was the intention of the MOD and the Government generally to do so. Thirdly, that decision, having been conveyed to Dr. Kelly, should have been delayed for 24 hours to give time to advise him about the intense press interest that was likely to arise, and to allow to him to consider whether he wished to move house or wanted a press officer sent to his home. Does the Prime Minister really think that sufficient duty of care was extended to Dr. Kelly on that basis?
  On the position of the BBC, Lord Hutton confirms serious management failures at senior levels within the corporation. The BBC is a globally respected organisation, and many of us would argue, deservedly so. However, trust must be an essential element of its trade, and on this issue it is clear that senior personnel failed in that respect. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that as a result of the report we require reassurance that BBC management are putting in place mechanisms to ensure that the editorial shortcomings to which the report refers are not repeated? In the light of what he said a moment ago, can he also reassure all of us who value the integrity of the BBC that this matter should not be used by those who seek to undermine the integrity or independence of the BBC when it comes to licence fee renewal and its independence of funding and function?
  At the time of the publication of the dossier that gave rise to the high-profile recall of Parliament, the Prime Minister wrote in his introduction to that dossier about the
  "current and serious threat to the UK national interest"
  posed by Saddam and his possession of weapons of mass destruction. For those of us who were less than convinced at that point—that does not include either the

  349
  previous or the current leadership of the Conservative party—the key questions remain outstanding. Why was the decision to go to war at that point taken on the available information? Should not the United Nations weapons inspectorate have been given more time? Does not the case for an independent inquiry remain paramount?
  On 18 March 2003, this House debated an all-party amendment to which my party put all our names. It stated that the House
  "believes that the case for war…has not yet been established",—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 779.]
  The sad truth of the outcome of the Hutton inquiry is that as of today—nearly one year later—nothing fundamental has changed.
  The Prime Minister: To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he has not made allegations of lying against me personally throughout the past few months. Because of the position that he took on the war, he is obviously in a stronger position to ask some of those questions than the Leader of the Opposition.
  Nobody was actually in any doubt about the threat that Saddam posed, and I shall quote the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore):
  "Saddam must be disarmed and his evil regime with it. Nobody disputes that."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 288.]
  I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's view was that the matter should have been dealt with differently, but we should not rewrite history by saying that it was only this side, or even only this and that side, who said that Saddam Hussein posed a threat—everybody accepted that he posed a threat.
  Of course, we will reflect very carefully on the lessons that the report outlines for us, and that is absolutely right. Incidentally, the term "mitigation" in relation to the Ministry of Defence personnel who handled Dr. Kelly is Lord Hutton's term.
  On the Joint Intelligence Committee, I agree that its independence should be fully upheld, but I point out that Lord Hutton's report makes it clear that that independence was not compromised by the Government and that no intelligence was inserted in the dossier against the committee's wishes.
  I want to draw attention to this issue: the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that at one point the report—Alastair Campbell accepted this in his evidence—states that in hindsight it might well have been better to name Dr. Kelly in the statement or 24 hours later. However, the crucial point is that the whole of the allegation about the naming of Dr. Kelly has proceeded on the basis that his name should have been kept confidential. The important finding that Lord Hutton makes is that his name should not have been kept confidential. That puts the issue in an entirely different context.
  Finally, I am sure that the BBC will make its own response. I want to make it clear that I have never questioned and would never question the independence of the BBC, but it is not inconsistent with its independence also to exercise proper editorial control over serious allegations.
  Donald Anderson: Was it not a sad sight to see the Leader of the Opposition scratching around for minor qualifications in a report that on any objective analysis exonerates my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and undermines those who, for many months, have sought to impugn his integrity? Would it not now be more constructive for press, public and Parliament to concentrate on reconciliation and reconstruction in Iraq, with a new focus that could transform that country from being a danger to its neighbours, the world and its own people into a model for its region?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says. I would add only that we should once again state the House's pride in the work that British troops and civilians are doing in Iraq alongside troops and civilians from some 30 different countries to rebuild that country, giving its people every day an increasingly better chance of prosperity and stability in the future.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: While the Prime Minister is correct in saying that the words were carefully chosen and there were mitigating factors, does he not genuinely think that somebody should accept some responsibility for the clear accusation on page 324 of the report that
  "the MoD was at fault and is to be criticised for not informing Dr Kelly that its press office would confirm his name"?
  It also says that that
  "must have been a great shock and very upsetting for him".
  Surely the right thing is for the Prime Minister to say clearly and precisely that the Ministry of Defence was wrong and made a mistake, and that somebody should accept some responsibility.
  The Prime Minister: We accept entirely those findings, and the Ministry of Defence has made that clear and is obviously sorry for the distress that was caused to Dr. Kelly as a result. What is important, however, is also to draw attention to what Lord Hutton says are the three mitigating circumstances, and it is therefore right that the Ministry of Defence accepts full responsibility—as indeed do the Government—but that we recognise the mitigating circumstances. Lord Hutton expressly found that it was not wrong, but was actually right that the name came out.
  Ann Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of Members of Parliament are grateful for the thorough work that Lord Hutton has done and that the public will set more store by his judgments than the wriggling comments from the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that the findings of Lord Hutton parallel closely the findings of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and will he confirm that the Government will be able to produce their response to that report in advance of the debate next Wednesday, because it is clearly relevant? Will he also recommend to

  351
  the House that all Members who consider themselves informed on the matter should read the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which confirms what Lord Hutton said—that the dossier was not sexed up by anyone and that there was no political pressure whatever on the Joint Intelligence Committee?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that she does as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope and believe that we will produce our response to her report prior to the debate next week. Of course she is right to draw attention to the fact that Lord Hutton's report confirms the findings of her Committee, which is no doubt why those findings received publicity for other reasons on the day that they were published. It is right that everybody who has considered the issue has concluded, as they were bound to do from the evidence, that the original claim made against the Government was false.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Lord Hutton deserves all our thanks for the incisive conclusions that he has reached, which I hope will achieve closure on the matter, not least for my constituents, the Kelly family, to whom all our hearts go out. On the question of the cause or causes of Dr. Kelly's death, which do not in my view include the disclosure of his name—which he knew to be inevitable and inescapable—the BBC has admitted that Mr. Gilligan's broadcast was wrong, and Lord Hutton has concluded that the BBC did not exercise proper editorial control. Does the Prime Minister agree that if Mr. Gilligan had not felt encouraged to make the gravest allegations as a matter of routine, my constituent Dr. Kelly would still be alive today?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said about Mrs. Kelly and the Kelly family. I also agree with what he said at the conclusion of his question. It is important that there be reflection on how such allegations come to be routinely made, as there is absolutely no need for that. As I said earlier, a perfectly sensible debate can be had; it is one to which I think the public would respond with rather greater enjoyment and depth, if it was conducted on the basis that there can be two views about Iraq and the justification for the conflict. I have never disrespected anyone who took a different view, and I certainly do not disrespect those people who ask searching and proper questions about what has happened to weapons of mass destruction. I entirely accept that, but it has always been a completely different issue from suggesting that I, the intelligence services, or anyone else in government deliberately set out to mislead people. It simply is not necessary for the debate to be conducted in those terms. Frankly, if I may put it like this: the contrast between the journalism exemplified by Mr. Gilligan and that exemplified by Susan Watts tells its own tale.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern, at least on the Labour Benches, that the Leader of the Opposition did not find it within himself today to come to the House and apologise—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should put a question on the report. This is not a time to attack any Member of the House. He must put a question regarding the report.
  Mr. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the publication of the report, it is time to stop arguing about whether a document was right or wrong? The responsibility of the House is to help to rebuild Iraq.
  The Prime Minister: I agree. Whatever the questions, I hope that at least the major part of our focus is on the reconstruction of Iraq and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: As Lord Hutton makes clear on pages 2 and 3, he was asked to investigate the circumstances of a personal tragedy, not the issue of weapons of mass destruction, so when the Prime Minister's chief of staff wrote to John Scarlett on 17 September 2002 that
  "We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he"—
  Saddam Hussein—
  "is an imminent threat",
  does the Prime Minister feel that, in the words he chose when speaking to the House about the foreword one week later, he followed that sensible advice?
  The Prime Minister: I do believe that I followed entirely the right and proper course in the statement that I made to the House. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in relation not just to the dossier itself but also to its foreword, Lord Hutton specifically finds that no improper pressure was put on the Joint Intelligence Committee and that it was satisfied not only with the document but also that the foreword properly reflected the intelligence evidence it had received. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that Lord Hutton found the accusations of lack of integrity not to be true.
  Mr. George Howarth: Now that my right hon. Friend has been exonerated from any allegation of impropriety, untruth or dishonour, does he not believe—along with me—that the public will draw a stark contrast between his measured response in the Chamber today and the response of those who have made such allegations in this place, who have tried today to wriggle and squirm around the report, have lifted sections of it out of context and have shown that they—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the Prime Minister to respond to that. The Prime Minister has made a statement and the questions should be on that statement.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Prime Minister agree that Lord Hutton, in his

  353
  long statement earlier today and in his report, makes two things abundantly plain? The first is that the death of Dr. Kelly was a great personal tragedy, but not a great public scandal. The other is that those who have charge of our public service broadcasting should really consider their position.
  The Prime Minister: I want to add only this to what the hon. Gentleman has said: he has been exemplary throughout in drawing the right distinction between legitimate questions about the conflict and accusations of impropriety that should never have been made.
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: In the Prime Minister's statement he referred to page 19 of Lord Hutton's report, which specifically refers to the editorial systems needed to ensure that what we believe to be in the best interests of a democracy—that is, not impugning anyone's integrity, especially that of our Government and the Prime Minister—are in place. What does the Prime Minister believe that the governors of the BBC and the rest of the British media should now do to ensure that that happens?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the lessons of this will be reflected on carefully by the BBC. It is important, in all the focus that there will inevitably be on the procedures of the BBC, that we make it clear that there is sometimes a strain of journalism—certainly not shared by all journalists or all parts of the media—that is willing to make some of these accusations far too readily. I hope that that reflection will go a little bit broader than the BBC.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Once the decision was made to name Dr. Kelly, did not the Prime Minister share the great unease about the cat-and-mouse process involving the 20 questions asked by The Times newspaper, for example, in order to identify a public servant? It does not seem straightforward, and it leaves unease in one's mind.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should study the part of Lord Hutton's report in which he says that he first came to this issue asking precisely that question, and heard the evidence explaining exactly why this was done. Let me go back to the situation on 7 and 8 July, because the context is extremely important. What had happened was, we had known literally at the very last minute that someone had come forward saying that they might be the source. We did not in fact know whether they were, but we increasingly believed as the days went on that they were. We had the Foreign Affairs Committee literally about to report on 7 July. On 9 July, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett, was due to give evidence. I was due to give evidence, too. I was also in front of the Liaison Committee on 8 July.
  As was described not merely by me but by the civil servants, Sir David Omand and Sir Kevin Tebbit, there was a dilemma as to whether to name somebody in circumstances in which we could not at that stage be absolutely sure—because the BBC was refusing to confirm even whether it was not the source, which would have cleared the matter entirely—or whether we had to
  354
  be careful about naming someone when we were not sure, and indeed given that other people then could be speculated upon.
  The reason for this way of proceeding, as was explained in the evidence, was that it became increasingly clear that there was a risk of the name leaking out in any event, and that there were other Ministry of Defence officials being harassed as the potential source. So that was the reason why it was done in that way. What Lord Hutton describes in the end is that process, and he concludes that it was conducted in good faith. I entirely accept what he says, that in retrospect it could have been done in a number of different ways. But in the end, one thing was for sure: the name was bound to come out because it would have been wholly improper for us to have realised that we had the person within the Ministry of Defence who was supposed to be the source of this story and not once disclose the fact that we knew that someone had come forward and admitted that, given that we had two Committees looking into it and we were going to go and give evidence to those Committees, and they were focusing on the truth or otherwise of the Gilligan claim. That is the reason for it. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded person, and I would just ask him to read what Lord Hutton says about this in detail. I think that he will find it properly described.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does not the Hutton report confirm what some of us have been reviled for saying for months, namely that the BBC broadcast a lie, that the chairman of the BBC railroaded an acquiescent board of governors into endorsing the lie, that Richard Sambrook withheld from the board of governors information showing it to be a lie, and that Kevin Marsh and John Humphrys endorsed and built on the lie? How can the BBC continue as a public service broadcasting organisation, funded by a tax, unless these people are cleared out and a new regime appointed?
  The Prime Minister: Well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Make him chairman!"] No, I shall not do that. I will simply say that I am sure that the BBC will reflect on the findings of the Hutton report. I also say to my right hon. Friend and to other hon. Members that there are some wider lessons, as well as those for the BBC. Although I am sure that the BBC will reflect on those lessons, there may be too great a willingness to focus only on the BBC, because it is not only particular journalists there who make such allegations at the drop of a hat and do not really bother to correct them once they are found to be untrue.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As the leader of the largest party from Ulster, I should like to pay tribute to Lord Hutton, an Ulsterman. I congratulate him on the speed with which he brought his findings to this House and on the fact that one does not need to get a dictionary to understand what he is saying.
  The Prime Minister finished his speech by quoting Lord Hutton, who said:
  "false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others…should not be made".

  355
  All right-thinking people in this House will agree with that. The Prime Minister finished his own statement by saying, "Let those who made them now withdraw them." No right-thinking person could disagree with that.
  The Prime Minister knows of the turmoil and division in the nation that this matter has caused, and now is the appropriate time for him to discuss with Her Majesty the Queen a national day of prayer that we may return to the old paths and remember this: that justice and judgment are an honour to a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
  The Prime Minister: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point about his party, if he talks to the Conservative party he will discover that a large party can become smaller in time.
  In respect of the day of prayer, I do not think that I shall be suggesting that to Her Majesty, but what he says about the importance of allegations of impropriety being properly sustained or withdrawn must indeed be correct. We do not need to engage in a great deal of prayer to achieve that: we could achieve it perfectly simply if we merely acted on it.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: A great deal of time has rightly been spent on producing this report, because, tragically, a very well-respected civil servant died. Given the thousands who have died in Iraq since the invasion, and given the weight of evidence that we now have that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, will the Prime Minister now undertake to call an independent and non-partisan inquiry with terms of reference wide enough to allow us to discover why we went to war with Iraq? Millions of people opposed this illegal war. Do we not owe it to our democracy and to the citizens of this country to find out exactly why we went?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the last part of what my hon. Friend said.
  In relation to the first part, it is not the case that thousands of people are dying in Iraq, nor that anyone is dying in Iraq as a result of the way in which the coalition forces and the Iraqi civilian authority are behaving—on the contrary, they are doing their best to reconstruct that country. It is former Saddam sympathisers and assorted terrorist groups who are conducting terrorist operations and killing wholly innocent people, including members of the United Nations and, in particular, large numbers of Iraq citizens. Whatever my hon. Friend's thoughts about the war, I should think that she would agree that Iraq is a better place without Saddam, that the region is a better place without Saddam, and that the world is a better place without Saddam; and that we should now get on and help that country.
  Peter Bottomley: Lord Hutton ends his report by quoting Dr. Kelly's obituary on page 328. I think we should keep that in mind.
  May I now raise what appears to be a slightly unpopular subject in the Chamber today, that of journalists' standards and the BBC? May I ask the
  356
  Prime Minister to reflect on the BBC's letter of 30 May last year, which was sent in reply to a letter from the Downing street press office? It gives a clear summary of the BBC's response.
  May I also point out that the words of Andrew Gilligan at seven minutes past 6 o' clock, which he has not defended in full, seem to have led to the controversy? Does the Prime Minister accept that No. 10 could have calmed the whole thing down if it had not over-reacted, especially after the letter of 30 May?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I do not accept that. I do not accept that this was not a claim that was not substantiated and was sustained over a long period by the BBC. The BBC did that, and the claim was then repeated and then taken up by newspapers. The truth is that it went very much into the public consciousness, and became virtually part of the accepted truth when in fact it was a complete untruth. If the hon. Gentleman looks in detail at what Lord Hutton says about these things, I think he will find a complete answer to the points he has made.
  Peter Bottomley indicated dissent.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I suggest he read the report as a whole. It is quite plain what Lord Hutton thinks.
  Alan Howarth: The public will indeed expect a significant response from the governors to Lord Hutton's serious criticisms of the BBC, but—saving the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) beside me—can my right hon. Friend assure the House that Lord Hutton's strictures against the BBC will not bias the Government in their consideration of the future of the charter and licence fee?
  The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance completely.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The whole House mourns the loss of an outstanding servant of the nation, but many of us also greatly value the honour and integrity of the House. I am delighted that the Prime Minister will be pleased with the outcome of the Hutton report—it is a good thing to have this put behind us—but will he work with all Members, and particularly with the leaders of all political parties in the House, to uphold the honour and integrity of Parliament; otherwise people will lose confidence in this place? If there is one thing that I wish to do during my remaining time here, it is to enhance the honour and integrity of the House of Commons.
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I think that the vast majority of the House will agree with it. I only wish that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr.Howard) had said the same in responding to my statement. It would have been perfectly simple for him to say "We accept these questions about the Prime Minister's integrity being removed; now let us debate other issues." It is unfortunate that he did not do so,

  357
  because he left the impression—and meant to leave the impression—that there were still doubts about my integrity over this issue.
  Sir Stuart Bell: May I build on the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? Is not the kernel of the 740-page report contained in what Lord Hutton says about the best elements of democracy? Is it not the case that the bridge between the public servant and the public is the press? If that bridge is destroyed by falsehood, innuendo, unfounded allegations and attacks on the impunity of public servants are not the public worse served? Is it not appropriate for the sections of the press that indulge in such odious practices to cease to do so, so that our democracy can be stronger and that bridge between the public servant and the public can be restored?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that people will reflect on what Lord Hutton has said. Let me make it clear that I believe a vibrant, healthy and investigative press is precisely what a democracy like ours needs and should have. That is perfectly compatible with making allegations of impropriety only when they can be substantiated.
  Mr. David Trimble: I am sure the House will agree that the inquiry and the report are the very model of what a judicial inquiry should be, and that Lord Hutton deserves our thanks. I also agree with Labour Members that there is a clear need for a radical response from the BBC to the cogent criticisms that have been made. I am sure the House will return to that on Wednesday.
  The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary can rightly feel that they have been vindicated in the report because it is clear that they acted properly in handling the dossier and the intelligence material. I have no regrets about my support and that of my colleagues for the war. It was the right thing to do and events since the war have, if anything, vindicated that.
  However, I have a concern about the intelligence material. I appreciate that other intelligence agencies and the Security Council were of the same view as our intelligence services, but there must be serious concern about whether the intelligence services had an accurate picture of the position at the time. I suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be a good idea to examine the way in which we could have some sort of consideration of or
  358
  inquiry into the accuracy of the intelligence that our intelligence services gave him. I do not suggest any impropriety, but there must be a lingering anxiety about the reliability of the intelligence and we need to consider the way in which we can ensure that we get the best possible intelligence in future.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has put his comments moderately and sensibly. I agree that there must be consideration of such issues, which I think will be informed by the final report of the Iraq survey group because it will say, "This is what we have found in Iraq." The information that has already come out is more balanced than people are saying. However, I agree that, at that point, it will be sensible to consider the lessons that can be learned.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a debate on the matter next week.
  Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Inaccurate and sloppy media reporting, sometimes provoked by hon. Members' inaccurate and sloppy statements, has not only falsely impugned the integrity of a Prime Minister but called into question the effectiveness of the House and the quality of the scrutiny of the Government by our Committees and hon. Members. When you have the opportunity to read the report, will you ask your staff to compare Lord Hutton's conclusions with statements by hon. Members? If there is any case in which an hon. Member appears to have misled the House, will you have a private conversation with that Member about the advisability of making a personal statement?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 29th January, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to the House of Commons Members Estimate and Bicycle and Motorcycle Mileage Allowances not later than Six o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Ainger.]

  Brain Injury Rehabilitation (Funding)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  3.17 pm
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: I welcome the opportunity to have the debate this afternoon—albeit a little earlier than I expected; indeed, I believe that the Minister too was caught unawares.
  The most recent statistics available show that 7,826 individuals presented with head injuries at the accident and emergency department of one of our major hospitals in Northern Ireland in 12 months. In that total, 2,417 adults, of whom three quarters were male, and 871 children required admission. Fifty-two per cent. of their head injuries were from falls, another 21 per cent. were from road traffic accidents and 18 per cent. were from assaults. Annual figures are not available for the entire Province, but those from the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast give us an indication of the large number of head injuries that occur.
  Acquired brain injury is responsible for 30 per cent. of all trauma-related deaths. We tend not to consider traumatic injuries in the same way as viruses, cancer or cardiac deaths, for instance, yet acquired brain injury is the leading cause of death in young males in developed countries. Two thirds of those affected are aged between 14 and 39. When a brain injury occurs, it can change the way in which a person thinks, acts, feels and moves his or her body. Brain injury can also change the complex internal functions of the body, such as regulating body temperature, blood pressure and bile, and bladder control. Those changes can be temporary or permanent. They may cause impairment or a complete inability to perform a function.
  An acquired brain injury occurs when an outside force impacts on the head hard enough to cause the brain to move in the skull, or when the brain is hurt directly if the force causes the skull to break. That type of injury can be caused by motor vehicle crashes, firearms, falls, sports and physical violence, such as being struck with an object. A rapid acceleration and deceleration of the head can force the brain to move back and forth across the inside of the skull. The stress from those rapid movements pulls apart nerve fibres and causes damage to brain tissue. Acquired brain injury takes place at cellular level in the brain, so it can affect cells throughout the entire brain, instead of just in specific areas.
  An acquired brain injury cannot be hereditary, congenital, degenerative or induced by brain trauma. It has occurred after birth and causes can include trauma to the head or neck, heart attack, stroke, intracranial surgery, airway obstruction, crush injuries, choking, strangulation, near-drowning, electrical shock, lightning strike, infectious disease, intracranial tumours, metabolic disorders, meningitis, certain venereal diseases, AIDS, insect-borne diseases, seizures, or toxic exposure to chemicals or gases, such as carbon monoxide poisoning.
  Reconnect is an organisation in Northern Ireland that provides training for those with complex neurological disability resulting from acquired brain injury. It aims to provide access of opportunity for that group of people. Reconnect's mission is
  360
  "to enable people with an acquired brain injury to realise their maximum potential for social and vocational reintegration, through structured training programmes based on the needs of the individual."
  I have had personal involvement in the case of one young man who suffered a severe head injury and benefited from the input of Reconnect. He was a civil servant in his 20s living my constituency, who suffered a head injury at a football match that led to him spending three weeks in a coma. He spent some time at the Joss Cardwell rehabilitation unit on Holywood road in Belfast. My office assisted him in securing benefits. His subsequent experience at Reconnect proved invaluable not just for himself, but for his young wife and their very young children. He continues to experience some difficulties, but manages to function at a reasonably high level today. If he had not had access to Reconnect at that time, his quality of life would have deteriorated owing to lack of stimulation.
  Reconnect came into existence under the name Garden Reach in 1991. Based on the Ormeau embankment in Belfast, it operated in modest surroundings and provided training and rehabilitation for those with acquired brain injury from two simple glasshouses and another two portakabins. That was the extent of its facilities.
  The original idea came from a physiotherapist who recognised that when patients in Northern Ireland left hospital after a traumatic head injury, no service was available to help them to piece their lives back together again. Sufferers from complex neurological disability therefore became socially excluded and lacking in confidence. As a result, they could not gain access to any of the limited services available and tended simply to sit in the house all day. Those who did gain access to services were likely to attend a day centre, where they had only limited interaction with elderly individuals. One important consequence of a lack of stimulation is regression from what has been achieved through the good work carried out by dedicated hospital rehab teams.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point, because Garden Reach operated in my constituency until redevelopment meant that it had to move. Does she agree—indeed, this is the very point that she is making—that it is vital that after the acute sector has done its immediate work, we should not leave people without the back-up that is needed to give them the quality of life that the rest of us would like to have, and also that what is done should be done at minimum expense to the state?
  Mrs. Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and totally concur with them. I shall deal with that point later in my speech.
  We could consider the victims of road traffic accidents as examples. They will probably be admitted to intensive care after assessment in accident and emergency. Their gradual recovery will continue in one of the general hospital wards, and then the new regional brain injury unit at Musgrave Park hospital, where they will re-learn how to walk, talk and swallow. They will be attended by a rehab team of physiotherapists and speech and language therapists, and I pay tribute to the work

  361
  undertaken by staff at the hospital However, after patients are discharged home, Reconnect represents the final stage for those with head injuries to get their lives back together again. Reconnect assists patients to return to work, or simply to function to the maximum as a normal human beings again through structured training programmes.
  With head injuries, a person's life can change dramatically in an instant. With a severe brain injury, an individual goes from being independent to being totally dependent, and from being capable to being incapable; everything about their lives becomes different. During the recovery period, there is a need not only to reconnect neurological paths, but at a deeper level, for people to reconnect socially and emotionally with their friends, families, therapists and society at large.
  Training and rehabilitation focus on reconnecting lost skills and learning ways to compensate for abilities that have been permanently changed because of a brain injury. The brain is a dynamic organ, and as long as it receives repeated stimulation, chemical and physical changes occur to ensure that cells will react to that same stimulation in the future. Following a brain injury, the remaining tissue may set up new connections and pathways. The surrounding tissues in the brain try to take over the functions that were lost in the area of injury, so the brain tries to reconnect to the old pathways. That can occur only if a person is active. The brain does not adapt or try to recover if it is inactive—it must be stimulated. Rehabilitation involves stimulation, and that happens at Reconnect using information technology, office skills, horticulture and many other essential social skills.
  Reconnect is a voluntary organisation that has been supported since 1995 by the European social fund. In 2002 the ESF doubled its funding, which allowed it to embark on plans to move away from its dilapidated premises on the Ormeau embankment and source new land to build the first purpose-built training facility for people with acquired brain injury in. Northern Ireland. As a result of heavy capital investment from the European regional development fund, the European capital programme, a brand-new £750,000 training facility sits in the Castlereagh hills overlooking the city of Belfast. The new facility is greatly expanded from the old premises and can accommodate up to 15 staff and more than 60 trainees at any one time. On any day, it is likely to hold the highest concentration of people with an acquired brain injury under any one roof in the Province.
  The facility is unique because it can train brain injury sufferers on site in areas as diverse as catering, in the kitchen and preparation areas; information technology, media and communications, in the computer suite: office and administration work, in the large, specially designed secretarial areas; and horticulture, in its specifically designed climate-controlled glasshouses, seeding area and polytunnels. It has numerous other training facilities in the large boardroom, the therapy room and additional offices.
  In September 2003 staff numbers increased to 15, and in November the organisation was officially relaunched as Reconnect, bringing with it new corporate branding and a strategic vision for the future. The strategic plan was a realistic achievable vision that would enable the organisation to become a centre of excellence in the
  362
  provision of community-based training and the rehabilitation of people with acquired brain injury. Through a commitment to person-centred planning and an ethos of "whatever it takes", Reconnect set out to provide each trainee with their own training package based on their skills and desires, which is essential to attaining a positive outcome for someone with an acquired brain injury.
  Unfortunately, in December 2003 Reconnect received a letter stating that its application for core funding from the European social fund programme "Building Sustainable Prosperity", administered by the Department for Employment and Learning, had been unsuccessful. That occurred despite the fact that the organisation had surpassed the ESF's criteria for a quality organisation, thereby reaching the threshold for acceptance for funding. The decision to stop funding was taken by two civil servants and an independent member, and was based on information identical to that in previous successful applications. As the ESF provided more than 65 per cent. of Reconnect's core costs, which was match funded by other organisations, such as the disablement advisory service in the Department for Employment and Learning, Reconnect now faces closure on 30 March 2004. Up to 48 trainees will be denied access to training, 15 experienced and highly specialised staff face redundancy, and a brand new £750,000 ESF-supported purpose-built facility will be left derelict and unused.
  One reason given for the failure of the application, apart from an overall reduction in European funding, is that Reconnect's services cut across the remit of several Government Departments. It appears that it has fallen between two stools. No service equivalent to Reconnect is currently provided by the statutory sector in Northern Ireland. In current circumstances, Reconnect simply does not have the finances to continue. It is ludicrous to end funding at this critical phase in its development, as it has received extensive support thus far. I therefore urge the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), to intervene and support Reconnect in its appeal against the decision. I also encourage her to consider mainstreaming the organisation to allow its services to continue. Co-operation between Ministers with responsibilities for health and for employment and learning may be required.
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that across the Province, 500 people a year sustain a head injury and would benefit from a service such as Reconnect. I trust that the Minister agrees that the organisation fulfils an important role and offers an invaluable service to many people across Northern Ireland. For that reason, I decided to seek this Adjournment debate, and I hope for her support in maintaining and optimising this critical service.
  3.33 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Circumstances are fortuitous, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) and the Minister would originally have had to wait until 7 o'clock for a half-hour debate. We could now have a debate lasting until 7 o'clock—although I have no intention of making my speech last until then. None the less, I shall take the opportunity to say a few things in support of the hon. Lady's request.

  363
  We hoped to have a meeting with the Minister to argue the case for supporting Reconnect. It is unfortunate that it has not been arranged yet, because there are time pressures and a decision could be made by the end of the week. However, this is a timely occasion for an Adjournment debate on the subject, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing it. She mentioned the work that is done and said that the figures would not tell us how many were injured in other parts of the Province. That is partly because the Royal Victoria hospital is the major trauma centre in Northern Ireland, and the Musgrave Park hospital in my constituency is the rehabilitation centre, which does a great deal of work for people throughout the Province.
  Now we must deal with onward development. Even in speech therapy, there have been changes in recent years with growing recognition of the importance of stimulating people who have had strokes and lost the power of communication. It is fantastic to see some of the work being done.
  One of the saddest statements that the hon. Lady made was about the concept of prosperity. So often that concept is used only in relation to finance, and takes no account of the physical, mental and social prosperity of people who have been so handicapped. There is a case to be made. I pay tribute to the work done at Musgrave Park and to the work of Reconnect. I hope the Minister will take the matter on board. Even though she spells her surname differently from mine, I believe we have a similar understanding of human nature.
  We are talking about the seamless robe of Government and the fact that Government Departments have been reconnected. I hope that money can be found in the Department to keep that excellent work going on. It is strange that two civil servants and an external person acknowledged that money was needed in the past, but they say that there is no money now. There must be some way to find extra money, because the need still exists. The facilities are better than in the past and it would be tragic to lose them. I plead with the Minister to use her influence with her colleagues. If we can help her to put pressure on them, we shall be glad to do so.
  3.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) on securing the debate. The subject is obviously close to her heart and I commend her for the way she made her case; it is one with which I have considerable sympathy. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  In the time remaining this afternoon, it may be helpful if I explain the background. I understand the hon. Lady's concerns for her constituents, and I am very much aware of the pressures on individuals and families when a member of the family suffers an injury that leads to acquired brain injury. The hon. Lady outlined the random nature of such an event and the traumatic effect that it can have on the life of the person with the injury and on friends and families, who often bear the brunt of dealing with a very different person, in some cases, and caring responsibilities.
  364
  Brain injury is a complex and difficult area of medicine. The Government recognise the seriousness of the issue and the need to find ways to combat the effects of such injury on victims. As the hon. Lady said, brain injury can arise through traumatic events such as accidents, or be acquired through brain damage as a result of tumours or chronic illnesses. Initial treatment usually takes place in hospital neurosurgery or neurology departments. Following hospitalisation, a patient may recover sufficiently to return home, although some may require considerable support.
  Investment in the health service in Northern Ireland is central to our Government's policies and is bringing improvement to Northern Ireland for the benefit of patients and their families. This commitment is reflected in the fact that almost 41.5 per cent. of the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit for 2003–04 is devoted to health issues. The figure will rise by 7.8 per cent. in the next financial year, amounting to more than £3 billion.
  The Department for Employment and Learning, not my Department, is responsible for administering the European social fund for projects such as Reconnect which, as she described, provides rehabilitation for people with head injuries. Eligible projects are those that provide training and skills development for people seeking employment or advancement in employment. Some supported projects seek to meet the employment and training needs of those with health problems or disabilities, as in the case of Reconnect.
  The primary focus of the European social fund is to provide individuals with the necessary skills to gain employment. The general rehabilitation of those with health problems or other disabilities is not the primary objective of the European social fund, but, of course, the building of confidence and of the skills required to enter employment are an important contribution to rehabilitation.
  There are some misconceptions about the reasons for Reconnect not succeeding this time. There is a substantial but finite amount in the European social fund available to projects for the two years from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2006. That amount is £22 million. I understand that that is not a reduction, but the reasons for the application's failure have nothing to do with it crossing two Departments. Each application is considered on its merits.
  One problem is that there is extensive competition for the funds: 95 applicants sought a total of £36 million, which the fund could not meet. The result was that there were more deserving projects than could be dealt with by the funds available That is one reason why, on this occasion, Reconnect was not successful.
  I understand that Reconnect was supported previously by the European social fund, but that in itself is not a criterion for future support. I am told that that would be unfair to new applicants, which is understandable. However, that causes a problem for organisations on the ground of sustainability, so perhaps we ought to work across Departments and with the organisations that might be involved to see whether more can be done to help to develop exit strategies or alternative funding streams.
  Unfortunately, the timing is difficult, because often when organisations are notified that they are to lose their funding there is not always enough time to put

  365
  other funding in place. However, the Department for Employment and Learning, as well as my own Department, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, very much recognise the seriousness of brain injury and its effects on the victims.
  I understand the disappointment felt by Reconnect at its recent unsuccessful application. It has decided to appeal against that decision—I am told that the review panel is meeting on 4 February—but the difficulty is that Reconnect was not the next organisation on the list for gaining funding. Other organisations, which are also extremely worthy and extremely important, were ahead of it. We await the outcome of that appeal. In the meantime, I can assure the hon. Members for Strangford and for Belfast, South that the discussions are ongoing between the organisation, the South and East Belfast trust and the Eastern board to see whether any interim measures can be taken. I will say more about that later.
  In a moment, I will come to the discussions that are taking place and what steps we are considering to see how the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety can help. First, I want to talk about the Department's work in this area of health.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I may be coming in too soon on this one and the Minister may be about to answer my question. I understand her reference to the South and East Belfast trust and the Eastern board, but are no folk in other board areas benefiting from Reconnect's work? Has the Department taken that point into consideration?
  Angela Smith: Unfortunately, Reconnects work takes place only in the Eastern board area, not in others. Therefore, it would be difficult to ask other boards to assist in funding activities that do not take place in their areas. There is a problem here—my Department would fund work that happens across all four boards, but this organisation's work does not do that.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that we have only one centre in Northern Ireland that does not deal exclusively with those who require assistance in the Belfast area. Obviously, others who require support must travel to that centre.
  Angela Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment. He is not correct because, as I will explain, considerable other work is going on across Northern Ireland to assist people with acquired brain injury. I shall outline some of what my Department is doing.
  The Department recognises that people with a brain injury require a continuum of care—this was also acknowledged by the hon. Members for Strangford and for Belfast, South—in respect of acute care, which is followed by community care and support. As a result, we are establishing a new regional acquired brain injury unit on the Musgrave Park hospital site. That will provide state-of-the-art in-patient rehabilitation
  366
  services, and is due to open in 2006. I am sure that that will be welcomed across Northern Ireland and by all in the Chamber. The £8.5 million cost of that represents a considerable investment in brain injury rehabilitation services.
  The development of community brain injury services to complement the new unit is also essential. These will provide rehabilitation and support for those with brain injury already living in the community and provide a "step down" service for the new unit, the importance of which both hon. Members specified. It is envisaged that community services will be provided by teams comprising psychiatry, psychology, therapy, nursing and social work input. In 2004–05, an additional £500,000 will be provided for that purpose.
  The third aspect of support for people with brain injuries and their carers is also provided by voluntary organisations. Currently, my Department provides funds amounting to £120,000 to the Cedar Foundation, which provides rehabilitation and vocational training. Cedar provides socio-vocational brain injury services at six centres across Northern Ireland—Belfast, Ballymena, Lisburn, Londonderry, Newry and Enniskillen. The Cedar Foundation was successful in its recent application for funding from the European social fund, and it plans to expand its brain injury services. Headway also provides support and services for people with brain injury and their families. That organisation received project funding until March 2003.
  A new organisation, the Northern Ireland traumatic brain injury forum, was established in 2002 to bring together people with a brain injury, their carers and professionals in the field to lobby for better services. My Department provided funding for the organisation's inaugural conference in 2002 and an application for recurrent funding is currently being considered. The forum also organised a seminar in November 2002 on the needs of children with a head injury, which my Department funded. A report of the recommendations of the seminar is awaited, and that will assist in planning for future service development. In addition, an inspection of services for disabled children is being undertaken by the social services inspectorate, which will advise my Department of any current gaps in service provision.
  Work is also being undertaken by the Department for Employment and Learning through its disablement advisory service, which provides advice, guidance, training and a placing service for people with disabilities and health issues. The service is available for those who wish to obtain or retain employment and can be accessed through a specialist team of disablement employment advisers across Northern Ireland.
  The disablement advisory service also offers a range of practical and financial support to employers recruiting and retaining disabled employees, as well as a professional assessment system. The disablement advisory service administers four main employment programmes to help people with disabilities enter or remain in work: the job introduction scheme, access to work, employment support and the new deal for disabled people. The job introduction scheme is a job trial facility, which offers both the employer and the disabled jobseeker an excellent opportunity to find out if the job and the person match. The disablement advisory service helps the employer with a contribution towards

  367
  employment costs for the first few weeks, and the trial period usually lasts for about six weeks. Employment support gives people with more severe disabilities the opportunity of working alongside non-disabled employees in a wide variety of jobs. That enables people who cannot reach standard output levels, because of their disability, to work in real jobs and earn the full rate of pay for the job that they are doing. I have mentioned the work of the new deal for disabled people.
  Projects such as Reconnect, which were already receiving European social fund assistance, were aware that further assistance, as previously, is subject to competition with other organisations. That, however, does not lessen the threat to Reconnect's services. Clearly, health is a priority for Northern Ireland and is central to Government policies. As I indicated earlier, the priority is reflected in the high proportion of expenditure devoted to health issues in Northern Ireland, and I have outlined some of the important work that is going on to assist people who have disabilities and acquired brain injuries. We do as much of that work as we can, as this is a very complex and distressing area of medicine, and patients, carers and their families need support, as I outlined at the beginning of my speech. However, I have to recognise that, within the budget limits that apply, we cannot meet every need in medicine.
  I want to comment on the specific action that we are taking to try to help Reconnect. I apologise to the hon. Member for Belfast, South if he has not had a response about meeting me. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) is the Minister with responsibility for
  368
  employment and learning. If the funding falls under that Department, the request would not have come to me at this stage.
  I understand that 33 people are currently using Reconnect services and I am most concerned that they continue to receive the care and support that they need. I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that it is quite difficult for the Health Department and health boards to pick up the drop in expenditure from the Department for Employment and Learning. I can say that the trusts that use Reconnect services have advised the board that they have contingency plans to absorb current users into alternative provision if the need arises. For those currently accessing the services of Reconnect, every effort has been made to ensure that there is no lack of provision of service for them.
  The Eastern health and social services board and the four community trusts are working together to find a means of supporting Reconnect beyond 31 March 2004. What we would like to do then is collectively to review the longer-term funding of the organisation to establish how it can be supported. I am pretty confident that we will be able to achieve that. There will be further formal discussions with Reconnect in the very near future, but its longer-term future must be viewed in the context of other services being provided across Northern Ireland for people with brain injury. The commitment to building community services for people is also important.
  I assure the hon. Lady that I take a personal interest in this matter and I have asked to be kept informed of what happens in future. I hope that I have dealt with the points that she raised and I thank her for the way in which she raised them today. I hope that we can find a way to continue these services, which are so important.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Four o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Hatfield Colliery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.]
9.30am
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the future of Hatfield colliery and, indeed, the future of the UK coal industry.
It is ironic and historic that we are discussing the future of the coal industry on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike. Twenty years ago, the Tory Government were determined to close down the bulk of the mining industry. The miners at Corton Wood resisted and went on strike, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Twenty years on we have a Labour Government, who face a clear choice: do they stand on the sidelines wringing their hands while the final nail is hammered into the coffin of the UK coal mining industry and thereby finish the job that the Tories started 20 years ago, or do they face their responsibilities and ensure that we maintain an indigenous coal industry and protect the UK's future energy requirements? We will know the answer to that when the Minister responds later this morning.
Hatfield colliery in my constituency is the key to the future of the UK coal industry. It sits on 80 million to 100 million tonnes of accessible, good quality coal, which amounts to about 50 per cent. of accessible UK reserves. Its history is chequered—it was closed just before the privatisation of the industry in the 1990s and reopened with a management buy-out. Two and a half years ago, in August 2001, it was closed again and the receivers were brought in. The then Minister agreed to keep the colliery on a care and maintenance basis until a new buyer was found because of Hatfield's future prospects. The new buyer was Richard Budge and Coalpower Ltd., which set about re-employing the men and trying to give the colliery a future.
The colliery was maintained on the understanding that it would continue to work the High Hazel seam. Everybody knew that there was no prospect of making a profit without the operating aid scheme, but it was understood that the colliery would continue to work the High Hazel seam while it developed into the Barnsley seam. At that point, the Government were discussing ending the operating aid scheme and moving to a coal investment aid scheme.
All was going well until the operating aid scheme ended in July 2002. Agreement was reached to extend that scheme until December 2002, but unfortunately the coal investment aid scheme was not introduced seamlessly—it was not introduced until November 2003, which was a little bit too long for the plans for Hatfield colliery. Everybody knew that working the High Hazel seam would not make a profit, and a short-term cash-flow problem quickly developed.
76WH
I am grateful for the Minister's help in keeping the pit open and the men at work from late summer through to the autumn, but there were difficulties. When the coal investment aid scheme was introduced, the offer was not what we thought. I attended a meeting in the Department of Trade and Industry with the previous Minister, where it was stated that coal investment aid would amount to about £110 million and that Hatfield would get about £45 million over three years£15 million a year.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend mentions the meeting where we were given the impression that more money would be available for investment aid. If Hatfield had received £45 million, would it have been sufficient to drive down to the Barnsley seam and access that enormous block of coal—it is the largest UK reserve—from Thorne eastwards?
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The answer to his question is that the matter would have depended on timing, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
When the coal investment aid scheme was announced, only £15 million was made available over three years, which was one third of the expected sum, and more than 12 months had elapsed. It is because Hatfield had got itself into short-term financial difficulties and because Government funding depended on match funding from the private sector that the owner put in a bid for match funding that related to the original scheme. Bankers base their decisions on the information submitted to them, and the bid was different from the Government offer. The time lapse made the situation difficult, and it is no wonder that the bank said no. The coal investment aid scheme offers £15 million over three years. To obtain that money, the owners must start the bidding process to obtain £30 million of match funding, which takes time. They cannot just go to a bank and ask for £30 million because various assurances must be made and details must be checked.
The Minister agreed to keep the mine on a care and maintenance basis over November, December and January, but unfortunately there has not been enough time. Unless something dramatic happens here today, the men will be sent their redundancy notices today, tomorrow or on Friday and the pit will close. Will the Minister keep the pit open on a care and maintenance basis to give the owner, Coalpower—or whoever the future owner might be—an opportunity to put together a financial package to exploit the reserves in the Barnsley seam?
The Government have to make a decision about whether we should be involved in deep-coal mining or whether we should import all our coal. I think that it would be dangerous to go down the latter track. The Government underpinned the nuclear industry with £650 million and even agreed to let it have some more money. When we consider the coal aid given in other countries, such as Germany or France, the £60 million that has been made available in this country looks like peanuts. I downloaded some information from the European Commission website and found that in 2002

77WH
it had authorised payment of almost €1 billion to France for its coal industry. France has only two pits, yet it is spending €2 billion. Germany is giving €3.3 billion in coal aid and it has 10 pits. We made an application for £10 million, which was agreed, to close Selby.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We didn't.
Mr. Hughes: Well, the Labour Government did. If we are willing to spend £10 million to close down a colliery, why on earth are we not willing o spend a few million to keep the Hatfield pit open, to access the Barnsley seam and ensure a prosperous future?
I am not just talking about Hatfield and the mining jobs there, although that is important; I am talking about the future and about maintaining our indigenous coal industry. Hatfield is not only a good prospect for coal; the Minister knows that there is planning permission and a section 36 permission to build an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant on the site. That sounds complicated, but basically it is a clean coal power station, which does not burn coal but uses it with other technology to generate electricity. That is not all. Such power stations do not merely generate electricity, they capture carbon dioxide and hydrogen nitrates which can, of course, be used in other industries. The waste is inert and can be used in civil engineering.
The use of captured carbon dioxide is the latest in clean coal technology. Experiments are under way in the North sea to use captured carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery—pumping CO2 down into the oil well enhances the amount of oil that can be brought out. There is no reason why the Hatfield plant could not assist us in recovering more oil from our North sea oilfields.
The prospects are even better than that, however. Scientists are developing the hydrogen economy, saying that hydrogen is the new power of the future. An IGCC plant at Hatfield could develop fuel cells from captured hydrogen and produce enough energy to power the whole of the public transport system in the south Yorkshire area. So not only do we have a coal mine with a future of between 30 and 40 years, which would maintain our indigenous coal industry, we have the possibility to build technology on the site that would take us forward by helping us to deal with our Kyoto targets and generate the fuel of the future.
It is ironic that our oldest and most reliable fuel, which we have used for centuries, could help to create and develop the fuel of the future. That is a prospect worth pursuing. I am not the only person to think that; the Americans think so, too. They are pouring about $6 billion into developing IGCC technology. If they are pouring in that amount, surely it is incumbent on our Government to get ahead of the game. We can develop that technology, our engineering industry can get involved and we can start exporting it, or shall we just sit back, watch the Americans develop the technology and buy it from them, no doubt at a premium price, in years to come?
The clean coal budget for the UK is £25 million—I am not sure how much of it has been used to date. I realise that America is a much bigger country and that it has a
78WH
larger budget, but the Americans are spending between $6 billion and $10 billion—I think they are putting $6 billion into IGCC technology alone, quite apart from what they are doing to develop other clean coal technologies.
We need to start thinking about developing such technologies. Everybody is aware that we shall be burning fossil fuels in this country for years to come, but we cannot keep spewing out toxic emissions, so the future must lie with those new technologies. Windmills are popular at present and, yes, we must develop renewable sources of energy. There is no doubt about that; I agree. The Government should be helping to develop renewable energy sources. However, in reality, renewable sources will produce only about 10 per cent. of our energy requirements. We shall continue to be reliant on fossil fuels for a long time to come. The sensible thing for any Government to do would be to get in there and help to develop that technology.
I was disappointed by the White Paper that the Government published last February. It really was a missed opportunity. Everything I read about coal related to the fact that the industry in this country would end within the next 10 to 15 years. When we look around, we can see that that is probably true. Most collieries that are operating now will naturally be approaching exhaustion by that time, but Hatfield is the exception.
Hatfield has between 80 million and 100 million tonnes of accessible coal, and there is more—those are only the accessible reserves. The plan is to link Hatfield and Thorne collieries, which will give access to even more reserves. The only real prospect for the future is the Hatfield colliery.
We have to make a decision about whether to continue with the colliery, or to walk away from it. The Minister should do everything that he can to ensure that Hatfield stays open in the short term. I am asking him to help and to get involved in developing the Barnsley seam—to get into the new territory, as it were—and the IGCC technology. The Government are responsible for the energy requirements of this country, and those requirements will not be satisfied by renewables alone.
Mr. Denis Murphy: My hon. Friend has mentioned the massive reserves at Hatfield. Is he also aware of the reserves at Ellington colliery? They have already been accessed by the National Coal Board and, subsequently, by British Coal at huge public cost. There are between 20 million and 200 million tonnes of accessible reserves there. Does my hon. Friend think that they should be mined as well?
Mr. Hughes: I do, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point because it brings us to the crux of the question. When we consider the White Paper, it is clear that the Government intend to take us down the track towards being a net importer of energy. How ludicrous is that? We must think about security of supply. It is fine to think about short-term economic gain, but we must also think about the fact that, when people press a light switch, they want the lights to go on, and when they turn their heating on, they want heat. Yet we are planning to close down the indigenous coal industry. We are already burning our natural gas to

79WH
generate electricity, which is ludicrous. We ought to be burning our gas—a premium fuel—in homes for heating and cooking. However, we are planning to continue to burn it to create electricity, and to build a pipeline across Europe. The Minister has already had a meeting with the Norwegians and possibly even signed an agreement on that pipeline.
So we are going to be importing our gas, and if Hatfield, Ellington and other collieries close down in the near future, we shall also be importing all our coal. Where does that leave us in terms of security of supply? It leaves us vulnerable.
Mr. Skinner: This is a private industry, and the same is true of the railways. When, in the railway industry recently, Connex could not deliver, the Government stepped in to ensure that the service continued. The same was true in relation to Railtrack. It was a failure, so what did the Government do? They picked it up. Here we have a private coal industry that seems to do as it likes and get away with it. Why cannot the Government take the same line on coal as they do on rail, and say that in Hatfield, for example, the private element cannot do the business? All the reserves are there. Why cannot the Government step in, as they did with Connex and Railtrack? That is a very good analogy, and this ought to be done.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that intervention. I can only agree with my hon. Friend. I shall bring my comments to a close now because I know that other colleagues have things to say about the future of the deep-mine coal industry in this country.
It is sensible to have a diverse energy mix. It is also sensible to maintain an indigenous supply, because if we do not do so, we shall be vulnerable in terms of cost and of international terrorism. Let us imagine a situation in which this country had no coal industry and had to import all its supplies. Let us also imagine that we had no natural gas and had to import all our supplies down a pipeline. What would it take for a terrorist to take out a ship coming in across the sea? What would it take to blow up that pipeline?
Not only that; what about cost? We live in a capitalist world, and if someone does not have something and I do, I am going to make sure that they pay what I want for it. To maintain that cost element and to secure ourselves against any international terrorist element, we need to maintain a diverse energy source and an indigenous supply. The Government have some stark choices, and there is no doubt that they are political ones. Do we choose to do what is right for this country and for the long-term future or do we choose short-term economic expediency and hammer home the last nail in the coffin of the indigenous mining industry? I hope not, but at the end of the day, Minister, the choice is yours.
Several hon. Members:rose—
Mr Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. Perhaps I should remind the House that it is common practice during these 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination. That would be at 10.30, which leaves us 34 minutes in which to accommodate the five hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. I would therefore ask all contributors to the debate to
80WH
bear that time limitation in mind when making their comments, and when seeking to make or respond to interventions from others.
9.56 am
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on taking the initiative in requesting this debate, because it gives us an opportunity to consider once again the future of the mining industry, and to reflect on this country's energy needs for generations to come. Last year, the Government published their White Paper on energy. From it emerged four goals: reducing CO2 emissions, maintaining reliable energy supplies, promoting competitive markets, and ensuring that there is affordable heating in every home.
The current mix, as my hon. Friend said, consists of 32 per cent. of our electricity being generated by coal, 23 per cent. by nuclear power, 38 per cent. by gas, 4 per cent. by oil and 3 per cent. by renewables. The maintenance of reliable energy supplies cannot be achieved under the Government's proposals that have emerged since the publication of the White Paper.
The Institution of Civil Engineers, which carried out research on the White Paper and published a report on it, stated that the target of 10 per cent. renewables by 2010, and 20 per cent. by 2020, was out of the question. It said that that could not be done. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether be considers those targets to be achievable. The report also suggested that the Government's objective appeared to be to phase out coal production in this country by 2016. If that happened, it would he a disaster for the mining industry and for the nation. The report also stated that only one nuclear power station would be operating after 2020. That, too, spells out a crazy energy provision policy. In terms of keeping the lights on, future generations will suffer if the proposals outlined in the White Paper are allowed to proceed.
Hatfield colliery has a great deal to offer the future provision of energy. It and the other collieries that are working require the long-term security of a market for the coal produced in this country.
When a delegation of hon. Members, some of whom are here, met the Prime Minister on 17 September last year—the Minister was also present—we pressed him to consider agreeing to the emission limit values arising out of the large combustion plant directive being pursued by the European Commission. We told the Prime Minister that we considered the ELV programme to be in the best interests of the mining industry, and we still do. Although the Government have gone for the national plan instead of that proposal, we ask the Minister to reconsider it and give the mining industry an opportunity to secure long-term markets in the electricity generating industry. I remind him that a majority of electricity generators opted for ELVs.
How could the Government overlook and overturn a proposal that benefited the coal industry and was requested by the electricity generating industry? I have twice written to the Minister asking for a meeting to consider that question, and I hope that this morning he will agree to it. If we cannot get that co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry, we are left with no option but to go back to the Prime Minister, who said

81WH
at the time that the Minister should consider the issue and then give us, the miners' representatives, an opportunity to make further representations in due course. I make that plea because it is important that we be given the opportunity to discuss issues of importance and relevance to our communities.
On 28 November 2002, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry addressed the House on the subject of assistance to British Energy, which runs the nuclear industry. She reported that on 26 September 2002 a loan of £650 million was granted to British Energy, and that the Government would underwrite the arrangements secured by British Energy to raise money from bonds. She said:
"The cost to the Government"—
of supporting British Energy—
"will average £150 million to £200 million per year for the next I0 years".—[Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 489.]
If we are to have fairness, openness and justice within the various parts of the industry, how can the DTI and the Minister say that the support for the mining industry that we are looking for will not be forthcoming? We are not asking for anything like £150 million or £200 million a year over 10 years. A one-off payment of £100 million would help the industry to develop new resources such as clean coal technology, and would aid its survival. That is not unreasonable when one considers what the Government are handing out to the nuclear industry. Will the Minister take this matter seriously and offer us, the representatives of mining communities, the chance to put our case on the future of the mining industry and the development of clean coal technology?
At the beginning of 2003, "Energy Review" said:
"It is surprising that the closure of nuclear capacity is addressed in some detail yet there is no comment about the age of the coal and oil fired capacity."
In other words, according to that report and to the research done by the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Government are writing off the mining industry. We give notice that we will campaign here in this House to retain the mining industry and to develop the reserves at Ellington and Hatfield collieries. We want fairness and justice on assistance for the development of the coal mining industry and the introduction of clean coal technology, which will help to reduce CO2emissions. I ask the Minister to address those points first, then we can move on further.
10.6 am
Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the importance of Hatfield colliery. Twenty years ago the men, their families and their community fought to keep that pit open, and the fight will go on. The debate gives us an opportunity to talk about the future of the British coal industry. Hatfield is important because it gives access to immense reserves—50 per cent. of the reserves in the UK coal industry. These days, it is unfashionable in energy circles to support UK Coal, but I am an enthusiast. There is a place for British coal in the short term, the middle term and the long term. The Minister and his
82WH
colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, must take action to secure the cornerstone of our energy policy.
The most important lesson of the energy White Paper, which is a year old today, is security and diversity of supply. I applaud its direction in moving towards a low-carbon economy—that must be right—but we must take the necessary careful steps to get there, and I have doubts about some of the courses of action being advocated. I have always thought that the target of 10 per cent. renewables by 2010 was ambitious; I think that we will get there, but arrive late. The target of 20 per cent. renewables by 2020 is described as "aspirational", although some people call it impossible.
If we cannot achieve those targets, we need to consider other sources of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) talked about the problems in the nuclear industry. It is clear to me that the private sector will not renew the nuclear industry in the foreseeable future. That takes us to gas. By 2006, Britain will be a net importer of gas. The Department's own figures suggest that by 2020, 80 per cent. of our energy needs in the UK will be met by gas, 70 per cent. of which will be imported. In the context of the diplomacy mentioned in the White Paper—the need to make international connections—we need only look at what has happened in Iraq recently. We need to remember the lessons of 11 September. It would be a fundamental mistake to be so dependent on gas in 10 years' time.
There is, however, a wider argument: the coal industry must be compatible with renewables. Renewables, by their very nature, are peripheral and variable. Our renewables targets could be achieved through wind power if it were sustainable, but the wind does not blow all the time. As only coal is flexible enough to meet demand, it is important for the industry to survive in the short, medium and long term.
The industry is doing its bit. It is no longer uneconomic. The UK Coal work force are the most efficient miners in Europe, and they have brought down the price per gigajoule. The company can now compete on the world market.
I applaud the Government for introducing operating aid and, recently, the investment aid scheme. It may be insufficient, short term and too late in coming, but at least it is there, giving us an opportunity to develop new reserves and giving the coal industry a long-term future. It is, of course, a bargaining counter; public sector money brings in private sector money.
The environment is a difficult issue for the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North suggested, and it will be environmental concerns that kill it. I have discussed this with the Minister before, but I ask him now to discuss it thoroughly with his DEFRA colleagues. If he wants a long-term UK coal industry, he must think carefully about the way in which the large combustion plant directive is implemented. It appears that no final decision has been made, but the Government seem inclined towards the national plan. I understand why, but all the advice given to the Minister and all the research show that if that route is taken, as night follows day the coal industry will close. It will survive only if the emissions limit value route is adopted. If we want to lose 15,000 jobs, or deprive the economy

83WH
of £700 million, let us go for the national plan, but I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister to be very careful. I know that research has been commissioned and I know that decisions can be reversed, but he must take heed of what I say. He must also consider the long-term issues involving carbon dioxide. We must progress from research on clean coal technology to implementation of that technology.
Across the world—in India, China and Indonesia—we will see the coal industry grow. Coal will remain the powerhouse for industrial growth. Here in the first world. we should be cautious about closing down the industry. We have the technology, we have the expertise, and we have the most efficient miners in Europe. We have a strategy for our energy policy. We must ensure that coal is and remains the cornerstone of that strategy.
10.13 am
Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing this debate. It is important, and Hatfield is an important colliery. My hon. Friend described it as at the centre of the current coal industry. He also pointed out that this was the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike. At the time of the strike in 1984, there were 170 collieries in the United Kingdom; today there are about a dozen.
Hatfield is indeed at the centre of the coal industry. We expected it to be able to take men from Selby after Selby's closure this spring. We expected that Hatfield would be developed, for it has vast reserves of good low-sulphur coal. Moreover, it is linked with Thorne, whose take of coal on the east side of Doncaster probably makes up the largest reserve in the UK. It is therefore extremely important to the indigenous coal industry. It is also part of a wider industry. It is not always appreciated that the coal industry is still a large industry in the UK, with a turnover of more than £1 billion, that it employs 9,000 men, and that there are probably between 15,000 and 17,000 jobs connected with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) pointed out that the industry produces the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe—yet we hear that the French and German industries draw down much more money for their support.
We are facing another crisis. Since I came to the House 12 years ago in 1992, we have faced crisis after crisis in the coal industry. Luckily we have a Government who have listened, and on each occasion some assistance has been given. This time, however, I fear that the investment has not been enough to enable the industry to continue. We need more help. I hope that even at this 11th hour the Minister will think about that. Perhaps it would be possible to obtain operating aid. It is, after all, important for us to be able to support our indigenous coal industry.
It has been said that by 2006 we shall be importing gas. By 2020, 80 per cent of our energy economy will depend on imports of both gas and coal. It is not always realised that it currently depends on coal, which constitutes about a third of the energy mix. Last year we burned some 50 million tonnes in our coal-fired stations.
84WH
We need a new generation of such stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North spoke of the integrated gasification combined cycle system. I know that the owner of Hatfield colliery was seeking investment to support a new unit based on the new clean coal technology. Such a unit, if successful, might well provide a stimulus for the development of clean coal technology generators that would help sustain the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood put his finger on the real problem for the future, though. He referred to the large combustion plant directive and the Government's approach to it. There are two possible approaches, the national plan and the emissions limit value plan. The national plan would involve one national sulphur bubble. I suspect that DEFRA has considered how it might trade off the bubble with other European countries, which would be a mistake. DEFRA's calculations fail to take account of the cost of the demise of the UK coal industry. The cost for coalfield communities would be terrific. It is therefore important that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs examine the alternative approach of emission limit value, which would support the UK coal industry. UK Coal estimates that if the national plan is to be the Government's way forward, the industry is likely to he decimated, and could be reduced to 3 million or 5 million tonnes in two or three years.
I therefore urge the Minister to adopt the emission limit value approach arid consider the way in which we could make more investment available to Hatfield, which is the centre of the industry. I get the feeling that if Hatfield colliery closes, others may speedily follow.
It is therefore important that the Minister take on board the combustion plant directive, and approach it in a way that gives the UK coal industry sustainability and makes more investment available, so that Hatfield colliery continues into the future.
10.20 am
Mr. Denis Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing an important debate. He made a powerful speech for Hatfield colliery, which I support. I am sure that many other people, inside and outside the House, would like Hatfield to have a good future.
I want to make one or two brief remarks about the last remaining colliery in the great northern coalfield—Ellington. Just before Christmas, UK Coal announced 70 redundancies at the colliery and placed it in the review process. That news came after information that £2 million of Government investment aid was available and that £1.1 million was available immediately for development in the next two years. The plan was to develop an area called K3 south district, thereby providing four more years of production and employment. Protecting more than 400 jobs in an area of long-term high unemployment is vital.
Ellington supplies a pithead power station, which is owned by Alcan, and provides power to its adjacent aluminium smelter. More than 1,100 jobs are shared between the two industries. Although Ellington relies almost entirely on Alcan for its survival and future, the closure of the pit would have a negative effect on Alcan's

85WH
prosperity. Alcan burns 1.2 million tonnes of coal per annum—80 per cent. now comes from Ellington. Finding 1 million tonnes of coal at the price that it now pays would be impossible for Alcan. World coal markets are changing rapidly. Ellington colliery could supply Alcan's requirements for the next 20 years.
At great public expense under British Coal and the National Coal Board, tens of millions of pounds were spent on developing roadways to access new reserves to the north of Ellington—some 14 km under the North sea. It is estimated that between 20 million and 200 million tonnes of accessible coal lie in that Klondike under the North sea—enough to fuel a new generation of clean coal power stations.
To realise that, Ellington needs to overcome its short-term problems. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is supportive and has been helpful in recent meetings. Indeed, were it not for the Government's commitment, Ellington would have closed several years ago. I ask my hon. Friend to re-examine another application from UK Coal for further investment aid to Ellington.
It is commendable that everyone at the pit—management and work force—is working together for the colliery's survival. However, I am surprised and disappointed that the company's board passes on its responsibilities to the work force when problems occur. I find that strange. Nevertheless, a critical fault has been identified in any survival plan for the colliery: problems with the coal preparation plant because of a poor design that constantly breaks down and spends many days down, on maintenance. That has led to a build-up of some 400,000 tonnes of unwashed and ungraded coal. It is estimated that an improved plant, costing £2.5 million, will be required to solve the long-term problems of Ellington colliery. I respectfully suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister look favourably on any application that includes such a proposal.
Alcan is the largest industrial employer in my constituency. It has invested heavily so that it can continue on site for at least 20 years. Ellington has the reserves, manpower and skills to produce the coal that Alcan requires. Further investment now would make that possible.
10.25 am
Brian Cotter: I speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but I appreciate that many speakers, especially the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), have made a case for the coal industry with far more knowledge than I could pretend to possess. I do not believe that I am alone in being moved last night by the television programme about Hatfield. When I first became involved in policies for the Liberal Democrats 20 years ago, I joined one of the miners' marches that went through London. Although I know that that was a token gesture, it represented how I felt about the terrible position that confronted us under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North on presenting his case so well and on expressing great concern for Hatfield colliery. I appreciate that he is anxious today to ensure that the Minister provides
86WH
clarity, especially about the proposed £15 million in funding. I shall therefore not take issue with the request for that money, although the Liberal Democrats are worried about the amount of funding that the Department of Trade and Industry has put into various projects over the years. We remain concerned about that, but I shall deal with the details of the specific request that we are considering shortly.
A massive amount of money, which has already been mentioned, has been put into nuclear power. At the end of last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that she would increase the credit facility to British Energy by £75 million. Even worse, many people say that the cost of nuclear energy could rise to £ billion in the next few years because of the need for decommissioning, waste management and the costs of production. Vast sums of money are being put into energy production that is costly and of major environmental concern to many of us. No one here, except perhaps the Minister, would agree that such a use of Department of Trade and Industry funding represents the way that we should go.
At the beginning of the month, the European Commission drew attention to the fact that Britain had crept to the top of the European scoreboard for subsidies, thanks to two big handouts—one to British Energy and the other to Railtrack. That position is not sustainable. All state subsidies to industry should be considered according to the taxpayer's long-term interests and the value that the industries add to society, rather than on the basis of individual commercial or labour interests, so the Minister needs to be asked some questions about that situation.
First, will the coal mine be viable in the long term? Concern has been expressed about the fact that the administrators are finding it hard to attract private investors because of the cost involved in developing a new seam. If such projects are viable in the long run but just need a helping hand to attract investment, should we not consider at least the possibility of loans based on the project's viability, both in this case and in other cases?
Secondly, if the Government agree to fund the maintenance of the mine until a suitable buyer can be found, how much will that cost? If we are to put money into a project, we should have a view about its viability, effectiveness and long-term cost. There is no point putting money in if we will see no result at the end of the day. Of course there is great concern about the future of the £350 million clean coal power station that the pit's former owners were planning to construct next to the mine. Has the Minister any answer to those questions?
The hon. Members who have already spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, have made some important points about Hatfield colliery holding the key to 50 per cent. of the coal industry's reserves in this country, and about security of supply. The hon. Gentleman has said that we need a clear strategic approach to energy—something that I called for more than a year ago in a previous debate on coal. Above all, we must decide to allow the development of a number of environmentally acceptable forms of energy production, and I very much hope that clean coal can be part of that.
10.32 am
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing this debate and on speaking so eloquently on behalf of not only Hatfield colliery, but the UK coal industry. I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate. I intend to say a few words, but to leave the Minister plenty of opportunity to reply to a number of the points that have been made by all the hon. Members who have spoken. In some ways, I feel a little sorry for the Minister because he is perhaps a bit isolated on the issue, inasmuch as there seems to be some concern—as expressed not only in this Chamber today, but throughout the industry—not about the White Paper's objectives, which we all share, but about the lack of direction that, I am afraid, it seems to show. I shall return to that in a minute.
I have researched Hatfield colliery, and very interesting reading my brief on it is. I do not intend to go through that brief because the hon. Member for Doncaster, North has indeed spoken about the colliery and I would not pretend to have anything like his knowledge, but I know that the colliery has an interesting history and, potentially, an interesting future, which depends on which way this country decides to go in its energy policy.
When I took on the shadow Department of Trade and Industry brief some six months ago, I started to look at the issues and it became very clear to me that there was no immediate threat to, or problem with, the security of supply. Of course we had some technical problems in London and the west midlands, when the power was out for nothing more than a few minutes. However, those technical problems were in no way related to capacity and were nothing to do with supply, and it is unfortunate that the two issues got confused.
I am satisfied that in the very short term—this year, next year—there is enough capacity to see us through. That is a dangerous thing to say when we are not yet quite through the winter, but I am assured by those at Ofgem and many other people that there is sufficient capacity now and, indeed, there probably will be for next winter. However, when we look slightly beyond that the situation possibly changes. I share the concern that has been expressed not only by a number of hon. Members, but by people throughout the energy world who seem to be somewhat concerned about the prospect of a possible shortage of supply in the medium term.
What do we mean by the medium term? Well, according to one or two discussions that I had only yesterday with people in the industry who really should know, they are concerned not about next winter particularly, but the winter after that, when demand might possibly begin to exceed supply. Things can be done to secure that supply in the short to medium term, but when we move into the middle-medium term things look a little bit worrying.
As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has already suggested, our current mix is about 22 or 23 per cent. nuclear, about 32 per cent. coal and about 38 or 39 per cent. gas, with one or two other bits coming in. That kind of mix—a third, a third, a third, with a desire to increase renewables—is probably not a bad one, but that is, of course, about to change as there are questions
88WH
about the future of the nuclear industry. I want the Government to give some signs about what will happen to the nuclear industry, which ought to have a future.
I accept that the costs in the past cannot be repeated in the future, but there is no need for that to happen. There is new technology and there are different ways to do things and to handle the waste. I have travelled to Finland—a country that is expanding its nuclear industry and, indeed, finding good, safe and not all that expensive ways to handle and deal with the waste. I think that the nuclear industry has a future, but I am not sure that the Government agree and I should like the Minister to tell us—although I have heard him speak about this before—about his view of the nuclear industry's future. As things stand, I do not believe that the Government particularly intend the nuclear industry to have a future.
If the 22 or 23 per cent. of electricity produced by the nuclear industry starts to fall, how will we make up the difference? Well, let us look at the coal industry, which, as hon. Members have suggested, is under some environmental pressure in respect of sulphur emissions and carbon emissions—a double whammy. That is a threat to the coal industry, and we have to recognise it as such. Of course we have to play our part in reducing emissions, but we ought to remember that the emissions produced in this country amount to about 2 per cent. of world emissions. Although we probably have to play more than our part—that would only be fair—I do not want British industry to be penalised to the extent that we have a power supply crisis.
If the nuclear industry is allowed to diminish and coal is under environmental pressure, so that 32 per cent. might drop, what will happen? Where will our power come from? Well, we have gas. As the hon. Member for Doncaster, North and other hon. Members have said, we are due to become a net importer of gas in 2006. The Minister confirmed that in the House only a few days ago. Therefore the 38 or 39 per cent. of supply that is now provided by gas might creep up to 49, 59, 69 or even 79 per cent. A lot of that gas will be imported, as we have heard.
I am not convinced that the Government have sufficiently advanced the negotiations with countries such as Russia, Algeria and others to enable us to feel secure in the supply of gas, which is so important. Yes, a treaty has already been signed with Norway, but that will cover only a fraction of the gas that we will need to import as we move forward. So where will the security of supply come from?
I am concerned about the fact that we could become over-dependent on gas. We have been over-dependent on middle east oil in the past—we have seen where that gets us—and, to an extent, we have been over-dependent on coal at certain times, which was not a good situation either. What I should Like is a balanced energy policy so that we are not over-dependent on any one source, but the Government have not yet come up with such a policy. They have given no guarantee that they know how to achieve that, nor even that it is their desire.
Of course, we have the prospect of increasing our use of renewables. Everyone who cares about the planet and our ability to continue to generate electricity wants renewables to succeed and increase in importance. However, our targets of 10.4 per cent. of supply by 2010,

89WH
15.4 per cent. by 2015 and 20 per cent. by 2020 seem ambitious when we consider that the present target, which is underpinned by an obligation, is only 3 per cent. Even that target has not been met—I think that last year's figure was 1.8 per cent. We are not near achieving even a low 3 per cent. target, so how will we reach 10.4 per cent. in only six or seven years?
I am worried that the Government not only expect renewables to come up to the 10, 15 and 20 per cent. targets, but expect windmills to provide all that energy. I am in favour of renewables, and although I am not against windmills, as such, we should consider how unreliable and inefficient they are. They are expensive to build, they do not last long after they are built, the electricity that they produce is expensive and no one wants windmills to be built near them, so there is a bit of a problem. I encourage the Government to try to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy and to look a little wider than simply getting that from windmills.
I want to leave the Minister plenty of time to reply to the many points made by hon. Members. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North on not only raising the issue of Hatfield colliery, but giving us the opportunity to discuss energy policy in general.
10.42 am
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to him for the absolute and unyielding determination that he has shown while trying to secure a viable future for Hatfield colliery and the proposed clean coal power station that would be linked to it. Without his determination and work over a long period, the prospect of an attractive future for Hatfield may not have existed.
I thank all hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies who spoke in the debate. Their contribution is important to maintain a wide recognition that coal continues to play an important role in the UK's energy supply—my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was right to make that point. Coal will continue to be important for a long time to come. I want to refer to the work involved in producing "Manifesto for Coal", which was launched on 3 November last year, because that has been helpful in focusing attention on the issues that face such an important industry.
The UK coal industry provides about half the coal used by our coal-fired power stations, which, in turn, supply about one third of the country's electricity requirements. There is also a big demand for UK-produced coal for industrial use. Coal's contribution to meeting our national energy needs is in addition to its local economic importance in many parts of the UK where it continues to provide good quality employment.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), said that we now have the most efficient coal industry in Europe. That is right, and it is important that we celebrate that and draw attention to it. Our coal producers have made big strides to reduce costs to make themselves more
90WH
competitive with world producers. With world coal prices buoyant, as they are at present, many are well placed to compete on much better terms than previously with producers of coal imported from elsewhere.
We have heard a good deal about Hatfield colliery, so I want to respond to points that hon. Members have made. I understand that the mine at Hatfield was sunk between 1911 and 1917. As we heard, an important and interesting history is attached to the colliery. It has strong support and loyalty from its work force, which is an important part of the reason why we can still talk about its prospects today.
Hatfield colliery received a total of £11.3 million of coal operating aid from the Government between April 2000 and December 2002, of which nearly £4.5 million was paid to Coalpower Ltd. after it took over in October 2001. During that period, and despite such substantial Government support, the mine was not able to generate the income that had been hoped for. It received £867,000 as the last instalment of coal operating aid in March 2003, but the company nevertheless continued to experience financial difficulties. In August and October last year, the Coal Authority released to Coalpower funds that it held on behalf of Hatfield in the hope that that would help the company to finalise the necessary refinancing to secure its future. I was kept regularly briefed on those developments and was keen to do everything that I could to help, so it was with great regret that I learned that those efforts had not come to fruition.
On 3 December, Coalpower Ltd. went into administration. That was judged to be the best option for finding a new owner with the financial resources to pursue the Barnsley seam project, which, with the High Hazels seam all but exhausted, is essential to the mine's future. Once again, with the Coal Authority's help, Hatfield was kept open—albeit not in full production— while a buyer was sought. A possible bid is in development that might lead to an offer that could secure a viable future for the mine. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the bid or raise any undue hopes, but acquisition by a properly financed and funded company with the resources to carry out the planned investment would clearly be an excellent outcome for the colliery, its work force and the Government.
There were plans to develop a power park on part of the colliery site. It was planned to have been completed by 2005–06 and centred on the construction of a 430 MW coal integrated gasification combined cycle power plant adjacent to the colliery. Coalpower had obtained section 36 planning consent for the plant. but it was unable to finance its construction before the administrators were appointed. The project would present major challenges. The combination of technologies that it would entail is untried at present. The zoning of the site in local plans would be a challenge, and there would be a need for an access road to connect the site with the motorway network. Those are all significant challenges, but if they can he resolved an attractive project could undoubtedly take place at that plant.
The Government need to remain within state aid rules when considering means of support. I hope that the House accepts that we have done everything that we could within those rules to help to secure the colliery's

91WH
future. We considered Coalpower's application for coal investment before the other applications that were received. Having done so, we made a formal offer of £15 million of support, in the hope that that would help the company to secure the refinancing that it needed to demonstrate that it could meet the 70 per cent. of costs that have to be provided privately under state aid rules. The company was hopeful that it could do so. When Coalpower went into administration, we authorised the administrators to tell potential buyers that that aid would be available to a new owner who offered a comparable investment project.
The aim of coal investment aid schemes is to create or safeguard jobs in the UK coal industry in areas that are often socially and economically disadvantaged by encouraging coal producers to enter into investment projects that maintain access to coal reserves and help to ensure the medium-term economic viability of those mines. We have a budget of up to £60 million over three years, and bids for the first of three application periods total £131 million—more than twice the total budget available over three years. It clearly was not possible to meet all the bids in full, so it was important when assessing applications to take full account of the benefits that were likely to result from each application. On 27 November, I announced investment offers totalling £52 million, which could secure more than 4,000 coal mining jobs and create an additional 300. Most applicants have until the end of February to accept the offers, and I can confirm that because of its particular circumstances, the period for acceptance of the £15 million offer to Coalpower has been extended to 31 March. It therefore remains available to a new owner of Hatfield if an acceptable bid is received before that date.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I think that I made it clear that we are grateful for the help that the Government have given to Hatfield colliery over the past few years in coal operating aid and for Coal Authority grants from the summer to December. However, does my hon. Friend agree that if it had not been for the huge gap between the end of coal operating aid and the start of coal investment aid, Coalpower might not have experienced short-term problems with financing, and perhaps we would not be having this debate today?
Mr. Timms: I do not know about that. We were all optimistic once the offer was made. As I said, we made it as early as we could, and we hoped that with the availability of that substantial Government support it would be possible to put together a financing package to make the project viable. We still hope that that is the case, but we are all disappointed that it was not possible to do so as soon as it initially appeared. However, we will keep the offer open until the end of March. I understand that the administrators will maintain a skeleton staff at the colliery until the bid expected in mid-March has been assessed, to make sure that operations can restart promptly if it is accepted.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's announcement about keeping the £15 million offer open. However, can he confirm that the administrators have been instructed to maintain the pit so that it is
92WH
ventilated, water-pumped and open for business should the company come up with a successful financial package?
Mr. Timms: That is certainly important. Steps have been taken to ensure that that is the case and operations can restart promptly if the bid is accepted. If my hon. Friend has detailed questions about that, I am happy to consider them.
The offers announced in November included awards to three mines operated by UK Coal, including Ellington, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), who has spoken to me on a number of occasions about this matter. I can tell him and other Members that I recently met Alcan to discuss the concerns that he has expressed. The other mines to receive awards were Rossington and Welbeck. There are concerns about the implications of those awards for the collieries, given what UK Coal has since said. I am aware that the review process for Ellington is under way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, and is expected to take about three months.
If offers of aid made to these collieries are refused, the funds would be returned to the coal investment aid budget and would be available for reallocation in a future application period. The next period is due to close at the end of May this year. Important points have been made about other issues affecting the coal industry. Eighty per cent. of UK-produced coal goes into coal-fired electricity generation, so the future of the industry is inextricably bound to the future of that sector, which is facing considerable challenges in the years ahead, not least because of increasing pressure from the environmental regulation that a number of hon. Members spoke about.
Of immediate concern, as my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Sherwood and for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, is the implementation of the large combustion plants directive, which will constrain the capability of generators to burn coal mined in the UK because of its relatively high sulphur content. There has been a lot of debate in the coal and generating industries about which of two alternative ways—the emission limit value and the national plan—of implementing the directive is more appropriate, and which option, if not the most beneficial, is the least damaging to their prospects. Coal producers, as we have heard, have clearly stated their preference for the emission limit value option, believing that it offers the best choice for the continued use of UK-mined coal.
The Government considered carefully all the responses to the consultation exercise and announced on 27 November last year that we would submit a national plan to the European Commission. As there may have been some misunderstanding, I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton that at the same time we made it clear that we would conduct further analysis of the likely impact of the implementation of the directive so that full account could be taken of the different and conflicting views expressed by the various interested sectors. In other words, at this stage we are not irrevocably committed to the national plan, as further analysis is needed if we are to be confident about which of the two alternatives is the right one to adopt.

93WH
We recently commissioned further independent research into expected levels of coal production to 2016, which will help further to refine our considerations. I do not anticipate that we will look at low production levels such as the amount of 3 million to 4 million tonnes that was suggested in our debate—I think that production will stay at a higher level. In the remit for the study, we asked the analysts to report on the potential effect on demand for coal, especially indigenous coal, of other environmental controls that are already in place, in the pipeline or in development and are likely to be introduced during this period. They include, for example, the emissions trading scheme and integrated pollution prevention and control regulations. We will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when considering which steps to take, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood requested. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, I am happy to meet again Members who have expressed concern before a final decision is made.
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. We must turn our attention to the next topic for consideration today.

Adult Social Services (Northumberland)
11 am
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The topic of this Adjournment debate—the closure of old people's homes—is a sad affair. I shall explain how we reached this point. A couple of weeks ago we learned from the newspapers that the last remaining homes— [Interruption.]
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. Would people leaving the Room do so quietly, please, and conduct their conversations outside?
Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and I were not aware of the closures. The news reached us by way of the newspapers. The Journal in Newcastle reported it first. It was a complete surprise to us. Of course, the trade unions and the work force telephoned our offices immediately. I said that I would meet them on the Friday, as soon as I got back from Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, who had a home in his area that was to close, said the same.
That was one of the saddest days I have experienced during my 16 years as a Member of Parliament. When I got to the meeting at the home, all the staff were there, even those who were off duty. They had all come to see their Member of Parliament. There were tears all over the place. They would all lose their jobs. Somebody was on their way from county hall to try to fix them up with jobs elsewhere—that is how far advanced matters were. Even the old people were crying, because some of them had been turfed out of a home a year previously and were very upset by the prospect of being turfed out again. I understand that they were to be placed in private homes. The council was washing its hands of care for the aged in Northumberland.
We were not very happy with the situation or with the council. There was a meeting at county level the following Monday which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck attended—I was away that day—at which there were further developments. Voices were raised and concerns were expressed. The next thing we knew was that the closure plan was withdrawn. What annoyed me more than anything was the statement made by the council leader after the closure programme was withdrawn, because it involved the MPs. It stated:
"Our two MPs have indicated they will help to get better funding for the council and we and local residents will hold them to those promises."
That statement was threatening towards the two Members of Parliament, who were only doing their duty. In fact, as I said, we had not been told of the closure plans. That is the sort of thing we had to put up with.
The statement means that whatever the council closes down next in order to make the required savings of £million, the two local Members of Parliament and the Government will get the blame. I do not believe that we can secure any more funding. I hope we can, but I very much doubt it, because in the past two years the local government settlements have been among the best the council has ever had.

95WH
I shall try to express the council's concerns as bullet points, without going through all the rigmarole. We all know what this is about: the council wants extra money. It needs to save£7 million in this year's budget. The council says that the underpin cost pressures in social services are £12 million. That is a lot of money. The council goes on to say that the ring-fenced funding has reduced support for the core services. I know what "ring-fenced" means, and I know there is a lot of funding, but the council does not explain how much is ring-fenced. It has not given us that figure. It simply states that the ring-fencing contributes to the pressure and the debt.
The council also says that 60 per cent. of funding in this year's allocation has to be passported directly to education. Whatever happens, 60 per cent. must go to education, and the rest is for the other services. I do not know how the council works out its budget. The councillors sit round the table and work out the budget in their way, but I am not privy to it. But I was a councillor for 19 years before I came to this place, and I remember one year, when Denis Healey was the Chancellor, he was cutting local government spending.
I was chairman of environmental health in Blyth Valley council in those days, and I remember the leader saying, "We have to make severe cuts. I want you—all the chairmen of the departments—to go back to your departments, get to the base budget and cut all the fat you can find. I want the savings reported back here in a fortnight." So I went to the director of environmental health and we started looking for cuts. We decided we did not need to order paper clips that year, or paper or pencils—we went through the whole list. We were due to go to five conferences— the chairman, vice-chairman, various councillors and the officers—but we decided the conferences were not sufficiently important, so we cut them from the budget.
That is what we did in those days. What do councillors do now? I think they just sit there and say, "What's the biggest expenditure? Old people and the adult training centre." I forgot to mention that the adult training centre was to close as well. We have never seen a budget. We have never heard that they attempted to look at the base budget and cut any fat that there might be. If the county council said to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck, "Look, we've cut the fat. We haven't anything left to cut. We are really at rock bottom", I would have no problem with that. I could get on my knees to my hon. Friend the Minister and say that the council had cut its expenditure to the bone.
However, I have to tell the Minister that the council has not told me or my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck that it has examined the base budget and cut the fat, like we did in the old days. I suggest that that is what the council should do, if it has not done so already. There are items of expenditure such as car leasing. I have heard that that involves an enormous amount of money, but I cannot find out the figure. I might have to ask the Minister a question and see whether I get the answer. Another item is conferences. There are conferences all over the place and council members are always away somewhere. There are seminars that they attend. These are all headings. One has to ask for the expenditure under each heading, so that one can add them all up. Then there is training—it must be the best trained county council in the land—and of course there is entertainment.
96WH
That is what I call fat, and local councillors—may perhaps not just in Northumberland—should start chipping away at that before they announce the closure of old people's homes and adult training centres. That is only fair to the people they represent, who pay their tax and their rates.
I do not want to take too long, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck wants to contribute. The Minister says that he needs at least 15 minutes. I want to hear what he has to say, because I want to know how much short the council is and how much we can get off it, if we can get anything at all. The council says it is in a dire situation. I do not think that it has done enough. I have said what I want to say—enough said. The council might take note of my words; it might not. I know the Minister will try his best. I will not blame him if he says he has no money available, but I hope that he has.
11.10 am
Mr. Denis Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on securing the debate. I doubt whether he will be offered coffee and biscuits on his next visit to Northumberland county council, but I await it with interest.
The county council recently concluded a consultation process lasting only two weeks on whether to close three residential care homes—two in my constituency and one in my hon. Friend's—and reviewed, with the possibility of closure, adult training centres in both constituencies. Many elderly and vulnerable people were distraught at the thought of moving out of their homes, where they were loved and cared for.
With my hon. Friend, I met staff, residents and the trade unions. We all agreed to oppose those closures and mounted a fairly good campaign. My hon. Friend and I wrote to every councillor in Blyth Valley and Wansbeck, insisting that they vote against the proposals. The county council has since decided not to go ahead with the closures. I commend it for that, but I question why it felt it necessary to make the announcements in the first place.
When that decision was made, the council put out a press release that was both misleading and disingenuous. The impression was given that my hon. Friend and I had promised that extra funding would be available and that the county would hold us to account for that. I can state on the record that that was never said by either of us. We simply said, as we often do, that if we could help in any way, including with ministerial meetings, we would be happy to do so. The county council agreed to put out a statement correcting its original comments, but I have yet to see it in print.
I want to touch on two or three areas of care that are vital, but also extremely expensive. I urge the Minister to press the county council to work very hard to adopt best practice in all areas of care. In keeping with the majority of local authorities, children's services have experienced major increases in demand over recent years. In Northumberland, there has been a large increase in the number of children with disabilities requiring services—more than 300 additional young people since 2000. An extra 25 young people a year require placements outside the county or in secure accommodation.

97WH
Although those numbers are not great, I am informed that a place at a secure unit costs £4,000 a week. Perhaps the Minister can extract from the county council how that massive figure is arrived at. Additionally, each year about 16 to 18 young adults with severe and complex disabilities leave full-time education—they require care services whose cost averages £45,000 a year for each person. That is a total of £750,000 each year.
More pressure is applied to adults' services by the Government's expectation that remaining long—stay residents in learning disability hospitals should be resettled in the community. There are 24 residents in Northgate hospital at Morpeth. They all have complex needs and, until recently, they were expected to stay in hospital indefinitely. The cost to the council of community schemes for those people is over £1 million, plus significant capital costs.
The future of adult training centres is of great concern to my constituents, many of whom rely heavily on them to provide essential family respite and support. For those persons using the centres, they represent a chance to contact the outside world and to enjoy the company of others. Their closure would have a devastating effect on family carers with employment responsibilities, a growing number of ageing carers and those caring for people with complex needs.
Almost 500 people are using the adult training centres and demand is growing year on year. Many service users have indicated a strong interest in finding employment and have been helped through either supported education and employment or social enterprise firms, a number of which operate successfully throughout Northumberland. There is a proven need to expand those services, which makes the call for closure even more alarming.
Those are just some of the services provided by Northumberland county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley described the need to continue with residential care. Pressure on social services increases year on year; the Government recognise that, and have increased the budget year on year to match it. Northumberland county council conceded that it has had the most generous settlement in its history, so I urge the Minister to meet its representatives to determine the truth.
The people in my constituency want to know that their care homes and training centres are safe and have a future. I call on Northumberland county council to assure them on that and on the fact that, whatever decisions it needs to make, it will protect the elderly and the most vulnerable people in our society. The responsibility lies with the county council; it cannot pass it on to anyone else. It has to make the ultimate decision.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on their contributions. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley on securing the debate and bringing these issues to the attention of the House. He is keen to have high-quality social services in his area, and
98WH
so he should be. He is also keen for the council to get value for money for local council tax payers, and so he should be. I would be delighted to engage with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck in any way I can to help to ensure that they understand what is going on, what the Government are doing and what they can do, and what are the responsibilities of the county council.
My hon. Friends both made the point that, ultimately, devolution to local government means that local government is responsible for making certain decisions. It has to stand up and be counted after making those decisions; it cannot try to fob the blame off on Members of Parliament, who have a role to play in approaching Ministers. Ultimately, however, decisions will be made by local government, and it needs to explain them.
To put these matters in context, I want to make a few points about the money that we have given to social services nationally. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, resources for personal social services were increased by this Government by 20 per cent. on average over inflation. That is an average real-terms increase of 3 per cent. a year. Last year, this year and next, we have done even better, as we have given 6 per cent. more than inflation to local government for social services. That is a huge increase by any calculation.
Next year, total social services resources for adults are set to increase by 8.2 per cent., or £775 million. That includes a 6.8 per cent. rise in formula spending shares as well as extra resources, which have been provided to local authorities to expand the range of community-based social care services, improve services for carers and raise the quality of the social care work force.
Northumberland has benefited significantly over recent years from that extra investment in social services. In 2002—03, the council's total social services resources increased, on a like-for-like basis, by 6.4 per cent. That followed a 7.8 per cent. increase in 2001—02. This year, Northumberland received an increase of 3.9 per cent. in its formula grant, as well as significant increases in the grants paid by the Department of Health. Next year, Northumberland will see its total adult social services resources increase by a further 9.4 per cent. That includes a 7.8 per cent. increase in its formula grant and large increases in its access and systems capacity grant, its carers grant and its training grants.
That means that overall resources for adult social services for Northumberland have increased from £38 million in 1996—97 to £62 million in 2004—05. That is a whopping 62 per cent. increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley acknowledged the generosity of that settlement, and I am surprised that the county council is not joining him by sending letters of congratulation to the Government on the size of that increase. It has done a heck of lot better than most councils around the country—I wish that my council had done that well.
As my hon. Friend said, we have also reduced dramatically the level of ring-fencing on adult social services. In 2004—05, only 2 per cent. of the resources provided for adult social services will be ring-fenced. The council will therefore have the freedom to target extra resources for social services on the areas of social

99WH
services that are most in need. I am surprised to hear from my hon. Friend that the council is claiming that somehow, because we have removed ring fences, the pressure on social services is increased. Local councils have been pressing for the removal of ring fences—they believe that they need that extra freedom. It is not a pressure on social services but a freedom for them.
Only a year ago, we finished a full review of the formula used to allocate funding for adult personal social services. As a result of that review, we revised the formula introduced this year. During that review, we looked at the extra cost of providing non-residential care to older people in rural areas because of the extra travelling involved, and as a result we doubled the weighting given to sparsity in the older people's formula. That was a measure for which Northumberland pressed and from which it benefited. Overall, Northumberland gained from the changes made to the personal social services formula this year, so the formula will be frozen for the next few years to allow for a period of stability. All those things were done at the request of Northumberland and have benefited Northumberland.
I should perhaps make it clear that the Department of Health was given a fixed amount for social care by the Chancellor at the time of the last spending review. It covered the period 2003—04 to 2005—06. We have told local government what that money has been provided for and how it will be distributed. I have held no money back, so I fear that I must disappoint my hon. Friends by saying that I have no extra money to give to Northumberland—it has it all, and it has done very well out of it. In no way should Northumberland try to blame my hon. Friends for that. The simple fact is that the money has already gone to the county council, and it has been very well done-by. It has more than adequate resources now to start moving things forward. It should not try to blame Members of Parliament if it must make some tough decisions.
We have given a generous settlement to the council, and the council needs to live within that amount. It needs to consult widely about what is needed locally, and to think long and hard about how it should spend the money that we have given in ways that will provide the best possible services for those needing support—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley. I say to both my hon. Friends that I must question whether the council has done that consultation and made that information available, because if two Members of Parliament have not been given the information, what is the likelihood that other people living in the local area have been given sufficient information and consultation on that process?
I have noted my hon. Friend's comments on the passporting of funds to schools, but I would like to point out that education has been well funded and sufficient resources have been provided to enable councils, including Northumberland, to passport the schools funding. Social services funding is separate and is unaffected by the arrangements introduced on education. I also recognise that some of the extra resources that we have provided are required to meet the pressures arising from Government policies such as improvements in inspection, the introduction of the minimum wage and the introduction of criminal record
100WH
checks. I am not apologetic about any of those measures, however: we have fully allowed for them in the money that we have provided to councils.
What do those substantial extra resources mean for Northumberland? The council can and should use its substantial extra resources to purchase services at realistic prices, to meet the needs of its residents in any way that it wants. It can increase fees locally, if that is what it needs to do; it can invest in new capacity locally, if that is what it wants to do; it can make the eligibility criteria for social care more generous, if that is what it wants to do; and it can cut the charges that it seeks to impose on people who must contribute to the cost of care at home, if that is what it wants to do. It needs to achieve value for money, however. Wherever it decides to buy care services, it needs to ensure that it is getting a good deal, and that includes where it buys care home places.
I understand that it costs about £35 a week more to keep a client in Northumberland's own care homes than to place that same client in an independent home. The council needs to be certain that that extra cost is reflected in either the quality of care that the client receives or the quality of the home in which the client is placed. It also needs to ask why there are extra costs, and to examine whether those services can be provided more efficiently. It is open to councils, however, to pay a different rate to one provider over another, if, but only if, paying more means that they get more. We want councils to commission the services that they need in an effective way, reflecting best value and the needs of their local community. They must, therefore, carry out a best value review if they have not done so already. Councils should make sure that their services are fair to the people who use them, as service users ought to be at the centre of planning services. Councils have to build person-centred services, and that means new ways of thinking and planning. We must move away from dependency models of care in which "professionals always know best", building a high-quality, well-regulated system that makes independence a real option and puts individuals in control of their own care.
I want to see councils "commissioning for choice" with, at its centre, recognition of disabled and older people as citizens with the same hopes and aspirations for the future as all of us. People want to be able to choose from a full menu of care services: from being able to receive care in their own homes through to extra care housing and residential accommodation. Very few people would choose residential care as one of their first options, and yet so much commissioning activity has been and still is preoccupied with that type of care.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can my hon. Friend expand on the other point that I should have raised: the modernising or upgrading of homes? The Government have set a time limit., I believe, whereby all homes must be en suite and up to the standard required by 2007. Is that hard and fast, or is it just a figure?
Dr. Ladyman: Certainly, we have set national minimum standards, and we have said that we will review them next year to see whether we have got them right. In any event, we have relaxed the physical standards, so I do not know whether the county council is giving my hon. Friend an accurate picture of what is required.

101WH
Certainly, however, I advise and encourage the council and my hon. Friends, if I can help to facilitate matters, to look at best practice emerging from other areas, to see what can be done in care homes. If older people are living in unmodernised homes at the moment, whether they are council-owned or privately owned, they are not getting the level of service that they deserve. Some of the current best practice models of care are fabulous. I commend particularly to my hon. Friends and their constituents the extra care model, which I am trying to encourage throughout the country. In extra care, people live in their own private accommodation—usually a flat, sometimes a bungalow—but with all the care services that they need to be able to live independently on the doorstep, either provided by the council, or, if it is a private setting, by a private provider. Such a model means that people can live independently while still receiving the care that they need. As an alternative to care homes, it is incredibly popular. I advise both the council and my hon. Friends to examine those models, and to challenge themselves to see whether their current services match that best practice, and therefore whether modernisation might be appropriate—
Mr. Frank Cook: Order.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Four o'clock.

Mobile Phone Masts
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am enormously grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the Chamber. I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing that the sitting be suspended until 4 o'clock to enable those of us who wanted to be on the Floor of the House to hear the Hutton statement to do so.
I must declare a non-pecuniary interest in that I am the Conservative trustee of the Radiation Research Trust. I see the Labour trustee, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), in his seat. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) represents the Liberal Democrats.
I am not a scientist and I come to these matters, like so many colleagues throughout the House, on the basis of constituency experience. I want to mention three key constituency experiences that have helped to inform my concern and are the reason for raising the matter today.
The first happened early in my time as Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield, when I became involved in the matter of a mast being sited adjacent to St. Nicholas school in Boldmere in my constituency. I hope that I came to that with a clean mind; I certainly came to it with no prejudice. I observed how the school, together with the governors and parents, sought in a dignified way to raise its concern about the siting of the mast. I also observed the response of Orange and the way in which it dealt with consultation, the school and me as the local Member of Parliament.
Mr. John Taylor: As a matter of courtesy to the House, may I explain that I have another meeting to attend at 4.30 pm and that if I do not remain in the Chamber until the end of the debate I intend no discourtesy? I shall read Hansard diligently tomorrow.
My hon. Friend rightly opened the debate, on which I congratulate him, with a reference to his handsome constituency of Sutton Coldfield, which is largely residential, one of the finest towns in the midlands and a royal borough. As the representative of the neighbouring seat of Solihull, which is also largely residential and much like his constituency, will he acknowledge that many of my constituents have similar concerns? They will read this debate and the Minister's reply with great interest.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he shares many of the concerns that I shall raise.
I observed the perfectly legitimate nervousness and concerns of the governors, heads and parents at the lack of information and the high-handed and arrogant way in which Orange behaved. I became very involved in the discussions and was amazed at how blatantly Orange merely paid lip service to them. I wrote to the chairman of Orange, but to this day I have not received a response. One of his underlings replied. I raised that experience with the then Minister with responsibility for planning, Lord Falconer, who was extremely sympathetic and I know raised my concerns at one of his meetings with leaders in the industry. That was my first experience of the way in which the health concerns of my constituents were dealt with by the industry.

103WH
The second event was a meeting last summer in my constituency at the Sutton Coldfield grammar school for girls, which is a fine school. A huge number of members of the public attended. Some had a professional involvement and interest in such matters and some came from much further afield than the west midlands. We had assembled a group of eminent experts to talk. I chaired that meeting and we heard from Professor Laurie Challis, the successor to Sir William Stewart as chairman of the mobile telecommunications and health research group, who made an interesting and distinguished contribution. We also heard from those who were concerned about the health aspects of mobile phone masts and those who were not. Alasdair Philips was also there—hon. Members will be aware that he runs an organisation called Powerwatch—and he made an impressive contribution. I sat and listened to the questions and the presentations for and against mobile phone masts made by that distinguished group of experts. The conclusion that I reached at the end of that lengthy meeting was that research is inadequate. Not enough research programmes are being commissioned by the Government and others, and much more needs to be done.
My third experience took place towards the end of last year. A mast was vandalised early in November in Wishaw in my constituency—not, I am advised, by members of what has become known as the Wishaw protest group against the mast, and not by my constituents. I know the people involved in the Wishaw group extremely well. Many of them have campaigned against the mast for a number of years.
I followed the events closely before and after the mast was vandalised. For instance, once it had collapsed, the group commissioned meetings with Crown Castle and T-Mobile. Two or three meetings have taken place, and I followed what happened at them. It is clear to me—I hope that I am an objective observer—that the meetings were a complete waste of time. The companies raised false hopes among my constituents, and although lip service was paid to making an effort to identify alternative sites, I am satisfied that it was merely lip service and not a serious intent.
Mr. John Horam: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. There is huge concern about it in Orpington, just as there is in Sutton Coldfield. He mentioned alternative sites. From my experience in Orpington, I know that alternative sites that are often quite practicable are not considered seriously enough, particularly by the inspector and certainly not by the companies in question. I am glad to support my hon. Friend on that.
Mr. Mitchell: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That will be the burden of my case for alternative sites.
The Wishaw group's experiences repay careful study. Wishaw is a small hamlet in my constituency. Let me outline what has happened in recent years. Five ladies have developed breast cancer. There is one case of prostate cancer, one of bladder cancer and one of lung cancer, and there are three cases of pre-cancerous cervical cells. One person, aged 51, who has motor neurone disease, has also had a massive tumour removed from the top of his spine. Others have
104WH
developed benign lumps, and there are also cases of electro-sensitivity. We also have three cases of severe skin rashes, and many villagers suffer with sleep problems, headaches, dizziness and problems with low immune systems.
Eighteen houses surround the mast, at a range of up to 500m, and 77 per cent. of the hamlet has health-related illness, which is believed by those who live there to be the result of radiation from the mast. The outbreak of illness occurred in 2001, after seven years of exposure to the radiation emitted by the T-Mobile mast. Incidentally, there is non-scientific evidence in the village that, since the mast came down, many of those minor ailments have cleared up. Doctors will say that it could be as a result of the removal of the cause of anxiety, but it is an interesting observation.
As I said earlier, I am not a scientist, and I am not qualified to judge the medical responses. However, it seems to me that important questions need to be asked. I have considered them carefully. I hope that the Minister has forgiven me for making available to her a list of 18 questions. I shall now go through them. I hope that she will be able to answer them because it would take us a long way forward.
My first questions are on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. Will the Minister concede that on its own, adoption of the ICNIRP exposure guidelines will not fully allow for current gaps in scientific knowledge, particularly the possibility of as yet unrecognised thermal or non-thermal adverse effects at lower levels of exposure? Secondly, the Stewart report stated at paragraph 5.59 that the biological effects can occur at energy levels too low to cause significant heating. According to paragraph 6.44:
"the possibility of harm from exposures insufficient to cause important heating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence."
Given that the ICNIRP guidelines ensure only that exposure to radiation of the kind used in mobile telephony does not result in an adverse degree of body heating, do the Government believe that the measurements are an appropriate test of the potential risk to health?
Thirdly, will the Government recognise that using a heat-based guideline is insufficient if there are non-thermal effects from radiation arising from the use of mobile telephony? Fourthly, will the Minister explain why the allowed public exposure microwave radiation levels from masts in the UK, based on ICNIRP, are so much higher than Close allowed elsewhere, such as in Salzburg, Italy, Switzerland, Russia, China, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg?
The next questions relate to Government guidelines on planning policy guidance 8. In a letter sent to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 June, the chief planning officer of Birmingham city council said:
"I am writing as Chief Planning Officer of the largest local planning authority in the country in response to concerns being expressed to me regarding the lack of clarity in Government guidance on the health implications of telecommunication development.
As Chief Planning Officer, I find myself in a difficult position. Whilst Government guidance makes it clear that health issues can be a material consideration, PPG8 states that it is the Government policy 'to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems'

105WH
and that 'the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health'."
He went on to say:
"With respect this advice, allied with the inconclusive nature of the Stewart Report, provides little help to local planning authorities at the front line in dealing with the increasing number of telecommunication proposals being submitted. I believe that there is a pressing need for urgent further research into the health aspects of telecommunication development together with a review of the existing guidance and regulations on how such proposals should be considered."
That is the opinion of the chief planning officer of the largest local authority in Britain, and I hope that his words will weigh heavily on the Minister and her colleagues.
Mr. Hugo Swire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this useful debate. In my constituency, Mrs. Jane Lee of "Otterton Against Masts" has campaigned successfully to stop Orange erecting a mast in a playing field. The application was also turned down by East Devon district council. Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Charlotte Sanderson and others have already raised about £8,000 locally. There is a High Court case at the beginning of March and Mrs. Lee has been told that if she loses she will be personally liable for £8,000. The system is weighted against the individuals making appeals. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if the Minister could outline how, in the case of an appeal, an individual can campaign successfully and overturn decisions?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a useful point that is much wider than the specific case in his constituency. He flagged up a specific problem that the Minister will have heard, and I will say more on that later.
Does the Minister agree with Mr. Justice Richards' High Court judgment on 22 October 2003, in the case of Mrs. Jodie Phillips and Hutchinson 3G, that people's health fears must be taken into account? Concerning the location of a mast and base station, he found that the question asked should not be, "Is this an acceptable location?", but, "Is it the best location?", and that
"for the purpose of answering that question, one can and should look at whatever alternative possibilities there may be".
Will the Minister urge her colleagues, especially those involved in planning, to ensure that PPG8 is amended to encourage operators to consider fully all viable alternative sites for a mast and base station so that the public are exposed to the lowest practical level of microwave radiation? Does the Minister agree that a requirement for operators to make available to the public a list of alternative locations for masts and base stations would further the Government's aim of
"providing for more discussions between operators, local authorities and members of the public"?
In the recent court case of Yasmin Skelt v. The First Secretary of State and Three Rivers District Council and Orange PCS Ltd. on 26 September 2003, it was conceded that the ICNIRP certificate must not be used as a bar to full and proper consideration of the public's health concerns. If the ICNIRP certificate is to be no
106WH
more than a document informing people that an installation will not exceed the emission levels set out by ICNIRP, and is not to be read as a block on full and appropriate consideration of public health concerns despite the assertion to the contrary in paragraph 30 of PPG8, will the Government issue planning authorities with new guidelines amending that paragraph?
Will the Minister concede that paragraph 30 of PPG8, which states:
"In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them",
encourages planning inspectors to act unlawfully? I ask that in the light of the ruling, given by Mr. Justice Moses on 26 September 2003, that a Government planning inspector had acted unlawfully and had
"failed to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns"
because he had followed that advice.
I have some more questions for the Minister on the subject of further research, which is at the heart of my case today. Will she rule out the possibility that increased incidences of sleeping disorders, headaches, seizures, infertility and unexplained clusters of human cancers in the vicinity of base stations can be attributed to the increase in background radiation due to the expansion of the mobile phone mast network?
Will the Minister state how much of the £7.4 million provided by the Government, in conjunction with industry, for a research programme on a number of important health-related issues identified in the Stewart report will go towards research into the possible effects on health as a result of exposure to base station emissions? Does she agree that, given the increasing level of public concern about possible adverse effects on health exposure to base station emissions, the low priority given to that area of research in the mobile telecommunications and health research programme is hugely inadequate? Given the increasing level of public concern, not least in Sutton Coldfield, about cancer clusters around mobile phone masts, does she agree that there should be a study into the distribution of cancers around mobile phone masts that have been in place for 10 years, using the cancer registry data and geographic information system software?
Recent research commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive and carried out by the highly respected professor, Anthony Swerdlow, reveals that interference with melatonin at night could be the cause of an increased risk of breast cancer among night workers. In the light of studies such as the Schwarzenburg study by Abelin and Altpeter, which have revealed that melatonin levels are significantly different after exposure to weak radiation, will the Minister admit the need for further research to ensure the future health of women living near masts?
Will the Department of Health consider setting up an online voluntary register for people who believe that they have been affected by mobile phone handsets and/ or base station microwave radiation? That could be similar to the yellow card system for reporting the side effects of medical drugs. If properly implemented, it

107WH
would help to provide a useful database of information to assist with the setting of future research priorities. Of course, I understand the need to screen out potential abusers of such a system.
My next two questions relate to Tetra, which I know is of considerable concern and interest to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). On 10 July, in a House of Commons debate, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety told MPs that concern over the possible health effects of Tetra emissions arose from research in the 1970s and that it had since been "virtually impossible" to replicate those research findings. Given that research findings on this subject, listed in the Stewart report and the National Radiological Protection Board report on Tetra, show more successful than unsuccessful replications since 1980—the most recent successful replication being in 1999—how do the Government explain her claim?
Is the Minister aware that there have been four cases of motorneurone disease in the three-year period since the erection of a Dolphin Tetra mast in Drumcarrow, Fife, in Scotland, despite that disease being a rare condition that affects, on average, only one in 50,000 people? Drumcarrow has a population of around 800. Will the Minister have the high incidence of this life-threatening disease in Drumcarrow investigated in case it is connected with the installation of the Tetra mast, and will she consider whether any findings that result from it should impact on the countrywide roll-out of Tetra?
Does the Minister agree with the following quote taken from an article in the South Wales Evening Post on 11 December 2003? In it, a spokesman for Tetra Airwave mentioned that it was up to the Home Office to decide on the safety of the system, saying:
"The safety of what we supply is nothing to do with us."
Do the Government agree that technology providers have a specific responsibility for the safety of the technology they provide? Will the Minister clarify exactly who is responsible for setting precautionary guidance in these matters? I have given the Minister prior notice of those questions, and I am grateful to her and her officials for considering them.
Mr. Andrew Turner: My constituents have asked me how Airwave can say that safety is not its concern when the suppliers of drugs, such as thalidomide, found themselves responsible for the consequences of supplying them.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good legal point and, although I am neither a scientist nor a lawyer, it sounds right. Airwave's attitude is not acceptable in providers of such equipment, as he said.
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am sure that every MP has the same problem. Local newspapers, such as the Evening News in Norwich, have taken up the clarion call, and people like me are targeted by Orange. I expect that on returning home I will find a mast in my garden, because I have asked for mobile-free zones. It is said that people like mobile phones. What would they do if they went home and found a mast in their front garden?
Mr. Mitchell: My detailed response to the hon. Gentleman and my fellow trustee is best left until after
108WH
the debate, but I take his point. I want to end my comments, so that other hon. Members can contribute. However, I want to emphasise two key points.
First, I listened to the experts speaking at the meeting in Sutton Coldfield, and I talked to the group in Wishaw, which is composed of highly intelligent, sophisticated people who have looked at the science behind the technology and who asked a series of highly pertinent questions, some of which I have repeated today. Having considered all that evidence, it seems to me that there is an overwhelming case for the Government to accept the need for more research to address the genuine health concerns felt by sensible, rational people.
The Minister will be aware of the Freiburger appeal, in which 2,000 medical professionals in Germany expressed their concern about illnesses that may be caused by the masts. That appeal was originally in German, but it has been translated into 15 languages. It may even be taken to the European Parliament, although much good that will do them. It shows that professional people are increasingly concerned. I have read what the 30 doctors in Crosby said about the matter, and I am sure that the Minister has, too. They said: "These are legitimate concerns." They may be wrong, but we need a great deal of research into that and a much greater sense of effort on the part of the Government. The tiny budget that I mentioned earlier is insufficient. When one considers that the telecommunications industry has paid the Government something like £20 billion or more for their licences, it is right that money should be spent on such research.
Secondly, the precautionary principle, which was advocated by Sir William Stewart when he was the Government's senior adviser, is important. We must have proper transparency on alternative locations. Cost is important, but it is only part of the equation. I want the industry to be far more open with people about what the alternative locations are and why it made the decision it did. I want the precautionary principle to mean that, in most cases, it is accepted that the masts should not be placed too close to people's homes, schools and hospitals. I want the information about where the masts are sited made widely available. I recently walked in the countryside not far from my constituency in the midlands and came across a mast that was cunningly disguised as a tree. We must be transparent about where the masts are placed.
I want a change to paragraph 40 of PPG8 to enable the councillors who have to make such decisions to take into account the fears of those whom they represent. At the moment, the process is imbalanced. We need to redress the imbalance in the system. It is too much in favour of phone companies and not enough in favour of local people. Decisions are made through their local councillors, who do not adequately reflect their concerns. The Department, the planners and those in the Government who are re-examining PPG8 would do well to heed the wise words of Emrys Jones, the chief planner of Birmingham city council.
Mr. Frank Cook: At the risk of being tiresome to those who know the drill in Westminster Hall, I remind hon. Members that it is customary to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the debate concludes. Five hon.

109WH
Members want to catch my eye, one of whom was a late arrival. Nevertheless, will all hon. Members bear in mind the time constraints when making their contributions and when accepting or responding to interventions?
4.27 pm
Mr. David Drew: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on introducing the debate. I am pleased to see that the chairman of the all-party group on mobile communications is present. I apologise to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for having to leave the debate a few minutes early. I have a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), at 4.30 pm. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to spend five minutes talking about my problems with Airwave, the main organisation behind Tetra, which, I always remind myself, stands for "Trust your enhanced trunk radio systems."
I come to the debate with no alarmist views. In many respects, I have been a defender of the system. In 2000, the police approached me saying that they needed a new radio system. Having been out with them on many occasions, I knew that their existing system was defective and it seemed sensible for them to move towards a much more integrated state-of-the-art technology. From the outset I was supportive of Tetra, but the problem is that the way in which the system was put in place does the opposite to that recommended in the Stewart report, which is based on the precautionary principle. Throughout the report, the precautionary principle is central to its argument.
More inappropriate places could not have been chosen for the two major masts that have been erected in the Stroud constituency. The first was placed on top of Stroud police station. Given that the mast was a police communications system, it may be thought right for the police to be part of it. However, it is the biggest eyesore in my constituency. It is on a hill and it is a dreadful building. The problem is that the police station is a few hundred yards from a school. From the outset, I asked Airwave to examine alternative sites. It reached the conclusion that there were no alternative sites. I have not seen any documentation to that effect. When I suggested alternative sites, I just kept being told that they were unsuitable.
When the mast was put in place, it was agreed that its impact would be monitored. That was in 2001. To be fair, since I raised the matter in business questions, Airwave has sought a meeting with me. However, although I have asked on occasions, I have received no real evidence, one way or the other, about what is happening as a result of the mast. We must remember that the mast is not fully operational yet. It will be some months before it can do what it needs to be able to do for the police to use the system properly.
The Stroud saga was bad enough. However, we needed another mast in the south of my constituency, in the Dursley area. I thought that lessons would be learned from the problems in Stroud. There are a
110WH
number of places where the mast could have been placed, but it was decided to put it slap bang in the middle of Dursley, on top of the old GPO building and right next to the Dursley tabernacle. The Rev. Simon Helme was inevitably worried and came to see me with Shirley Welsh, a member of his congregation. We agreed to go through the process of seeking clarification about why the mast had to be there and of trying to ensure that the radio waves were monitored.
I was unhappy from the outset. There has been a strong community campaign, which reached a crescendo before Christmas when one lady put metal curtains around her whole house in the belief that that was the only way in which she could deflect the radio waves. It is easy to see that as an emotional, over-the-top reaction. The Green party has been active in alleging links to leukaemia, cancer and so on. Things of that sort happen.
I had a meeting with the chief constable before Christmas, and we were under the impression that the Tetra mast had not been turned on, except on one occasion when it was tested during the course of the Stroud half marathon. On that occasion, there was a full-blown exercise so that it could be seen how the force on the ground monitored the half marathon. I went along with that in confidence, because we did not want the exercise to receive the full glare of publicity.
As I said, I checked with the chief constable and we were both under the impression that the mast was not operational. However, I have a problem because, on 6 January, I received a letter from the chief constable that said that the mast had been operational for some time. It had been used not in the locality, but on the motorway and for other purposes. I was telling people one thing, and then I had a completely different, and very honest, answer from the police, who were also under the impression that the mast was not operational.
On the basis that we are talking about the precautionary element, that process has left me naked in terms of how I approach constituents who have been making allegations and saying, "Well, it's bad enough thinking that we have the mast there, but let's have some clarity about monitoring and testing things out fully before the mast is turned on." It has been turned on for months. That is not good enough. There is now a degree of alarm in the area, and scepticism about the authorities having any control over what they have agreed to. There were reservations in terms of the district council, but because of the needs linked to the mast, those reservations were overcome.
I would like some clarity from the Minister. We are considering the precautionary principle. We have to be open, transparent and honest with people about what is going on. That has not happened with the two masts that I am talking about. I will have another meeting with Airwave. I have to go to Airwave; it does not seem to be keen to come to me. However, if it thinks that the issue will go away, it is mistaken.
I use what happened in my constituency as an example. It is linked to the health issue, because people are worried about their health, and they have every reason to voice those opinions. The response that they have got, basically amounts to nothing. Airwave has refused to attend the meetings that they have held, and I have to say that the police have not been much better. Things must improve; otherwise, people will inevitably demand that the masts are taken down.
4.34 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). Like him, I have many constituents who have experienced problems when there are attempts to place telecommunications masts in highly residential areas in which they are not wanted. We have faced an extraordinary situation over the past few years. There was a proposal to put a mast on top of a hospital in my constituency and another to put one in a school in my constituency. In the villages in my constituency and in Chelmsford, the main town, there have been constant battles as companies, particularly Orange, have sought to put masts in highly residential areas. Such attempts include the latest saga in Linnet drive, where Orange has made a planning application for the third or fourth time.
The people of West Chelmsford are fortunate, in that Chelmsford district council has had a proactive and positive attitude towards local people's representations. Fortunately, in many cases, the council's refusals of applications have been upheld on appeal. However, the trouble is that the companies come back again and again, slightly modifying the plans after listening to why the local authority refused permission. There is something flawed in the current planning regime. It is outdated and does not take into account the changes that have resulted from the greatly increased use of mobile phones, which has necessitated more masts.
The reasons for concern are not always to do with the aesthetics of the masts, although that is indeed sometimes the problem. The problem is the genuine fear of ill health as a result of the positioning of a mast in a highly residential area. The jury is out on that question. Many references have been made in this debate to the Stewart report. Notwithstanding that, the trouble is that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove the case one way or the other. For every Stewart report, there are other reports from around the world that give conflicting views. In the absence of a comprehensive and conclusive determination of the health risks, we should err on the side of caution. The system should be weighted in favour of those who do not want a mast in their residential area.
Dr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: I will not, because we are on a strict time scale.
It is also wrong that many of the companies seem to have a high-handed attitude to their planning applications for masts. Orange has already been cited and the experience of my constituents is similar. Representation is usually made both to the local authority and to the company directly, but there is a sense of frustration in local communities that companies go through the motions of listening to people's concerns, but then do nothing whatever to meet them. More should be done on that.
More powers should be given in the system to include all types of mast in the planning regime and, importantly, to give local people more powers to determine what happens in their communities. The Government have a significant role to play in that, and I would hope that the Department of Health could exert
112WH
its influence on those Ministers with responsibility for planning matters, to try to further the debate. At the moment, we are perceived to have far too much of a top-down rather than a bottom-up system. I would like there to be more powers in the planning system to allow the genuine concerns, views and wishes of the people who will be most directly affected to influence the decision to erect a mast.
I would also like more consideration to be given to alternative sites to those in highly residential areas. More masts could be put near major trunk roads— thereby placing them out of sight, out of mind in the domestic dwelling context. Far more should be done to make different companies use the same mast, in order to minimise the number of masts required, so that there is one problem in the immediate area rather than two or three, although I accept that that already happens in certain cases.
My ultimate message is that more should be done, because there is argument and uncertainty about the scientific evidence. I welcome the fact that, as a result of the research recommended by the Stewart report, for which £7.4 million has been provided, the Government have widened the research to include base stations. That is a positive step forward. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should err on the side of caution. My constituents in Linnet drive have had problem after problem with the siting of an Orange mast that has so far been refused. Such local people should have greater power and influence in the planning process so that they are genuinely empowered to determine what goes on in their neighbourhoods.
4.41 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I apologise for letting my mobile phone go off earlier. That was a tribute to the double standards that most of us stoutly maintain on this subject; we make use of mobile phones while deploring the possible spin-off effects of their technology.
I welcome the debate secured by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). I have six controversial mast applications in my constituency, all of which have generated petitions and protests. The key phrase in the hon. Gentleman's introductory statement was "lack of clarity". The combination of a lack of clarity and frustration causes so many problems for residents, planners and members of planning committees. They simply do not know how to deal with the problem.
Mr. Andrew: Even worse than a lack of clarity is the putting up of masts without planning consent, as has happened in Rogate and East Harting in my constituency. Subsequently, local people have had to put pressure on district councils to try to get those masts removed. That is a wholly unacceptable way to deploy the technology.
Dr. Cable: Yes, I know. There is a wider issue about the weakness of third parties in planning appeals, but I will not pursue that rabbit down that particular hole.
The uncertainty stems from two issues; the lack of clarity about the science, and planning guidance. On the science, Sir William Stewart did us a considerable disfavour. He considered the science and looked at the

113WH
physics and the biology and concluded that there was no empirical evidence of any health impact. He considered the examples—the clusters of illnesses that have been cited—and made the valid point that the research was not epidemiological and did not stand up. Having dismissed the scientific evidence, he could have said that there was no risk, as did the chief medical officer in relation to the MMR vaccine. Had he said that, we would have known where we stood, but he did not. He said that there must be a precautionary approach. He did not say a "precautionary principle", which is an environment policy term, but that there had to be a precautionary approach. Most people interpret his words on a common-sense basis as meaning that it is better to be safe than sorry.
Sir William also said—this is important—that we have to be particularly careful with schools, because children have thin skull bones, so there may be extra cause for concern. In saying that, he stated that there was a problem. Clearly, people will interpret his words in a worried way. Local authorities can hardly be blamed when they respond with particular sensitivity to planning protests in respect of schools. In the review of the science that I know the Department has carried out, the scientists did not help us as to whether any clear conclusion has been reached about the new 3G masts, which many argue are more potent and therefore more dangerous.
The second point is the confusion generated by the planning process. As I understand it, PPG8 makes clear that local authorities have to judge applications purely on planning grounds—the aesthetics, or the visual impact—and are not allowed to consider health impact. However, in response to a debate that I initiated on 21 May 2002, the Minister's predecessor said, repeating what has been said in other contexts:
"Our guidance is clear that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission"—[Official Report, 21 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 274.]
Therefore, councils have been told that health impacts are not relevant, but that public concerns about health are.
I have great difficulty in getting my head round this problem, and planners have difficulty in understanding it. With the best will in the world members of planning committees of all parties cannot understand what is expected of them through the planning process. My own local council, a consensus of Liberal and Conservative members, has taken a stand on a particular case to test the issue. It has taken the case of a mast that beams directly into a school. The planning officer said "We have no grounds for turning it down. There is no planning problem. There are no visual amenity issues." However, there has been a large petition from the school, which closed certain classrooms for fear of the health effect. The council has overridden the advice of officials, saying, "Here there is a demonstrable fear
114WH
about health. Let's test it out in a planning appeal." I do not know what the outcome will be, but we need clarification.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cable: I shall take just one more intervention.
Mr. Mitchell: I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not here when I made the point. In fact the situation is worse than that. In the High Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Jodie Phillips, Mr. Justice Richards said that people's health must be taken into account. Therefore, there is a complete impasse in the law; we cannot get it right.
Dr. Cable: I was here throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech, but the comment is helpful. I shall be interested to see whether the planning inspector who hears my local appeal is aware of that ruling and takes it into account.
We need to move on. I want to make a suggestion about the way in which hon. Members' concerns for greater flexibility in siting masts can be taken into account. The Government could help to solve the problem by giving guidance along the following lines. They could say to local authorities, "We wish you to contribute to the roll-out of masts. That is a national obligation. Each local authority, depending on its population, density and topography, should, as it does with housing, construct a certain number of units. However, there is discretion within that as to where masts are sited." If a local authority chose to have a moratorium on masts within 100m of a school, it can do so, provided that it compensates with additional masts somewhere else, leaving councils with discretion over where masts are sited.
If that were to happen, the industry's objectives would be maintained and our constituents' concerns substantially alleviated. I should be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that guidance to councils along those lines—which could then be used as a basis for dealing with planning appeals—would help to deal with the problem.
4.51 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I apologise for being late and for missing the beginning of the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing a debate on this subject, which causes enormous concern among our constituents. I am still a part-time general practitioner, so I see a number of people who raise with me health issues about mobile phones and, particularly, masts.
Mobile phones are an extremely important part of our society, and the majority of people have them, including quite small children. Therefore, people are using these phones; it is a useful technology. I would not want to do anything that made phones more difficult to use. People make their own choices about using mobile phones and decide how often to use them—I hope with common-sense guidance from the industry.

115WH
The problem is that people have that choice; they can choose not to have a phone, not to use the phone or to use it on a limited basis. However, they cannot choose whether a mobile phone mast is next door to them. A mast is switched on 24 hours a day; it cannot be removed from one's presence. It emits micro-radiation the whole time. Our difficulty as parliamentarians in trying to guide people in this matter is the lack of conclusive science. There is a fair amount of science around, but none of it is conclusive.
Perhaps I may use the analogy of medical research. We can give a new drug to 10,000 people and it has no side effects at all. That does not prove that the drug is 100 per cent. safe. It proves that the drug is pretty safe and may be extremely safe, but the next person who takes the drug may get an idiosyncratic side effect from it that turns the science on its head. The scientists would have to say, "We were wrong. This drug isn't 100 per cent. safe, because poor Mrs. Smith has just had an extremely unusual and nasty reaction to it." We can never prove conclusive safety; we can prove only relative safety. It does not matter how much science we do. Unless we have new models of science, we can never totally reassure people.
The other problem is that it is said that the masts radiate energy. It is difficult for the public to separate the radiation that comes from mobile phone masts from the radiation that comes from nuclear materials—which they know for a fact are dangerous—or the radiation from X-rays, which are dangerous if used excessively. It is difficult for many people to grasp the fact. The point is simple. It will be extremely difficult to give people 100 per cent. conclusive reassurance that the masts are safe, so we must take the proportionate approach.
My approach with the mobile phone operators is to say that I am happy to have phone masts in my constituency provided that they are sited in a position that will have the minimum impact on people's health. They are not put near schools or hospitals, nor outside people's bedroom windows. They are put in fields further down the road, or alongside trunk roads.
The mobile phone companies, however, say that that is a more difficult solution. Yes, it might be; but what they usually mean by that is that the solution is more expensive. It is much cheaper to put a small mast on the top of a school than it is to put a more powerful mast covering a larger area near a motorway. It is technologically more difficult, and it is more expensive. We must give local people the right, through the planning mechanism, to make such judgments for themselves.
If putting up proper masts in sensible places costs more, we may have to bear the cost, but people may be prepared to pay that price. If it is more expensive to put masts in more sensitive or sensible areas, the mobile phone companies may have to tell people that their phones will be relatively more expensive. That at least can be debated and a judgment made. The difficulty at the moment is that local authorities do not have the power to be able to say to a company, "Thou shalt not put that mast on that hospital roof" or "Thou shalt not put that mast in the middle of that housing estate." They do not have that right. The Government need to consider that carefully; I believe that people should have that right.
116WH
Although there is a huge difference between fear and fact, what really disturbs people is the fear. In the same way that the fear of crime is more real to most people than the experience of crime, the fear of mobile phone masts is probably more real than the fact.
Dr. Gibson: Another feature of the debate is trust and confidence. As we found in the GM debate, once Monsanto made the move, it lost the argument. The way in which such companies behave does not give people trust and confidence, regardless of whether what they are told is factually correct.
Dr. Stoate: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many companies should take note of it.
In conclusion, the fear of mobile phone masts may significantly outweigh the facts. However, as politicians, we must represent our constituents; we must take note of people's fear because that is what blights their lives. I urge the Government to look again at the planning mechanisms. We should allow people to use their own judgment and, in conjunction with the local council, ensure that mobile phone masts are put where they are safe and where people feel happy with them.
4.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for obtaining the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on speaking for less than six minutes.
This matter arose in my constituency because of a sudden flood of applications for Tetra masts early last year. Some of them were approved under delegated powers. One was rejected under those powers, but the developer, Airwave., said that it was an emergency; it was allowed to put it up as an emergency measure. That is the first rowel that we must withdraw from developers.
Fortunately, Rod Burman, a constituent, and Richard White of the Isle of Wight County Press organised a public meeting in Woodlands vale in Seaview. More than 250 people were present on Mrs. Burman's cream-coloured drawing-room carpet. They were told by the planning officer that they had to follow Government guidelines. I am pleased to say that there was a muffled explosion from two of those present at the meeting—I was one, and the local district judge was the other—who were rather better versed in the law than the planning officer. The consequence was that Westridge Estates withdrew permission for Airwave to put the mast up. Meanwhile, however, a mast had been erected on the Commodore cinema in Ryde. The problem was that the Phillips case guidance had not been followed—neither Airwave nor the local authority had looked for the best site; they just looked for any site, and permission had been given under delegated powers.
I am very pleased to say that John Ackroyd is now running an organisation called "No to Tetra", and that followed from a public meeting that I held at the Methodist church hall in Garfield road in Ryde, where a mast is very close to as many as four schools: Ryde school, Five Ways nursery, Dover Park school and Greenmount School. The problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield pointed out, is that

117WH
paragraph 98 of PPG8 suggests that planning authorities have to allow these things to go up, but there are doubts surrounding the legitimacy of the ICNIRP guidelines, and since the Government base their directives on those guidelines, the doubts need to be cleared up.
First, ICNIRP and the National Radiological Protection Board do not agree on what level of radioactive output is safe. For example, for one type of microwave system 900 W per square centimetre is allowed by ICNIRP, yet the NRPB allows 3,300. Secondly, a contradiction is built into PPG8. I mentioned paragraph 98, but paragraph 97 says that
"health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval".
In addition, the Government have allocated funding for further investigations into the health-affecting Tetra mast, which has actually had the effect of heightening people's concern. Does the Minister take account of people's bad health as a result of uncertainty on the long-term effects of Tetra masts?
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield quoted, there has been the Skelt v. Three Bridges case, in which Mr. Justice Moses overturned the planning inspectors' decision on appeal, and on 17 May 2002 the Court of Appeal stated that
"a guidance circular issued by the Secretary of State needed to be kept in mind but was not direction, and also had to be HRA Convention compliant."
The Government planning policy guidance pre-dates the Human Rights Act 1998, which raises two issues: first, the HRA, which applies to public authorities, says in section 6(1) that
"it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right"
and article 6 of the convention requires
"a fair and impartial hearing in public".
Without focusing on the public airing of perceived health concerns, a fair, impartial hearing cannot take place, and yet planners believe that because of ICNIRP's guidance and PPG8 they are not allowed to take account of these considerations.
My constituents are genuinely concerned. They write, for example:
"I live within about 200 metres of this mast—
the mast on the Commodore cinema—
"well within the zone of greatest influence, and am now living in constant fear for the health of my five-year-old daughter, my 76year-old mother and myself."
Another writes:
"A Tetra base station was erected only 50 metres from our house and was soon making us feel ill. We were subjected to ongoing radiation from the mast 24 hours a day and suffered a variety of symptoms, mainly being headaches, deep nausea, inability to concentrate, poor memory and general feelings of dizziness and disorientation."
Mr. V. Philpot of Monkton Street, Ryde, says:
"I live and work in Ryde (as does my partner who is heavily pregnant) … I am gravely concerned about the possible health effects of this mast."
118WH
Mrs. J.C. Warwick writes:
"I am now extremely worried. I am a mum, I love my son who is only six years old. Since I became aware of the mast and its effects I have become extremely frightened for his health and well-being. I am now so frightened that we spend as much time as possible away from the flat … At night I cannot bear for my son to sleep in his bedroom with the mast just outside."
I have seen photographs, and it is no further away than that wall is from you, Mr. Cook.
"As a result he sleeps with me in my room."
What do we want done? First, we want the Government to make PPG8 HRA-compliant. Secondly, we want a proper system to receive evidence from the public and explain to them, if necessary, how they should keep that evidence so that proper scientific investigations can be undertaken into the consequence of these and other masts. Thirdly, we need a national register of all telecommunications apparatus of this kind. Some of it is concealed, for example in shopping centres. It does not necessarily look like a tree with sticky-out metal bits. Fourthly, we need clear information on public liability. Do the Government or the planning authority approving the development issue the guidelines, or is Airwave legally liable for constructing such devices?
5 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing what is obviously an important debate, and one to which a huge amount of information has been brought. I hope that it carries some of the issues forward. Clearly, the debate has been initiated by health concerns, but a number of other issues, such as the planning regime, have been raised, and they need to be considered even more carefully. It is undoubtedly true that large numbers of the public are worried about the potential implications of masts erected near them.
In most of the cases of which I have particular knowledge, people are worried not only about possible health implications but visual amenity implications; often they are most concerned about that. They are worried about possible effects on their homes and about going out every day and seeing something that is often so incongruous with their surroundings.
There are two effects. One concerns health and the other is environmental, and we must take seriously both those concerns. However, I have said to people who have asked me about the issue that the evidence so far is inconclusive. There is no clear evidence of any directly harmful health effects caused by mobile phone masts. The science can be complicated to the non-scientist and there is much confusion, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). That the word "radiation" can be confused with known hazardous forms of radiation is sufficient for people to feel that they are perhaps being exposed to death rays close to their homes. We cannot ignore that.
The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about the planning regime and the sense of helplessness that people feel when they are faced with the fact that masts under 15 m do not require the same planning controls as those over 15 m. Even when the telecommunications

119WH
mast companies apply for masts over 15 m, there seem to be few ways forward for the public to make their presence felt and to have their genuine concerns about health and visual amenity brought to bear.
A few consultations are going on in this country—concerned not just with these issues—that leave people feeling that their views are being ignored. They feel that organisations go through the motions but do not necessarily genuinely engage with people or take notice of points made to them. My experience has been that only when several hundred people have brought their feelings to bear on mobile phone companies do those companies take notice of what people are saying and site the masts somewhere else. That tends to happen when large numbers of people come forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made the point that the Stewart report asked for the precautionary approach. It would have been nice if as well as slightly muddying the water, the Stewart report had given clear-cut advice that would not have caused any confusion.
I hope that the precautionary approach is applied to schools and nurseries. However, it is difficult to see how governors of schools, who must be consulted when a mast is to be put close to their schools, can put pressure on the process. They can report and say what their views are, but notice will not necessarily be taken. It appears that the planning system takes notice only when concerns and fears about public health are raised, and then not on every occasion. There are concerns about the new third generation masts, although there is no real evidence of health risks. There have been some studies, but they have not been repeated.
The Liberal Democrats believe that a watching brief should be kept. It will never be possible to prove that those masts are safe. As it will never be possible to prove that they are safe, all of the evidence that is and becomes available must be closely monitored and carefully watched.
The Government should take some notice of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's review of permitted development rights, which was published in September. It is a publication of more than 300 pages, which, so far, has been published only on the website. It makes it clear that permitted development rights need to be looked at. I was somewhat reassured to hear that all that stands between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and changes to the planning legislation on permitted development rights is further public consultation. I hope that that will take place in a timely fashion and will not be left until the next Parliament. It seems that a great deal of good work has been done that could be pursued to bring about the changes that would remove the sense of helplessness that people feel. People feel that they are not being listened to and that things go ahead without their having any real say.
I think that I have just about managed to get through all of the points that I wanted to make. We would like to see the precautionary approach taken seriously and for research to continue. Although it will never be possible to prove that mobile phone masts are absolutely safe, it will be possible to set people's minds at rest that there is no substantiated evidence that they are being exposed to harm.
120WH
My own view, and that of others to whom I have spoken—[Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) for stopping him, but I think that I am still within my time. My view is that the issues of visual amenity and health and safety concerns meet quite significantly in the middle.
5.9 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I will try to be brief, because I know that the Minister has 18 questions to get through. That will take a while, so I will try to rattle through my remarks.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate. It is an important issue, and had I not been speaking from the Front Bench, I would have contributed nevertheless. The matter involves my constituents as much as anybody else up and down the country.
There have been several criticisms of various operators. I add my voice to that criticism; my experience of operators has not been happy and has been largely characterised by a degree of unwelcome arrogance, which is unhelpful.
We have had talk of clusters of cancers. I would counsel caution when dealing with clusters, as Professor Challis, who was involved with Wishaw, has said, because we will always get them—that is the nature of statistics. People will inevitably be concerned, particularly when there is a cluster of cancer. The debate is about reflecting those concerns and establishing what the Government will do to address them. Communication, as I am sure the Minister knows, is part of public health. Clearly, we need better communication because people are worried.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) voiced his concerns about shabby dealings with a company called Airwave. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has also suffered from the high-handed attitude of operators. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was a little more conciliatory, but he commented rather bravely on the Stewart report. Those of us who know Sir William Stewart would be very reluctant to criticise his report. It was a good report that struck a proper balance between the evidence at its time of writing and the recommendations that, given that the evidence was not great, were necessarily equivocal. The reference to schools and schoolchildren had something to do with fears about leukaemia and brain tumours and the sensitivity of the developing neuroendochrine system, which obviously applies to children.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) was also cautious about the Stewart report, feeling that it may have muddied the water and that clearer answers would have been preferred. Owing to the necessarily sketchy evidence—I suspect that we will come shortly to the subject of research funding to ensure that in future evidence is less sketchy—the recommendations were going to disappoint those who wanted clear-cut answers.
My view of health is rather more holistic than that of many people; health is to do with well-being. Regardless of whether one believes that radio frequency radiation—RF radiation—in the way that we are discussing it causes tumours, one has to accept that base

121WH
stations have damaged people's well-being. It is evidenced by our mailbags, by the concerns that people have, by the symptoms that they report and by their general unease.
When we have a loss of well-being on the scale that we clearly have from the masts, it becomes a public health matter and it is therefore to the Minister that we look for a remedy to those concerns. I am aware of the time, but I will be fascinated to hear what she plans to do— addressing not only the 18 questions, but the public health concerns that people have because of mobile phone masts.
In my constituency, we have concerns about mobile phone masts and mobile phone operators. West Wiltshire district council is doing a splendid job of representing the views of local people and using the existing guidance to address their concerns. It is not easy because, as hon. Members have mentioned, the scales seem to be weighted in favour of the operators. Given the precautionary approach recommended by Sir William Stewart, that seems odd. I fully accept that in the Government's amended guidance—PPG8—they attempted to incorporate some of his recommendations. However, most people feel that they did not go far enough.
On a slightly more philosophical note, we must be careful about the science. As I am sure the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) will admit, scientists and scientific inquiry are fallible. One cannot simply interpret evidence directly into public policy; the alchemy is far subtler than that. Most of our constituents have sound good sense, and often it confounds the scientific evidence arid is rewarded in the fullness of time by being shown to be spot on.
The Stewart report found no evidence for harm, but that does not mean to say that no harm was done or can be done. Very often it means that the research has not been done, and the matter has not been sufficiently investigated. That was probably the burden of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield in arguing for further research. We would all support that.
The Stewart report drew an analogy with exposure from handsets. That is problematic because, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) mentioned, handsets are associated with acute, short-term, short, sharp exposures. Base stations are not; the exposure is constant and affects the whole body. Therefore, one cannot compare one with the other. In considering exposures, one cannot just look at the dose. It is necessary to consider how that dose is received and for how long it is received.
Some research has been done on nematodes—little worms—in Petri dishes. They respond in a certain way when they are exposed to RF. Some have said that that is evidence that RF causes problems to biological entities. No one can interpolate that directly to the case of human beings, let alone interpolate it to the issue of health. That takes several leaps of logic. Nevertheless, those responses happen; they can be observed and quantified, and that means that they have to be taken seriously. Again, that points towards further research.
122WH
This really is a quintessential public health issue. The Minister and her predecessors have dealt with a whole raft of public health matters for many years. It has not been a very happy scene. I am sure that she would be the first to admit that we have had problems with TB, sexually transmitted diseases and other matters. We have an opportunity to grip the issue, and I hope that the Minister will. In particular, I hope that she will answer the 18 questions that have been put to her. With that in mind, I shall wrap up a little earlier, and give her the opportunity to address those questions.
5.17 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing the debate, which has been well attended. I completely understand how important an issue this is because of my constituency experience.
Obviously, the matter attracts a great deal of attention from MPs, the public and the media. All hon. Members have illustrated particular difficulties faced at constituency level. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) talked about the difficulty he had with a particular company. My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) talked about problems of perception, an issue that permeated the debate; perception versus some of the scientific evidence.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) referred to the importance of people's well-being in these considerations and how planning mechanisms fit into that. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) explained how he had been pursuing the matter on behalf of constituents with some vigour and raised issues that I shall try to address later. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about the problems of his constituents, and the graphic descriptions of the public meetings attended by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) showed the strength of feeling in his constituency.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) talked about the responsiveness or otherwise of mobile phone companies. I hope to address some of those issues later because they are similar to those raised by the hon. Member for Westbury on the attitude of operators and how we can deal with them. We are addressing real problems caused by the fact that more people want to use mobile phone technology. In the UK we are in the forefront of that technology, but how does that fit in with people's fears and health concerns?
I am sure that Members will have seen the recent report from the National Radiological Protection Board's advisory group on non-ionising radiation— AGNIR—on health effects from radio frequency electromagnetic fields. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) wrote to hon. Members with an update on our initiatives on that, but this debate is an opportunity to address more of the issues and answer some of the specific queries that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield set out 18 questions in all, and I shall answer as many as I can. I shall concentrate on the health and research issues that have been raised, as many of the other issues are for the

123WH
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I want refer to a few of them in the context of how they have been raised today, but if I cannot, I will ensure that the ODPM is made aware of the points that were made.
Many Members referred to the Stewart report from May 2000. Its conclusions remain central to Government advice, which is that the balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to mobile phone radiation below national guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population. It also indicates there is no general risk to the health of people living near base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well-being in some cases. As many hon. Members have said, a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on health effects becomes available.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked about the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines incorporated into the 1999 European Council recommendation. The ICNIRP and UK national guidelines are based on the comprehensive assessment of current scientific knowledge, including the possibility of harm caused by effects other than heating. The guidelines are kept under review, and a recent report by the independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation, which I mentioned earlier, examined the evidence for biological effects and concluded:
"The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to radiofrequency fields below guideline levels."
The Government acknowledge that there are uncertainties in the science, and having accepted the precautionary approach recommended by Stewart, we set up a research programme in conjunction with the industry. It has a £7.4 million budget to investigate a number of important health-related issues. The research is mainly concerned with users of mobile phone handsets, as the mobile phone user receives the greatest exposure to mobile phone radio frequencies, but all the research is relevant to investigating possible health effects from exposure to base stations.
More recently, the programme has been able to extend its range of studies to accommodate concerns about exposures from base stations as robust scientific protocols have become available. Two projects are considering emissions from base stations in particular. One is a study using volunteers to investigate whether base stations can be shown to cause symptoms in the short term, while the other is examining the incidence of early childhood cancer in relation to base station exposure.
MTHR, the mobile telecommunications and health research programmer is possibly unique in supporting two projects on base stations alone, and when other UK-based research is taken into consideration, such as the Home Office research programme on terrestrial trunked radio—Tetra—we see that the UK has one of the largest research efforts in the world.
Dr. Julian Lewis(Con): Will the Minister give way?
Ms Winterton: I cannot. I am sorry, but I have to gallop through these questions.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked specifically about some aspects of the research programme. First, he asked whether a number of different symptoms could be attributed to the mobile phone mast network. Science cannot rule out the possibility of effects such as sleep disorders and headaches occurring, but such effects can have many causes and can pre-date the installation of base stations. There is no clear scientific evidence that such effects are caused by exposure to radio frequency fields from base stations or that they have increased in recent years. The research programmes that we support are investigating a range of disorders such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's queries on the proportion of the programme being spent on base station research, but I remind hon. Members that base station emissions are low intensity compared with mobile phone emissions.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Westbury asked whether a study of cancer clusters around mobile phone masts should be undertaken. Research funding decisions by the programme management committee are clearly based on sound scientific principles. I understand that, in the absence of any clear indication of people's exposure, there would be little scientific merit in such a study; mere proximity is not likely to be a good measure of exposure.
Another question posed by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield concerned melatonin and cancer. The melatonin issue is a complex one, as his questions implied. Research papers on this issue are currently being referred to the National Radiological Protection Board, which has asked its advisory group on non-ionising radiation to undertake a thorough investigation of melatonin effects and provide a report. The report is expected some time next year.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a helpful suggestion about setting up a register of people who believe that they have been affected by mobile phone handset and/or base station microwave radiation. His suggestion is interesting, but it needs to be carefully managed to protect against abuse, as he suggests. The research committee is keen to encourage people to register with the researchers, who are funded by the mobile telecommunications and health research programme. Volunteers who feel that they are affected in this way are asked to contact the researchers directly through the MTHR website.
I hope that I can answer the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield's questions on Tetra by quoting directly from the report published by the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation in 2001. It concluded:
"Although areas of uncertainty remain about the biological effects of low level radio frequency radiation in general, including modulated signals, current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health."

125WH
That conclusion was reinforced in AGNIR's recent report, issued two weeks ago.
Several questions have been asked about Government guidelines on planning for mobile phone base station masts. Responsibility for the guidelines lies with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I want to make two brief points. Pre-application discussions should be carried out with relevant groups, including residents, and alternative sites should be looked at. Those are clear guidelines. I know that there have been concerns about that that I shall take back to Ministers in the ODPM, particularly on the issue of motorways.
This has been a comprehensive debate. I am sorry that I have not been able to answer all the questions that were raised, but I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance to hon. Members about the research that is being undertaken.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): We must now turn our attention to the issue of roads in the Honiton and Tiverton constituency.

Roads (Tiverton and Honiton)
5.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: For the record, Mr. Cook, I should say that my constituency is Tiverton and Honiton. It would be remiss of me not to correct its title.
I wish to raise three matters to do with roads in my constituency. I have given the Minister prior notice of them; I know that we will have some good answers because I am sure he will be well prepared. The first is an issue that I have raised on many occasions. In fact, I have been raising it since I was first elected in 1992. The A303 runs from Honiton to Ilminster and passes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who is in his place. We believe that that road should be dualled.
When the Government took office in 1997, there had already been a public inquiry and I understand that the contract was ready to go out to tender. Since then, the Government have initiated one report after another, all of which seem to have been kicked into the long grass. As yet, there is no progress on dualling that important stretch of road.
Mr. Hugo Swire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate. We are constantly lobbied by the Federation of East Devon chambers of commerce—with whom we have a meeting on Friday—the Devon and Cornwall business council and business men in both our constituencies, who tell us that even if the road between Ilminster and Taunton were dualled, dualling the A303 would still be a priority. One cannot replace the other; one will merely be in addition to the other.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it should not be an "either or" argument. All who know that part of the country will recognise the need to dual the road from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton. However, that does not detract from the need for the A303 to be dualled. Indeed, transport links were identified earlier this month in a report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as one of the major barriers to economic improvement in the south-west. Most of the rural south-west was described in that report as a disadvantaged area.
The A303 joins with the M3 to London in one direction, and it is a main east-west route. It is meant to be the second arterial route through the west country. At the moment, we have only the M5. It is wrong that we should be deprived of that second arterial route, as it affects the economic development of the whole peninsula. The Minister, who represents a Plymouth seat, will know that most people who travel to the west, especially businesses looking to relocate in the south-west peninsula, will carefully consider the arterial routes, of which we have only one. Indeed, I suggest to him that people wanting to relocate to the Plymouth area would be most favourably impressed if the A303 were dualled.
It is not only an economic argument; the road goes through an area of outstanding natural beauty. Unusually for such an area, every parish council on the route supports the dualling of the A303. Normally,

127WH
major road works attract local opposition. People who live and work in the area know how important improvements would be for road safety, an important consideration. Certainly, those who drive along that part of the road that goes through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will know that it is dangerous. It is a bendy and hilly road, and is not compatible with today's transport standards. It should be dualled on road safety grounds alone.
We are not the only ones who think so. The fact that the Amesbury to Honiton road should be built entirely to dual carriageway standards was endorsed by the RAC. Having noticed that I had an Adjournment debate today, it immediately wrote to brief me on its recommendations on roads throughout the country, and it shows that the A303 has a high priority.
Since 1997, we have had umpteen multi-modal studies. Goodness knows what has happened to them. Hours have been spent on them, and money has been spent on convening meetings to consider them. The regional assembly has been involved, as has the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency. Consultants have been brought in to consider the issue, but whenever I raise it with Ministers there is always a reason not to proceed. The last time I raised the matter, the Secretary of State prayed in aid the environmental considerations of taking a dual carriageway on an existing route—not a new route—through an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is about time the Government stopped hiding behind the environmental argument. That argument has not been swept aside, but has been subject to a full public inquiry in which all the environmental factors were laid open and considered. The public inquiry endorsed the building of the dual carriageway.
I suggest that the problem is to do not with the environment, but with money. The Government do not appear to have the money. For both road and rail, we have recently seen reports ditched and put to one side. My research assistant was ready to attend a meeting, on 15 January I think, in Weston-super-Mare, because the regional assembly kept saying that the report was due any day. So confident was the assembly of the Government's promised report that it had booked a venue but on the very day before the meeting was due to take place, we were let down again. Are there new spending constraints on the Minister? When will the latest report on the A303 be put in the public domain for discussion?
Does the Minister recognise the economic importance of a second arterial route in and out of the south-west peninsula? Representing a west Devon seat, he of all Ministers must recognise that the scheme would be as important to people living in his side of Devon as it would be to the people living in my side of Devon.
The other thing that I should like to raise is the A373 Cullompton to Honiton road. I have written to the Minister about that and I know he has received the letter; not only did I post it, I faxed it to his private office. The Minister looks askance. When this debate came up, his private office asked me to fax that letter, so I hope that he has received it. Although the A373 is an A road, it links the M5 at Cullompton, at junction 28, to the centre of Honiton, the high street. The Minister will be familiar with the A30 between the M5 at Exeter and Honiton, because it is the noisy road that he is going to
128WH
resurface any minute now. When that road was dualled, it was recognised that heavy traffic—goods vehicles— would not need to turn left at Cullompton, at junction 28, and cut through on the A373 to Honiton, but that there should be some direction for heavy vehicles being routed down the M5 to Exeter and back up the dual carriageway.
Again, that proposal seems to have been kicked into the long grass. For months and months I corresponded with Devon county council and the Highways Agency in Exeter about the scheme. I am not concerned so much about access traffic, but about the A373 being used as a rat-run. Despite being an A road, it is single carriageway in some places and passes through several hamlets and villages. I have had representations from parish councils in Broadhembury, Payhembury and elsewhere. I have also had representations from residents in Honiton, at the urban end of the road, who say that their houses are so close to the road that heavy good vehicles rattling through cause vibrations and disturbances, particularly in the early hours.
I have had sight of the minutes of a 1999 meeting of the East Devon partnership committee, where all the options for that road were considered and the police made their representation. It was agreed that once the dualling of the A30 was complete, the heavy vehicles should be directed to take what is obviously a heavy goods vehicle route; further down the motorway, off at the slip road and down the dual carriageway to Honiton, rather than along a windy A road through lots of little villages. However, the answer from the Highways Agency in Exeter was that that could not be done because signs on the motorway at the junction advising heavy goods vehicles to continue down the motorway would distract drivers and could cause accidents.
I realise that the Highways Agency might be acting on Government guidelines. On the approach to London, for instance, there are lots of junctions very close together on the M4. In. Devon, as the Minister knows only too well, distances between junctions are many miles; for example, between junctions 27 and 28. There is a straight line of motorway at the approach to the junction at Cullompton. I cannot believe that a redirection sign for heavy goods vehicles at junction 28 represents the sort of motorway hazard that the Highways Agency is suggesting.
Are budgetary constraints preventing the decision from being made? Unless we have a decision, we shall not see progress on the A373. Will the Minister explain why the national guidelines about direction signs on motorways apply equally to motorways running through sparsely populated areas such as Devon and those running through the Slough conurbation? That is not the answer and I hope that the Minister will take a personal interest in the problem.
I have invited the Minister personally to drive along the road and I have offered to drive him, with a cream tea on the way and another at the end in Honiton where there are some excellent restaurants. I cannot make the package more attractive and we would be only too pleased to see him. The invitation is on the table and I hope that he will avail himself of it.
Finally, I want to raise a matter that affects virtually all the roads in my constituency and further afield: funding for maintenance of Devon roads. I know that,

129WH
technically, that is not the Minister's responsibility, but is part of the local government settlement to Devon county council. However, I gave his office advance warning that I would raise the matter and he will understand why. As the Minister with responsibility for roads, he will have a serious interest in road safety and we all know that the maintenance of roads is a matter of road safety.
Increasingly in Devon, particularly in rural communities and with so-called climate change, more and more roads are subject to flooding, which has a huge impact on the maintenance budget. Devon, a large, rural county, has three times the national average of road length per head of population. We find that in the new formula methodology that the Government introduced last year for calculating the need for road maintenance funding, we lose out because we receive less per mile—I still work in miles, not kilometres, and intend to continue to do so—than other, smaller counties. We share the problem of underfunding of our roads budget with counties such as Yorkshire and Cumbria. It seems strange, going back to the DEFRA report on the need for infrastructure and economic viability in rural areas, that we are penalised for having so many rural roads.
The result of changing the methodology that the Government introduced last year means that, under last year's county settlement, Devon county council had a reduction of 20 per cent. in its road budget, which will be reduced again this year. A small reduction in the allocation per mile results in a funding reduction to the county budget of several million pounds. Will the Minister look again—or urge his colleagues to do so—at the representations made by Devon county council recently in response to the Government's local government settlement?
I shall mention a couple of points from the letter the council submitted on the way in which it assesses different roads. It is clear that the formula change will be an ongoing problem and will seriously affect road maintenance. One can get away with it for a year or two, but an ongoing reduction in the maintenance budget means that big costs will eventually arise when there is no longer a possibility of patching or repairing, and complete resurfacing is necessary. Devon is facing some very large bills down the track.
The Government's formula recognises two categories of road; rural roads and urban roads. The county council believes that that is too simplistic, but the Government say that it is obvious that it costs less per mile—they say kilometres, but I shall stick to miles—to maintain access roads within surburban housing estates and busy stretches on non-trunk principal roads running between towns. However, the proposed formula allocates more than twice as much for roads in housing estates, despite the extensive infrastructure associated with the principal road network.
Additional features, such as lay-bys, rest facilities, landscaping and noise management should be taken into consideration, and the funding model needs to be sufficiently sophisticated to recognise that. The council goes on to explain why that is, using as an example the way in which local authority grant distribution has been utilised in Scotland to make sure that it is fairer system.
130WH
Scotland gives a good example of what would be fairer in a rural, sparsely populated community, and I urge the Government to consider that.
We all know that there are pressures on all parts of the county budget, not least in social services and education. Ultimately, when there are pressures on those two important areas, it is always the road budget that is cut back to meet the county's statutory obligations. That is very important now; the county needs to set a budget and has already made representations to the Government. A word from the Minister to his hon. Friends might help to relieve the problem, not just for this year's settlement, but for the ongoing maintenance of Devon's roads.
5.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing this debate and giving me an opportunity to respond to some of the issues that she has raised. I can think of no better way of whiling away an afternoon than by having a cream tea with her on the A373 or thereabouts. I am sure that our offices can arrange that.
Let me begin by stating that the Government are committed to sustained and long-term investment to improve local transport as a key element of our 10-year transport plan. In December 2000, we announced that £8.4 billion would be made available to implement local transport plans across England in the next five years. That funding will help to deliver the Government's vision of a high-quality transport network that meets people's needs and offers more choice to individuals, families, communities and businesses.
The hon. Lady gave the impression that some of that money has not gone to Devon, but Devon will benefit from that investment. Over £9.2 million will be made available to Devon next year for capital investment in integrated transport. That is over £1 million more than this year, and is a 14 per cent. increase. That rise in capital investment has been matched by an increase for the county to maintain its roads. This year, we gave Devon £14.5 million of capital investment for its roads, which we have increased to £16.5 million for 2004–05. We have made a further £1.6 million available for the strengthening of the Bideford Long bridge. The hon. Lady must agree that, contrary to the picture that she has painted, generous amounts of money have been made available to Devon, which, I say to her delicately, are far greater in real terms than Devon received when her party was in government.
I understand the hon. Lady's concern that the level of revenue provided to Devon through the formula spending share does not adequately reflect the length of roads that the county has to maintain. I accept that Devon is an unusual county in that it has many small roads; one hon. Member described it as having more roads than Belgium. I do not know whether that is true, but it certainly has a high proportion of roads to the population. I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that resources must be distributed to authorities based on a consistent assessment of their needs. The formula provides more resources to the roads that are used most and, more particularly, to those roads used by heavy goods vehicles; obviously, the heavier the vehicle the

131WH
greater the damage to the roads. The new funding formula was agreed with the Local Government Association.
I now turn to the hon. Lady's concerns about the volume of heavy goods vehicles using the A373 as an apparent short cut to Honiton and beyond from junction 28 on the M5, and to her request for a sign on the M5 advising HGVs to use junction 29 and the A30. I fully appreciate the safety concerns. I also understand that such traffic may disturb local communities along the A373, and that the road is not of an appropriate standard to take some of those HGVs.
The Highways Agency endeavours to ensure that motorway signing benefits all users in directing them to the most appropriate routes to their destination. However, that must be set against the need not to overload the road user with information that may benefit only a few road users. That creates distractions that can result both in a disturbance of traffic flow and have a negative impact on road safety. That is particularly important on motorways, with the higher speeds at which traffic passes, irrespective of the distance between junctions.
The Highways Agency is not aware of having given any prior commitment to advisory signing. If the hon. Lady has evidence in that regard, I would be pleased to see it. The agency's position has always been to consider positively any request to improve signing if it is supported by sufficient evidence to ensure that increased advisory signing will be effective.
Devon county council has made available some information on traffic flows on the A373. That suggests that the opening of the dualled A30 has not resulted in a significant reduction of heavy goods traffic using the A373. However, that evidence in itself has not been sufficient for the Highways Agency to erect additional signing at junction 28, as it does not indicate the nature or destination of the traffic flow.
To know where and how we might sign appropriately, we need more information as to the destinations and where the vehicles come from. There may be other routes. For example, if heavy vehicles are coming from the Bristol direction, it may be more appropriate to get to Honiton using the A358 instead. It may be more appropriate for other signing to be used. We need better information.
If Devon can provide additional evidence on the origin and destination of some of the vehicles, the Highways Agency will be happy to consider it. I assure the hon. Lady that I will take a personal interest in that. If, for example, the evidence showed that heavy goods vehicles were coming from further north up the M5, it might be more appropriate for them to take other routes. However, it needs to be borne in mind that signing does not necessarily mean that the vehicles will use the A30 in preference to the A373 because as well as seeing the signs, the driver will have a map in his cab and will often use the quickest route. Devon county council would have to take other measures to restrict the use of the road; it would not just be a matter of using signs.
Mrs. Browning: If a goods vehicle came off prior to that junction, it would go through the Blackdown hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty. I think that the Minister is suggesting that those coming from Bristol
132WH
would end up on the A303. I hope that he will bear in mind what I have said, because we seem to be between a rock and a hard place. It is no good telling us that the A303 does not merit dualling if he is now saying that it might be a good idea if more heavy vehicles travelled on it.
Mr. Jamieson: I am saying that we can put up signs, but in the end drivers will make their own choices. The route that the hon. Lady suggests is substantially longer, with all the environmental impact that that would have in terms of extra fuel. The journey involving the A373, for example, is about 10.6 miles instead of 23 miles. Of course, drivers will make that choice. For the signing to have maximum effect, the local highways authority might need to consider additional measures on the A373 and ways of enforcing them. For example, as it is not a primary route, weight restrictions could be considered, but those are matters for Devon county council to consider, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is taking that up with the council. I repeat that the Highways Agency is happy to consider a request if it can be supported by additional evidence of traffic volume and by the information on origin and destination to which I referred.
Let me now deal with the A303 and A358. I am well aware of the views on this matter. There has been enormous discussion at local level and in this place about those roads. I represent a constituency much further down the line in Devon. We in Plymouth do not consider ourselves to be in west Devon; we consider ourselves to be in Plymouth, but there we are. The issue is important for economic development, and we recognise that it is important to have two routes for the growing holiday traffic going into Cornwall.
Ms Candy Atherton: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in such matters. She is much further away from the area—nearly 100 miles—but the issue is still significant to her. I know that she constantly takes an interest in these important matters.
In our 1998 White Paper, "A new deal for transport: better for everyone", we announced a new approach to the assessment of all transport infrastructure. The assessment is much broader than was the case before. We are talking about multi-modal studies. Our new approach involves considering all modes of transport. In "A new deal for trunk roads", we adopted a strong policy presumption against new or expanded transport infrastructure that would adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas such as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, except when there was an overriding public interest in the development. I think that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who knows the area well, would accept that that is a right and sensible policy to adopt.
The London to south-west and south Wales multi—modal study—SWARMMS—considered the two main corridors into the south-west: the M4-M5, and the M3-A303. A number of improvements were suggested in

133WH
relation to the A303, including the improvement at Stonehenge, which the hon. Lady knows about and about which we have already made an announcement.
The SWARMMS consultants recommended that the four schemes east of Ilminster—Wylye, Chicklade, Sparkford and the Ilminster bypass—should go ahead, subject to some amendments following the reassessment. The A303 to the west of Ilminster—the Ilminster-to-Marsh, and Marsh-to-Honiton schemes— was also assessed and some changes were recommended. The hon. Lady will be only too aware that that route, which runs through the Blackdown hills—an area of outstanding natural beauty—was examined by a public inquiry in the mid 1990s and an alternative was proposed. That involved diverting the route from the Southfields roundabout along the A358.
However, there are some difficulties involving the junction between the A358 and the motorway, which could become seriously congested. We are considering some of those issues carefully. The SWARMMS study considered both alternatives and found that things were not as straightforward as they appeared.
The hon. Lady will know that, under planning policy guidance note 11, the Government now involve the regional planning bodies in determining needs and priorities for major strategic transport investment. Following discussions in December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted the main recommendation that the whole of the A303 between the M3 and the M5 at Exeter be upgraded to a dual carriageway to form a second high-quality strategic road corridor into the peninsular. We are the first Government to have accepted that. He asked the
134WH
Highways Agency to prepare the four schemes east of Ilminster for entry into our targeted programme of improvements.
On the two options west of Ilminster, in the same announcement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Highways Agency to carry out further work on the feasibility of the scheme involving the A358 and the connection with the M5 at junction 25. We are talking about something that is clearly crucial to the viability of the alternative. We agreed that the regional assembly would have the opportunity to comment on the work before a final decision was made. However, I have to say that the work is extremely complex. I have considered the matter carefully. The work has taken longer than we expected but it is nearing completion. The Highways Agency will prepare a summary report that outlines the findings to help the regional assembly in its considerations.
I know that the hon. Lady feels that this is a long process that goes over old ground, but it is important to get the analysis right. An area of outstanding natural beauty is involved and the schemes are extremely expensive. Budgetary considerations are important and we must consider the cost of these schemes. The other, somewhat unexpected, factor that has come to light in the past 18 months is the increase in traffic in and out of Devon and Cornwall. After the BSE difficulties, we are seeing an increase in tourism in Cornwall. We have seen a growth in traffic along the route to Cornwall, which has made us consider the decision more carefully. I hope that we will be in a position to submit the work to the regional body.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the points. If I have not covered some matters, I shall be happy to correspond with her.

Former Tin Mining Communities
6 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to introduce this debate on the regeneration of former tin mining communities. I chose the title deliberately. There are often debates in the House on the regeneration of coalfields and, even more on specific funding packages for coalfields. In the coming months, we are expecting a report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee on coalfield communities. It was when I and others in Cornwall heard about the investigation that we realised we were lagging behind other former mining areas in the country, the heart of which is the Camborne-PoolRedruth area in my constituency.
By way of a little history, I wish to remind hon. Members that, in its heyday, that area was a powerhouse of the industrial revolution. The steam that drove British economic might was developed by our most famous son, Richard Trevithick. The first gas lamp was lit in Redruth. It is no exaggeration to say that Cornwall was the genesis of the modern industrial age. The technology and brilliance of Cornish engineering were transferred to the coal mines and propelled this country into being the workshop of the world.
At its height, Cornwall boasted 2,000 mines and was a world leader. However, just as Cornwall led the world into the industrial revolution, it became one of the first victims of globalisation. Discoveries of tin and cheaper production costs in Malaysia led to a painful, protracted decline—not the shock closure of the coal mines. As a result, Cornwall was England's poorest county by the time I was elected in 1997. Low wages, low aspirations and high unemployment, much of it long term, were the economic climate. Only one mine remained and it, too, has now closed.
Of course, 1997 was when Cornwall's wider fortunes began to turn. The election of a Labour Government has seen unemployment cut by more than half in my constituency. That is one of the largest falls in the country. It is in low-income areas, such as Cornwall, where the national minimum wage, tax credits and extra support for families have attacked poverty and broken the cycle of economic and human depression. Again, thanks to the Government, Cornwall has received the boon of objective 1 funding and a raft of Government investment, which exceeds the meagre offerings of years gone by.
Now we look to the future with optimism and the belief that we can make Cornwall an economic powerhouse once more, focused on the area that I represent. However, we cannot afford to be satisfied with the work thus far. Cornwall remains a poor county. According to current estimates, if the funding formula remains the same we expect to be eligible for objective 1 funding for a second time. Wages still remain far below the national average.
Like former mining areas elsewhere, we have a large proportion of economically inactive people. Poor health, particularly among older males, reflects our mining tradition. The number of people with limiting long-term illness well exceeds the national average. A
136WH
cluster of wards in my constituency falls into the 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in the country. A study in 1998 that estimated gross household incomes showed that mean household incomes in Camborne North and Redruth North wards were the fourth and fifth lowest in the country.
We are, in effect, a post-industrial area that is in need of assistance. We may not have mined coal, but our need is as great as those areas—if not greater still. Unlike other parts of the country, we did not have the infrastructure or capacity in the private sector to step into the breach. We are peripheral, with transport links that are improving, but we cannot change geography. Other local industries, such as agriculture, tourism and fishing, have their own problems. Indeed, a report published last week by Oxfam showed that, on average, Cornish farmers receive £7,500 in European Union subsidies, while more prosperous farmers in other areas can add one, two or even three noughts to that figure.
I believe that our area should receive the same commitment from the Government and their agencies as other former mining communities throughout the United Kingdom. The industrial legacy is the same in my constituency as in other parts of the country affected by coal. The only difference is that we mined tin, not king coal.
Last year the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area became home to one of the Government's 12 new urban regeneration companies. Camborne-Pool-Redruth Regeneration brings together key local agencies and partners to support a focused, integrated regeneration strategy for the area. In real speak, the intention is to turn the area around and create a new future. The partnership brings together local authorities, the south west of England development agency, English Partnerships and the Government office for the south west alongside local business and education leaders.
By setting up CPR Urban Regeneration, the Government have recognised the distinct and urgent needs of this area of Cornwall. I should tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I served on the shadow board of the company as vice-chair, and I am a current member of the board. We do, however, need some help. Our ability to attract private investment to the area to work with the local partnerships, schools and public agencies will be key.
Our mining heritage is a significant and a limiting factor. Hundreds of miles of mines stretch under land and sea. As someone put it to me recently, there is a perception that the whole area is full of holes. This is not helping us to attract the private sector, because there is concern about the costs hidden beneath the ground. A great deal of land is in need of remediation work, especially near the surface workings and near the oldest and largest shafts. Work has been done, but we have not tackled the problems below the surface.
There is also an associated risk of potential subsidence because of mine workings. A regular and desperate story in our local newspapers and in my surgeries is of householders waking up to discover that their garden has disappeared into a great hole. Recently Cusgarne school, also in my constituency, had to be abandoned for some months after a former mineshaft swallowed up the recreation ground. A significant

137WH
additional cost for prospective home owners in my constituency is the mine survey, to see what may lurk beneath the surface. The problems underground are a daily and recurring issue. This concern affects businesses as much as householders. For businesses considering relocation to the area, there is a real concern about what lies beneath, and that once we start digging, who knows what we may find?
For that reason, I am keen to explore the drawing up of a comprehensive remediation strategy for the area. By making use of the expertise in the county, such as the Camborne school of mines, and the expertise and experience of others in the country, we could tackle this problem head-on. We know how former coalfields have re-used land, such as in the transformations at Glasshoughton, Grimethorpe and others. Can we not use their expertise and skills alongside the specialist knowledge of our own mineral industries to do something similar in the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area?
English Partnerships has already identified and bought key sites in the area for development on an ad hoc basis. As we know, it is advising the Government on a national brownfield strategy. However, Government policy for contaminated land, as distinct from merely brownfield sites, understandably focuses on the risk to human health and the environment, rather than land for development. I believe we must go further—we need a comprehensive strategy to tackle the problems in the ground, to make use of expertise and experiences elsewhere, to map the problem and to look to fund remedial work.
Tackling the problems in the ground will also tackle the perceptions in the air. We could say to the private sector,"We are a former mining area, we have had contaminated land, it was a problem, but this is what we are doing to tackle it. We have found those holes, we know what is beneath your factory or industrial site. Where there is land that must be treated, we will treat it. Now you can invest with us with confidence." That could be worth its weight in gold, let alone tin and copper. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider funding an exemplary pilot project to stabilise the land, to be undertaken by the Urban Regeneration Company. In that way we can attract new businesses to the area.
We have had good news of late. CompAir UK, which was formerly the main manufacturing company in Camborne, closed just before Christmas after 200 years in the town. That was sad. However, we are pleased that two new manufacturing businesses—Quaife and OEM Fabrications—have moved on to the CompAir site and are creating new manufacturing jobs, using our skills and becoming part of the area's renaissance. Today we have been successful in securing a call centre for regional trading standards, thanks to the Department of Trade and Industry, which listened to our lobbying. That will bring a further 50-plus jobs to the area. I am delighted to say that instead of going to over-saturated Truro, they will come to the URC area. We are working on that. The day before that there was the announcement that Furniss, a food producer based in the URC area, had brought in the receivers and 150 jobs were under threat. We have a mixture of good news one day, and not such good news on others. There are real issues to tackle.
138WH
We hope that the new companies are the first of many to take advantage of the incentives that are available to do business in Cornwall. The Government have cut stamp duty and provided tax relief for companies cleaning up land. If we had the resources to build on those initiatives and deal with the land issue, we could overcome a significant barrier and create an environment that inspires confidence. Then the investment will follow.
There is a similar story with housing. I know that the Minister has looked carefully at the situation in Cornwall. As I have said in person, and in letters, we are lucky that there is land for new housing in the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area. The Minister is well aware of the political interests around affordable housing. Building on post-industrial land is considered less attractive than in other areas. We lack the capacity to create competition among suppliers to attract them to the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area; the profits to be gained from high-value executive homes in more prosperous towns are too great. Even though the developments in popular locations by the coast, or in over-developed Truro and Falmouth, may be controversial, enough of them get through to keep the builders happy. However, that does not solve the area's housing problem or get investment to the industrial heartland of the Camborne- Pool-Redruth area where it is most needed. There is a vicious cycle that we must break.
If we can find the right balance of incentives, we can offer the Government solutions. We do not just have questions—we have answers and solutions to long-standing issues of land, the environment, housing and prosperity in an area with some 50,000 people. There are many differences between west Cornwall and the UK's industrial heartlands, but we face many similar problems. However, there is one big difference: while those areas have benefited for many years from coalfields programmes and coalfield regeneration, our needs have been overlooked.
This Government have done more for Cornwall than any other Government. I say that on the record with every confidence. I hope that by accepting the case for the needs of the former mining community, we can go further still. I urge the Minister to consider making the former tin mining communities of Camborne-Pool-Redruth eligible for the funding and support packages that are provided under the coalfield regeneration schemes. We would not only benefit from the funding streams that are available, but tap into the wealth of experience that has been generated and ally that with local knowledge. Will the Minister fund a comprehensive study into the remediation of former tin mining communities?
It is wrong that Cornwall should fall behind other areas in the country, yet we have evidence that that is so. We shall hear this year about our bid for world heritage status. The engine houses and the industrial legacy are still there because the area was not regenerating. When other parts of the world were knocking down that legacy and rebuilding, our buildings remained on the skyline.
In other parts of the country, the Coal Authority has made great strides in cleaning up discharges from mines. The Camborne school of mines and the Environment Agency have done much in Cornwall, but it is estimated that at least 100 discharges will have to be cleaned up to

139WH
meet EU water standards by 2015. It sounds a long way away, but the clock is ticking on the clean up of those discharges. We have yet to undertake even the survey to assess the work. I recently met the Minister for the Environment, and he is discussing how to address the problems of water discharges with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
There is a river in the CPR area of my constituency called the Red river, so-called because of the mine discharges. Surely, like the mines beneath the ground, it could and should be reinstated. Would it not be an obvious first win for everyone as we tackle the tin inheritance?
We are a long way away from the coalfields, but our need is as great and our potential as exciting. Will the Minister fund a comprehensive study into the remediation of the former tin mining communities to ensure that we have learned the lessons from the recent coalfields experience? It is a fair request; we should be treated like other mining communities, and our industrial legacy should be tackled.
6.16 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing the debate and applaud her assiduousness in bringing the needs of her constituents to the attention of the House.
Falmouth and Camborne may be geographically distant from London, but my hon. Friend ensures that it is never far from Ministers' thoughts. In a previous ministerial capacity I visited her in her constituency and, in my new capacity, I hope to visit again shortly.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend welcoming the number of initiatives and the level of funding being introduced to west Cornwall and, in particular, to the former tin mining communities of Camborne, Pool and Redruth. I was delighted to hear the good news about recent investments in the locality.
The south-west is a diverse region. Its high-quality built and natural environments have tempted many to locate there and its economic and employment levels have been high in recent years. However, the long-term decline in traditional industries such as tin mining and fishing, especially when combined with the peripherality and rurality of Cornwall's geography, has created pockets of deprivation. Communities have suffered from limited economic opportunities, low productivity, a low skills base and a lack of affordable housing.
The Government are determined to ensure that these areas are not overlooked, even if they do not conform to the idea of classic inner-city deprivation. The concept of sustainable communities—our drive towards creating places where people can, and want to, live and work— is as relevant to Camborne as it is to Manchester or London.
In order to achieve sustainable communities, certain conditions need to be in place. Communities need economic prosperity where businesses are located and growing in order to provide jobs for the local work force and they need a local work force who have been trained to have the right skills to do the jobs.
In addition, people need to be able to live in homes of a decent standard that they can afford, and they need to live in a pleasant and well-designed built environment
140WH
that does not encroach on their green spaces. That is especially true in places such as Cornwall where the rural setting is such an important element of its attraction. Other infrastructure such as transport, hospitals and schools must also be in place for such communities to work.
The Government have consistently supported prosperity, growth and regeneration in Cornwall and we have undertaken a wide variety of initiatives, from match funding objective 1 projects through to grants from the neighbourhood renewal fund to help improve housing, raise school standards, reduce crime and improve health in deprived areas. The whole of Cornwall is eligible for regional selective assistance to companies, and it is also a health action zone. There is also an education action zone in the Camborne-Pool-Redruth area.
We all recognise the challenges of achieving economic prosperity against the background of the decline in traditional industry and the peripherality that I have already mentioned. That is why the south west of England development agency has identified Camborne-Pool-Redruth as one of only five priority areas of investment in the south-west. It has already provided about £10 million for projects in the area.
Early successes such as the Tolvaden energy park, which received a Building Research Establishment environmental award in 2002 and was the first development of its kind to receive that sort of recognition, have been followed by other projects such as the Treleigh industrial estate in Redruth. On brownfield land at Falmouth the development agency is helping to develop the Ponsharden—[Interruption.] I shall sit down at this point to be corrected on the pronunciation of these wonderful Cornwall names.
Ms Atherton: The Minister might care to know that they are Treleigh, Ponsharden and Tolvaden.
Keith Hill: I am delighted to be corrected. The Ponsharden site is now under construction and will provide marine-related work space and a park-and-float facility for the town. Of course, the jewel in the crown is the combined universities of Cornwall project, which has seen the investment of nearly £60 million of Government and European Union objective 1 programme funding and is expected to provide a step-change in developing the local economy through teaching and research facilities that link directly with the growth of specific business centres, such as marine and earth sciences, design and media. I am aware that the CUC is already forging ahead because a niece of mine happens to be studying media studies and is living in fabulous Falmouth.
I appreciate the case that my hon. Friend makes about the similarities between the decline of coal mining industries and that of the tin mining industries in west Cornwall. However, the coalfield programme was set up as a result of the coalfield taskforce. Its funding streams were ring-fenced specifically around coalfields, and have

141WH
already been allocated to a large extent. Nevertheless, there may be lessons learned by the coalfield taskforce that are applicable to communities in Camborne, Pool and Redruth, and we shall endeavour to ensure that those lessons are appropriately disseminated to stakeholders in the former tin mining communities in west Cornwall.
We also need to look at the specific issues that face those communities and not try to import models for regeneration from elsewhere if they are not applicable to the conditions in a specific area. I am aware that my hon. Friend met my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently. He undertook to investigate the implications of her suggestion that the Coal Authority might take on responsibility not only for abandoned coal mines, but for other sorts of abandoned mine. It will be for DEFRA to take that process forward. I would not want to pre-empt or second-guess the results of that investigation. However, I would like to say a little about land contamination later in my speech.
As I have said, a great deal of regeneration activity is taking place in the Camborne, Pool and Redruth area. In order for the changes to be sustainable, they have to be considered strategically alongside economic development and skills and training. Such regeneration also needs to be clear about its connectivity to other areas of economic activity in the region and how the businesses created in Camborne complement rather than compete with others in the south-west.
That is why regional development agencies were created; to be regional drivers of economic development and regeneration and to ensure that the extent and type of economic activity across the region works in balance and in a joined-up way. That approach is already working for Camborne, Pool and Redruth. The development agency, working with together with other key partners such as English Partnerships and local authorities, has been essential to the creation of the urban regeneration company CPR Regeneration and, as my hon. Friend stated, she sits on the board of that important body.
My hon. Friend mentioned the excellent work of that body in driving forward an ambitious £150 million investment programme. Around two thirds of this investment is expected to come from the private sector, with the remainder from the public sector over the next 10 years. It will be one of the largest urban renewal projects in the country, driving the regeneration of up to 150 hectares of land with the aim of creating more than 4,000 jobs and raising wages in the area by 15 per cent.
I take my hon. Friend's point about the nature of land contamination in former tin mining communities but I cannot undertake to fund a pilot project to stabilise land nor to fund a comprehensive study into remediation of former tin mining communities. However, I want to suggest a way forward. My hon. Friend will know that the purpose of an urban regeneration company is to work towards a co-ordinated approach to the problems and opportunities in its target areas. Although its principal focus is to engage the private sector in an agreed physical and economic regeneration strategy, hat strategy must be in the wider context of tackling the problems and identifying the opportunities of an area.
142WH
Thus, if the URC board, which consists of the regional development agency, English Partnerships, local authorities and others, considers that the work that my hon. Friend describes is a priority for the physical and economic regeneration of the area, it is open to the board to fund that activity. However, the bodies must be allowed to determine the priorities for themselves. It would not be appropriate for central Government to impose requirements upon them.
My hon. Friend also said that economic growth is likely to put pressure on an already problematic housing situation. The south-west suffers the particular problem of fast-rising house prices combined with low indigenous income. That creates serious problems in terms of affordable housing for key workers and others. There is only limited opportunity to build on brownfield land to control urban sprawl. The south-west also has a high proportion of homeless people, the third highest in England in 2001–02.
Under the sustainable communities plan, we set up regional housing boards to ensure the delivery of our housing policies in the region. The south west regional housing body is developing a regional housing strategy, which has already identified as its priorities the creation of more housing, particularly affordable housing; improvements in private sector housing occupied by vulnerable people; and the delivery of decent homes. I am delighted to report that, at £83 million, the housing settlement announced by the body last autumn in recognition of the south-west's special housing pressures represents a 30 per cent. increase over previous allocations.
I am aware that the URC regards housing for local people as one of the key challenges that it must tackle as part of its overall regeneration of that part of the county. I believe that, by working closely with the local authority, the regional housing body, the RDA, English Partnerships, the Government office, the Housing Corporation and other partners, the URC will be able to play an important role in bringing together the expertise and funding streams that will deliver sustainable housing solutions. I also agree that the role of the private sector is extremely important in securing appropriate levels of affordable housing in new developments.
Although the detail of agreements between planning authorities and developers must remain matters for local negotiation, the Government are anxious that the agreements should deliver as much new affordable housing as possible. That is why we are consulting on changes to planning guidance that propose that local planning authorities set targets for affordable housing and identify sites where it will be expected and in what proportion.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that this is an exciting time for west Cornwall. There are real opportunities, not merely for handling the impact of decline in traditional industries but for creating an economic renaissance in the area that will result in truly modern, dynamic, sustainable communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  East Midlands Airport
  David Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, when he next plans to use East Midlands Airport on official business. [151111]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

TREASURY

  Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many reports of evidence of overseas bribery or suspected bribery by a UK company have been passed to the Inland Revenue's Special Compliance Officer by Inland Revenue staff since November 1997; and how many of these reports were passed on by Inland Revenue to the(a) prosecution and (b) law enforcement agencies. [151442]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism (Crime and Security) Act 2001 provides a gateway for the Revenue to pass information about a possible criminal offence of bribery to other agencies where the evidence warrants such a disclosure. No such gateway existed before.

  The Inland Revenue does not keep central records of cases referred to other agencies, but does not believe that the section 19 gateway has been used to date to refer a case of suspected bribery.

  Currency Speculation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of taxing currency speculation. [150783]

  John Healey
  The Government remain to be convinced that a tax on currency speculation would be particularly effective in stabilising international capital flows. Indeed, a report by the European Commission—"Responses to the Challenges of Globalisation", February 2002—concludes that a currency transaction tax may actually increase volatility, since trading volumes would be likely to fall significantly following its introduction.

  There are also a number of practical issues concerning the coverage and enforcement of a currency speculation tax that would need to be resolved before, as is often suggested, it could become a feasible source of development finance. In particular, the Government are concerned that it would be almost impossible to achieve global coverage for such a tax, creating huge scope for evasion. Even if we could secure agreement among the
  354W
  G7, without global application speculative foreign exchange transactions would gravitate to those jurisdictions which did not enforce the tax. This would make poorly regulated offshore financial centres more attractive to speculators, increasing the threat of instability in the financial system.

  The Government are open to exploring the full range of options for raising finance for development and the Chancellor has proposed the International Finance Facility, a new mechanism which would raise significant additional resources. The Facility would be built on developed countries' long-term commitments to increased aid flows and, on this basis, would leverage additional resources from international capital markets. The Facility would seek to double aid from US․ 50 billion a year today to ․100 billion a year in the years up to 2015—the sum needed to meet the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals.

  Ivory
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) ivory and (b) ivory products seized by HM Customs and Excise in each of the last five years. [150961]

  John Healey
  Customs has made the following seizures of ivory and ivory products in each of the last five years.

  Other items containing ivory

  Ivory tusks

  Calendar year

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Number of Seizures

  Number of items seized

  Total number of seizures

  2003

  7

  22

  23

  3324

  30

  2002

  4

  5

  18

  74

  22

  2001

  6

  8

  27

  649

  33

  2000

  6

  19

  19

  84

  25

  1999

  7

  12

  11

  13

  18

  Total

  30

  66

  98

  4,144

  128

  Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff will be employed in each of the two new tax credit contact centres; where they will be located; and when they will become operational. [147655]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]The two new Tax Credit Contact Centres—in Newcastle upon Tyne and Bathgate (West Lothian)—will each employ the equivalent of 500 new full time staff dedicated to answering tax credits calls. The Bathgate Contact Centre will, in addition, house the equivalent of a further 300 existing full time staff. The tax credits staff will be taking calls in time to support the continued delivery of tax credits from April 2004.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the habitual residence test in regard to child and working tax credits will apply to nationals of the EU accession states if they come to live in the United Kingdom. [151070]
  355W
  Dawn Primarolo
  No, the habitual residence test does not apply to tax credits just as it has never applied to Child Benefit. However, to qualify for tax credits, a person must be both present and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

  Tax Deductibility
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times staff at the Inland Revenue have denied tax deductibility on payments, under section 577A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, on the basis that the payment was(a) a suspected bribe and (b) business entertainment on an overseas contract, since November 1997. [151441]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 577A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 denies, for the purpose of computing business profits, a deduction on expenditure incurred on any payment, the making of which constitutes an offence in the UK, or would do so if the payment were made in the UK. The onus is upon the taxpayer not to claim a deduction on any such expenditure. The Inland Revenue does not keep central records of expenditure disallowed from deduction by its inspectors under this provision.

TRANSPORT

  Advanced Driving Instructor Exams
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of the new Advanced Driving Instructor part 1 examination; and what skills the examination will assess which are not covered by existing tests. [150015]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The driving instructor registration scheme involves periodic re-assessment of competence. We intend to use modern technology to assess instructor standards in an effective and efficient manner, as part of their supervision arrangements.

  The new computer-based assessment will comprise a multiple-choice question test of knowledge and understanding of driving theory and instruction, plus a moving-image hazard perception test. The knowledge and understanding test draws on a bank of over 900 questions and is more comprehensive than when most instructors qualified.

  Hazard perception testing has been a key part of the qualification process for learner car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motor cyclists, potential instructors and driving examiners since November 2002. Extending it to driving instructors who have not been assessed in this key skill will help their standards maintenance and professionalism and result in a driving instructor profession better placed to deliver high-quality instruction.

  We want to ensure that when the public, often young people, buy driving lessons they can have confidence that the instructor they choose will have kept up to date with developments in the learning-to-drive syllabus and be familiar with how the hazard perception test works.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the findings of the Strategic Rail Authority's latest study on the Central Railway proposal; and if he will make a statement. [151250]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]We have no plans to do so at present given the commercial sensitivity

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148993]

  Mr. McNulty
  Employees in the Department for Transport, who have informed the Department that they have a disability, are recorded in the following table. The figures given are at April 2003.

  Type of disability

  Count

  Hearing

  13

  Learning difficulties

  1—

  Mental illness

  l—

  Mobility impairment

  12

  Physical co-ordination difficulties

  18

  Visual

  10

  Unspecified2

  8

  Total

  62

  1 Indicates that the number is less than 5.

  2 Where a person has informed the Department that they are disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act definition but chosen not to inform the Department about the nature of their impairment/s.

  While employees are encouraged to inform the Department that they have a disability, especially where an adjustment may better enable them to work to the best of their ability, they are not required to do so. It is likely that the numbers of disabled employees is actually higher. The Department is actively involved in the Cabinet Office run Disability Working Group. The group seeks to improve information on disabled civil servants both by, examining why employees are reluctant to pass on information on their impairments and, the approaches used to collect information.

  Coastguard Service Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles used by the coastguard service were built in(a) the UK, (b) the EU and (c) outside the EU, broken down by make of car. [151199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of vehicles used by the HM Coastguard service is listed in the following table:

  Place

  Total

  Broken down by make of car

  UK

  59

  Land Rover (29)

  Vauxhall Astra Estate (20)

  Ford Escort Estate (7)

  Leyland Daf (3)

  EU

  161

  Ford Focus Estates (90)

  Nissan Terrano (67)

  Nissan Patrol (3)

  Renault Espace (1)

  357W

  Place

  Total

  Broken down by make of car

  Outside the EU

  174

  Toyota Hilux(115)

  Nissan Nivara (30)

  Vauxhall Brava (15)

  Nissan Pick-up (6)

  Toyota Colorado (4)

  Mitsubishi (3)

  Nissan Xtrail (1)

  Drivers (Bioptics)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether European nationals who are licensed to drive in other EU member states using bioptics are allowed to drive using bioptics in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [151309]

  Mr. Jamieson
  One of the principal themes of the second EC Directive on driving licences (Directive 91/ 439/EEC) is the mutual recognition of licences, and all entitlements gained, between member states. Drivers from other member states who become resident in the UK, however, are subject to UK legislation and procedures. Information provided to such drivers informs them of the requirement to notify the Secretary of State of any medical conditions, including visual defects, that may affect fitness to drive. A driver who notified a visual defect or condition and was found to be unable to meet the required standards in relation to vision would not be licensed to drive in the UK despite the use of bioptic lenses.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of whether the European Directive on Driver Licensing allows the use of bioptics for driving; and if he will make a statement; [151310]

  (2) what policy has been formulated by the Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Visual Disorders regarding the use of bioptics for driving; and if he will make a statement. [151311]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Any assessment as to the degree to which the use of bioptic lenses for driving complies with the second EC Directive on driving licences (Directive 91/439/EEC) requires the advice of my Department's Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Vision and Driving.

  The Medical Advisory Panel advises on, rather than formulates, policy in relation to vision and driving. It has considered the issue of bioptic lenses and driving but feels that it is important to gain an understanding of other European member states' views and experience of this aid to vision before definitive advice can be given. I expect to receive the panel's advice, therefore, when the expert medical working group recently established by the EC Committee on the Driving Licence has considered the issue and the results of its discussions are known. The working group is expected to meet three or four times during 2004 and to report its results in approximately 18 months.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many attempts approved driving 358W
  instructors will be permitted to pass the test; whether ADIs will be removed from the register if they fail the test; when the Government intend to bring in these changes; and if he will make a statement. [149828]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]Driving instructors will not be limited in the number of attempts they are allowed to pass the computer-based assessment we are adding to their supervision arrangements. Only if an instructor was unable to pass the assessment at the end of a two-year period would action be taken to remove the person from the register.

  We intend to introduce the assessment this autumn. It will comprise a multiple-choice question test of knowledge and understanding of driving theory and instruction, plus a moving-image hazard perception test. The knowledge test draws on a bank of over 900 questions and is more comprehensive than when most instructors qualified

  Hazard perception testing has been a key part of the qualification process for learner car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, motor cyclists, potential instructors and driving examiners since November 2002. Extending it to driving instructors who have not been assessed in this key skill will help their standards maintenance and professionalism and result in a driving instructor profession better placed to deliver high-quality instruction.

  We want to ensure that when the public, often young people, buy driving lessons they can have confidence that the instructor they choose will have kept up to date with developments in the learning-to-drive syllabus and be familiar with how the hazard perception test works.

  East Midlands Airport
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he was notified that East Midlands airport was planning to change its name. [151060]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department have received no formal notification from Manchester Airports Group, the owner of East Midlands airport, about the change of name. There is no requirement to notify the Department as it is a commercial decision for the airport operator.

  Edinburgh Airport (Noise Pollution)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of households which will be subjected to(a) a noise level of (i) 63dBa Leq or more and (ii) 69dBa Leq or more and (b) an increase in noise level of 3dBa Leq or more directly as a result of the increased use of the existing runway at Edinburgh airport as outlined in the recent White Paper on Aviation. [150974]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is set out in the Scottish Consultation Document and supporting technical reports. These estimate the number of people who would be affected by different levels of noise under a range of runway options at Edinburgh airport including maximum use of the existing main runway, greater use of the existing crosswind runway and development of a new close parallel runway. Our analysis suggests that by 2030, under the maximum use option, and assuming a 8dBA technology improvement,
  359W
  there would be an increase of 300 people affected within the 63 dBA 16 hour Leq contour with no increase at the 69dBA 16 hour Leq contour. The equivalent figures with increased use of the crosswind runway are 800 and 200 respectively.

  The numbers of houses within these contours in the maximum use case is estimated to be 400 at 63 dBA and 100 at 69 dBA. Under the crosswind option the equivalent figures are 600 and 100 respectively.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what audit mechanisms are in place to determine whether all Information Technology hardware and software products are being properly utilised in his Department. [151057]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department maintains a list of approved hardware and software products and specific approval is required for any purchase not on that list. Microsoft desktop and server software is procured through Office of Government Commerce licensing arrangements. These licences are managed using software tools at the Microsoft licensing site. Other key software is licensed under a corporate agreement with Novell and is audited annually by them. The Department also utilises asset tracking and discovery software to monitor what other hardware and software is being used on the Department's network.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many tonnes of(a) 1,3-butadiene, (b) benzene, (c) particulates and (d) sulphur dioxide emissions he estimates have been saved as a result of the liquid petroleum gas duty rebate. [151037]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not possible to give a precise estimate. Liquefied petroleum gas is a clean fuel which results in very low emissions of a number of key air pollutants. It can have particular benefits, for example, when it is used as a substitute for diesel fuel in polluted urban areas. The nature and scale of the emissions savings, however, will depend on a number of factors, including the type of vehicle and fuel which is being replaced by LPG, and how and where it is being driven.

  Mobile CCTV
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether funds retained by police authorities from fines imposed for exceeding speed limits may be used to set up mobile CCTV systems. [150019]

  Mr. Jamieson
  They cannot be used for this purpose. All fines resulting from speeding offences are paid to the courts. Funds returned to the safety camera partnerships (all these include the police) under the cost recovery scheme may only be used to cover the cost of purchasing, placing and operating speed and traffic light enforcement (safety) cameras.

  Motor Vehicle Recovery
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles were recovered from 360W
  motorways in the last year for which figures are available by (a) a private breakdown recovery service and (b) a contractor engaged by the police. [151249]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]This information is not available.

  Road Accidents
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accident(a) injuries and (b) fatalities there were in each of the past 10 years, broken down by (i) children and (ii) adults. [150647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is shown in the following table. These statistics have been published in the annual publications "Road Accidents Great Britain" (1993 to 2001) and "Road Casualties Great Britain" (2002), copies of which are in the Library.

  Casualties from road accidents by severity and age: 1993–2002

  Casualties

  Fatal

  Injuries

  Child

  Adult

  Age missing

  Child

  Adult

  Age missing

  1993

  306

  3,493

  15

  42,287

  254,394

  5,640

  1994

  299

  3,320

  31

  44,853

  260,512

  6,344

  1995

  270

  3,330

  21

  43,519

  257,343

  6,204

  1996

  270

  3,304

  24

  44,567

  266,682

  5,731

  1997

  255

  3,344

  0

  44,291

  274,312

  5,601

  1998

  206

  3,213

  2

  43,239

  272,708

  5,844

  1999

  221

  3,183

  19

  41,830

  267,861

  7,196

  2000

  191

  3,211

  7

  39,524

  269,511

  7,839

  2001

  219

  3,199

  32

  38,050

  263,729

  8,080

  2002

  179

  3,221

  31

  34,510

  257,015

  7,649

  Road Noise
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government strategy for decreasing the noise disturbances arising from main roads in residential areas, with particular reference to relevant measures in the Traffic Management Bill. [148369]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that traffic noise from main roads can be a significant nuisance, particularly where they run close to or through local communities. The Government are committed to reducing such noise and our strategy is to set vehicle construction standards that reduce noise at source wherever feasible and desirable on safety grounds. We also encourage the mitigation of noise with insulation, barriers, traffic management measures and low noise surfaces. The implementation of mitigation measures on the trunk road and motorway network, for which the Highways Agency is responsible, concentrates first on the most pressing locations. It is doing this by a variety of means, most importantly through a programme of re-surfacing all concrete roads with quieter materials by 31 March 2011 and re-surfacing blacktop roads with quieter materials as and when they require maintenance. In addition, the Government provides funds to local authorities to maintain local roads, though how much they spend and what they spend it on is their choice.

  The primary aim of the Traffic Management Bill is to improve the smooth flow of traffic but there are a number of reasons for believing that it will also help with

  361W
  noise problems. For example, better management of traffic incidents and street works will reduce the disruption caused to traffic and the noise created by slow-moving heavy traffic. It will also minimise the incentive for motorists to divert along adjacent residential roads.

  The Government are also encouraging a substantial growth in investment in public transport. This will help reduce traffic noise by providing the public with a greater choice over how they travel.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times the royal train has been used in each of the last three years, broken down by journey. [151200]

  Mr. McNulty
  The royal train plays an important role in enabling members of the royal family to carry out their extensive official engagements throughout the UK. It is principally used for overnight travel and provides secure accommodation and secure mobile office facilities. In 2002–03, the train was used for 19 journeys; in 2001–02, for 15 journeys and 17 journeys in 2000–01. Full details of these journeys are provided in the appendices to the Annual Reports on the Grant-in-aid for Royal Travel by Air and Rail. Copies of these reports, which are prepared annually, are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when determining where to site a speed camera, how far from the proposed site of a camera an accident can have occurred for it to justify that siting. [147154]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The distance from the proposed site within which accidents are counted takes account of the circumstances of each site, and may be between 400 and 1,500 metres, for fixed speed cameras.

  Traffic Management Bill
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the roles and duties that the Traffic Management Bill will accord to traffic managers and local traffic authorities to(a) respond to and (b) prevent traffic gridlock. [148371]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Traffic Management Bill will require local authorities to appoint a Traffic Manager responsible for keeping traffic moving in their area. Neighbouring authorities will also have to work together to ensure traffic flows across the network as a whole

  Local authorities will need not only to manage existing problems but also to plan ahead, taking account of events they know about and making contingency arrangements for unforeseen incidents. They will have to do this in a way that does not compromise their other responsibilities such as for improving road safety.

  The Bill will give authorities a number of additional powers to meet their new responsibilities. For example, they will be helped to deal with congestion caused by
  362W
  poorly planned and lengthy street works by greater control over when and where utility companies carry out street works. These powers will include the ability to specify what day of the week works can be carried out and at what times. They will be able to prevent certain roads from being dug up repeatedly by banning works on that road until a specified date. Any utility company wanting to carry out street works could be required to apply for a permit to do so. Utility companies failing to repair a road properly will face fines of up to £5,000.

  Local authorities will also be given the ability to ensure that a number of moving traffic contraventions are enforced. This will include, for example, box junction and no right turn rules. These powers already exist in London. The Bill will extend them to cover the rest of England and Wales.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact the Traffic Management Bill will have on motorcyclists; and if he will make a statement. [150142]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Traffic Management Bill will give national and local highway authorities a number of additional powers and responsibilities to tackle congestion for the benefit of all road users. Authorities will be better able to manage their roads and the traffic using them. Motorcyclists, like other road users, will benefit from the reduced congestion and disruption. In particular, on local roads where much motorcycling takes place, local authorities will have a new network management duty aimed at keeping traffic moving in their area. Neighbouring authorities will also have to work together to ensure traffic flows effectively across the network as a whole. Again, motorcyclists will benefit from the better operation of the road network, along with other road users.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is meant by serious traffic disruption in Part 4 of the Traffic Management Bill. [150201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 56 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 allows a street authority to direct an undertaker as to the times at which street works can be carried out, where they might otherwise cause serious disruption to traffic. Clause 42 of the Traffic Management Bill makes clear that this power includes the ability to direct not only the times but also the days on which works may or may not be carried out.

  Whether or not there is likely to be serious disruption to traffic in the case of a particular proposed works must be determined by a street authority on the facts of the case. Guidance on the use of the current power is set out in the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters, and we intend revising this guidance as part of producing regulations under the Bill. Ultimately, however, the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the streetwork provisions in the Traffic Management Bill on urban regeneration. [150202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The aim of the street works provisions in the Traffic Management Bill are twofold. Firstly to reduce the disruption that these works cause to road
  363W
  users, businesses and local residents and secondly to ensure that works are carried out to a high standard and to minimise the negative impact they can have on the environment and the appearance of streets. While each of these is an issue for both urban and rural areas, we believe that minimising the negative effect of these works is particularly important in helping to regenerate our cities.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the Traffic Management Bill on utilities infrastructure investment programmes, with particular reference to(a) water and gas mains replacement and (b) electricity cable renewal and upgrading. [150203]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The detail of those parts of the Traffic Management Bill which relate directly to utility works will be set out in regulations. We will be consulting extensively with utilities and utility regulators as part of drawing up these regulations, so that the revised legislative regime takes proper account of their investment programmes and does not put any unnecessary obstacles in the way of their carrying out these necessary works.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to consult Ofgem on the additional costs envisaged from the introduction of permit schemes, as set out in the Traffic Management Bill. [150204]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ofgem, together with Ofwat and Ofcom, are represented on the legislative working group set up by my Department which considered what provision should be included in the Bill, and which will continue to meet to consider the details of the secondary legislation which will underpin it. This will include

  Spot checks carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate (VOSA) between 1999–-2000 and 2002–03 in Enforcement Area 15 (Metropolitan Area)

  Number of vehicles checked

  Vehicle category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  HGV motor vehicles1

  1,580

  1,769

  1,435

  3,011

  HGV trailers

  284

  337

  170

  358

  HGV emissions

  409

  413

  356

  345

  PSV vehicles1

  480

  898

  851

  547

  PSV emissions

  293

  246

  332

  252

  Percentage

  Prohibition rate2

  Immediate prohibitions3

  Delayed prohibitions4

  Vehicle category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  HGV motor vehicles1

  11.4

  10.6

  17.2

  13.4

  12.5

  12.0

  20.6

  14.4

  HGV trailers

  10.6

  8.0

  7.6

  11.2

  12.3

  11.6

  12.9

  16.8

  HGV emissions

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  0.7

  0.6

  1.2

  PSV vehicles1

  4.6

  5.1

  5.3

  7.1

  2.3

  4.8

  7.3

  6.4

  PSV emissions

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.3

  0.8

  1 Excludes emissions only checks, but includes foreign vehicles.

  2 Only one prohibition notice is issued per vehicle although it may contain a list of defects/offences where more than one has been found. The most serious defect/offence determines whether an immediate or delayed prohibition is issued.

  3 Immediate prohibition rate relates to all vehicles (including foreign vehicles).

  4 Delayed prohibition rate excludes checks on foreign vehicles. The Foreign Vehicles Act does not provide for the issue of delayed prohibitions to foreign vehicles.

  364W
  looking at proposals for permit schemes and consideration of the possible costs involved. We shall continue to involve Ofgem and the other regulators closely as the proposals for regulations are developed.

  Transport (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with representatives of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the expansion of the road network in Wales. [151751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The expansion of the motorway trunk road network in Wales is entirely a matter for the National Assembly for Wales who have devolved responsibility for these issues.

  Vehicle Inspections
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles have been stopped for roadside checks by the Vehicles Inspectorate in London in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many(a) were found to have vehicle faults and (b) were motor cars and other non-commercial vehicles. [151073]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (formerly the Vehicle Inspectorate) conducts its enforcement activity within a network of 23 enforcement areas covering England, Scotland and Wales. Enforcement Area 15 (Metropolitan) covers the majority of London boroughs. The number of vehicles stopped at the roadside by the Vehicle Inspectorate in Enforcement Area 15 and the percentage found to have roadworthiness faults are shown in the following tables. Figures are only available for the last four years.
  365W

  Results of light vehicle roadside roadworthiness checks

  Number examined

  Vehicle category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cars

  249

  134

  128

  113

  Taxis and private hire cars

  49

  32

  109

  109

  Non-testable vehicles

  30

  32

  49

  32

  Light good vehicles

  422

  559

  1,004

  827

  Percentage

  Prohibition rate

  Immediate prohibitions

  Delayed prohibitions

  Vehicle category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cars

  14.5

  11.9

  42.2

  39.8

  8.8

  3.7

  7.0

  1.8

  Taxis and private hire cars

  12.2

  0.0

  38.5

  44.0

  6.1

  15.6

  0.9

  5.5

  Non-testable vehicles

  23.3

  21.9

  30.6

  34.4

  6.7

  15.6

  22.4

  15.6

  Light good vehicles

  19.4

  18.1

  15.9

  22.6

  11.6

  10.0

  10.5

  9.7

  Light vehicle spot checks for emissions

  Number examined

  Vehicle category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cars

  2,147

  1,525

  1,972

  2,291

  Taxis and private hire cars

  63

  17

  26

  37

  Light good vehicles

  306

  310

  657

  645

  Percentage

  Prohibition rate

  Petrol

  Diesel

  Vehicle category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cars

  5.8

  8.9

  10.8

  9.9

  0.5

  1.8

  0.8

  0.6

  Taxis and private hire cars

  7.9

  0.0

  3.8

  0.0

  0.0

  5.9

  7.7

  8.1

  Light good vehicles

  2.0

  0.3

  0.5

  3.9

  5.6

  1.9

  4.0

  1.7

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people benefit from the Vehicle Excise Duty exemption for people with the mobility component for disability living allowance; and what is the average amount of money they will save in 2003–04. [150449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest available figures show that there are 1,548,512 people in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance. Of this figure, 790,000 claim the exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).

  The financial value of a VED exemption is dependent on the age, engine size and carbon dioxide emissions level of a vehicle. This can be within the range of £75 to £165 per annum.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress British forces have made in restricting the poppy harvest in Afghanistan. [150125]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has a comprehensive strategy to assist Afghanistan to end its opium trade. While our armed forces are not directly involved in the 366W
  eradication of the opium poppy crop, their deployments with the International Security Assistance Force and the Provincial Reconstruction Team, and our support for local security forces, all help to contribute towards the counter-narcotics programmes of civilian law enforcement and development agencies. They also help the Afghans themselves to create the structures through which they can implement more effectively President Karzai's commitment to deal with both opium farming and trafficking in his country.

  Bearskin
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 463W, on bearskins, what species of bear's pelt is used to make the bearskin caps; whether this species is classified as endangered within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; what steps the Department takes to ensure the taking of bears is a sustainable practice; and if he will make a statement. [150147]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]Bearskin caps are made from the fur of the American black bear. This is listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as a species not currently rare or endangered, but which could become so if trade is not regulated, and all exports of American black bear
  367W
  products from Canada must be accompanied by a CITES export license. CITES species in Canada are managed through the Canadian Wildlife Service and the American black bear is currently classified as not at risk by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

  Bugaled Briezh
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military vessel manoevures took place in the vicinity of the Bugaled Briezh between 12.00 noon and 14.00 on 15 January. [150989]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]Only two naval vessels were in the immediate vicinity of the Bugaled Briezh—HNLMS Dolfijn and HMS Tyne. HN LMS Dolfijn was surfaced and transitting to the start position of an Anti-Submarine Warfare Exercise. She was some 11 nautical miles away at 1252Z when a French fishing vessel reported the capsize of Bugaled Briezh. HMS Tyne was on Fishery Protection duties and was 22 nautical miles north-east of the trawler at this time. She then proceeded to the scene and was tasked by the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre to co-ordinate the search.

  Equipment Programmes
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he is making of equipment programmes in relation to their key war fighting capabilities. [147274]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence White Paper (Cm 6041) noted the need to ensure that defence resources are directed at those capabilities which are most appropriate for future operations. The Department's annual planning round involves a thorough examination of defence costs and capabilities, and includes an assessment of the contribution of equipment programmes in meeting the policy set out in the White Paper.

  Foreign Defence Equipment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign ships have been hired by his Department in each of the last five years. [150409]

  Mr. Ingram
  Freight-carrying ships chartered by the Ministry of Defence are categorized as either British or non-British registered. In the calendar year 2003, 58 non-British registered freight-carrying ships were chartered. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 626W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) for details of all vessels chartered in earlier years.

  Specialist ships chartered by the Ministry of Defence are categorized as either British or foreign-owned. The following foreign-owned specialist ships were chartered over the last five calendar years: 1999—eight, 2000—fourteen, 2001—four, 2002—twelve, 2003—nine.

  Give as You Earn Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of staff in his Department contribute to a charity through the Give as 368W
  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. [143903]

  Mr. Caplin
  The answer to the question is, 1,315 civilian staff (approximately 1.4per cent.) contribute a total of £14,400 each month. These figures include Ministry of Defence Trading Funds.

  Of course this represents only a single element of charitable donations in the Department. For example some £30,000 is paid each month direct from payroll to the Civil Service Benevolent Fund.

  In 2004 we intend to remind all staff, by individual leaflet, of the benefits of donating to charity through the "Give as you Earn" scheme.

  For the armed forces, the latest available figures are from December 2003. In this month 906 Naval Service personnel (2.2per cent.) contributed around £2,100 to the Charity Payroll Giving Scheme, with a further 1,273 personnel (3 per cent.) contributing around £8,800 through Voluntary Deductions from Pay. The Army figures for December show 21,069 personnel (12.26 per cent.) contributed £99,552 and the RAF £15,274 from 2,561 personnel (4.8 per cent.) through their respective Give as you Earn Schemes.

  This represents only a single element of charitable donations in the Department. For example the equivalent of £120,000 per month (paid quarterly) is paid to the RAF Benevolent Fund directly from RAF pay.

  In previous years the Department have published Defence Council Instructions (DCIs) and produced articles in the three main Service publications (Navy News, Soldier Magazine and RAF News) on the benefits of donating to charity through the "Give as you Earn" schemes. We intend to continue this effort into 2004.

  Herbicides
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK has bulk-stored herbicides with a view to possible military application; and if he will make a statement. [146707]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not hulk-store herbicides.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints have been received about the adequacy of investigations into Iraqi deaths resulting from UK military action; and if he will make a statement. [142615]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have received a number of letters from members of the public and enquiries from the media some of which have expressed concern about investigations into Iraqi deaths allegedly caused by United Kingdom forces.

  The most common concerns expressed have been about the speed with which investigations are carried out, their independence and whether their results would

  369W
  be made public. In responding we make clear that investigations are thorough, which can take time; that both the Royal Military Police and, if called on, the single-service Prosecuting Authorities are fully independent of the chain of command; and that while the findings of investigations are subject to legal, operational and other security constraints, there may be some circumstances in which we are able to release certain details to entitled persons.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use of hoods on Iraqi citizens in the course of their arrest or detention in Iraq. [147708]

  Mr. Ingram
  Current practice in Iraq is that hoods are not used on Iraqi citizens during or after their arrest.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received on the smelting plant near Basra which is melting down tanks and armoured vehicles contaminated by depleted uranium; and what efforts are being made to identify and close down such facilities in the area controlled by British forces. [148056]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no known legitimate operational smelting plant in the Basra region. A small number of illegal mobile smelting plants used for smuggled copper and aluminium have been found and closed down. There is no evidence they had been used to smelt tanks.

  Military vehicles known to have been hit by DU munitions within the southern sector of Iraq controlled by the British military have been clearly marked. Arrangements are currently being negotiated with the US for a contractor to collect and store these military vehicles.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the report on the accident involving two Royal Navy Sea King helicopters in Iraq in March 2003 will be published. [150990]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]As is usual practice, on completion of the accident investigation, a copy of the findings of the Military Aircraft Accident Summary into the Royal Navy Sea King accident of March 2003 will be placed in the Library of the House. That investigation is not yet complete.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of weapons used for the first time in battlefield conditions in the war on Iraq. [151373]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two weapons were used for the first time in Iraq, Storm Shadow and Maverick missiles.

  Operational feedback is that both missiles were accurate and effective against a range of targets.

  Overseas Deployments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 1124W, on overseas deployments, if he will list the countries where personnel are deployed other than those where they are stationed; and how many are deployed in each case. [151097]
  370W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 67W to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

  Rape/Violence Against Women
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what measures have been put in place to ensure that complaints of violence against women by UK military personnel employed overseas are properly investigated; [149666]

  (2) if he will list the complaints received of violence against women, made against UK military personnel stationed abroad in the last 10 years. [149664]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces do not tolerate any form of criminal behaviour and have well-established and effective procedures for dealing with allegations. Whether arising in the UK or overseas, complaints are thoroughly investigated and the relevant prosecution authorities consulted. Disciplinary action is taken as appropriate.

  For troops serving overseas, the investigating authority is determined by the status and nationality of the complainant, the provisions of any Status of Forces Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding existing between the UK and the host nation.

  Complete records of complaints of violence against women by service personnel are not held centrally, and the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Road Construction (Parker Plan)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) his Department and (b) agencies and companies operating on his behalf have had with Parker Plan road compaigners in respect of road construction in or near the south-east corner of Boscombe Down Airfield. [150806]

  Mr. Caplin
  None.

  Royal Naval Reserve
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Royal Naval Reserve have(a) been called up and (b) served in Operation Telic; and how many have served for more than one tour. [150862]

  Mr. Caplin
  Up to 23 January 2004, 446 members of the Royal Naval Reserve had been called out for Operation TELIC, of whom 371 were accepted into service. Seven, all volunteers, have either completed more than one tour of duty or are currently doing so.

  Royal Navy Projects
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Royal Navy's(a) Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft and (b) Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon projects. [149542]
  371W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft (SCMR) programme is currently nearing the end of its Assessment Phase. A Main Gate investment decision is expected later this year when, as with any other programme, the decision on Demonstration and Manufacture will be made, with the capability planned to be phased into service around the turn of the decade.

  The Future Air to Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) programme remains early in its concept phase. This includes studies into a range of solutions to provide a future Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) capability, superseding the Sea Skua missile currently carried by the Royal Navy Lynx helicopters. A final investment decision will be made at the programme Main Gate, currently planned for the second half of this decade, with the capability entering service during the first half of the next decade.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) his Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147978]

  Mr. Caplin
  Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, personnel employed at MOD establishments reported 2,012 passes lost and 90 stolen. During the same period, personnel employed at establishments of MOD agencies reported 882 passes lost and 23 stolen. The passes carry a photograph of the holder and have other features that inhibit their fraudulent replication. Therefore, the loss of such passes, in isolation, is not assessed to pose an increased threat, although this is kept under constant review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Power Supply
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to ensure that the UK national power supply is protected from sabotage. [151257]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government provides protective security advice to key sectors and installations that are critical to the country's economic and social well-being. Our experience of domestic terrorist attacks over the past 30 years has shown that these arrangements have made an effective contribution to the counter-terrorism effort.

  We provide tailored advice to a variety of industries, as well as to individual companies and public sector organisations, about how to make contingency arrangements and provide protective security. This advice comes from the Security Service and other sources.

  This is an ongoing process and, for understandable reasons, it would be inappropriate to give details of what advice is provided to which organisations.

  Bio-diesel
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated 372W
  on the number of forecourts in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland which sell bio-diesel. [151439]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not record the number of forecourts which sell bio-diesel. However, from discussions with biofuels suppliers we estimate the following:

  (a) Scotland—13

  (b) England—116

  (c) Wales—0

  (d) Northern Ireland—7

  It is worth noting that additionally a significant proportion of biodiesel is supplied in bulk directly to the commercial market.

  Broadband
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2004,Official Report, column 845W, on broadband, when she will publish a report on the work and findings of the joint departmental Rural Broadband Team. [150770]

  Mr. Timms
  The role of the joint DTI/Defra Rural Broadband Unit is to facilitate understanding and promote partnerships between the telecommunications industry, Government agencies and community organisations to spread information and best practice. For instance, the Unit will shortly be publishing a 'Rural Broadband Toolkit' to help rural communities and businesses understand the issues surrounding access to broadband.

  The Unit works as part of the wider DTI Broadband Unit and will not be producing a report specifically on its own work.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150273]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department currently occupies 80,000 sq metres in central London and an additional 7,000 sq m in Greater London. This excludes agencies but includes space occupied by the Department in buildings where other Government Departments have the lead responsibility.

  Competition Commission Report (Littlewoods)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she proposes to publish her decisions arising from the Competition Commission report on the proposed GUS/Reality and Littlewoods Mail Order/ Home Trading organisations. [150229]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1453.

  Innovation Funding
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down how
  373W
  innovation funding in the areas of (a) industrial exploitation of science, (b) support for competitiveness, (c) space, (d) technical and design infrastructure, (e) support for construction industry, (f) expert advice and other expenditure and (g) invest to save projects, as set out in her departmental report 2003, was allocated in 2003–04; and what amounts were allocated in each year since 1997. [147804]

  Ms Hewitt
  Successive departmental reports have provided breakdowns and explanations of my Department's innovation expenditure, including on Space and Civil Aerospace Research and Development

  1997–98 outturn

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 outturn

  2000–01 working provision1

  2001–02 outturn

  2002–03 working provision2

  2003–04 plans

  Knowledge transfer and collaboration

  39.3

  30.5

  32.7

  47.2

  —

  —

  —

  Innovation promotion and support

  78.0

  61.2

  56.1

  66.8

  —

  —

  —

  Standards and National Measurement System

  56.6

  60.0

  60.4

  61.7

  —

  —

  —

  Sector Challenge

  4.6

  11.5

  10.4

  4.3

  —

  —

  —

  CARAD

  24.6

  21.0

  20.0

  20.0

  —

  —

  —

  Space3

  102.4

  87.5

  88.2

  90.0

  87.7

  85.0

  82.5

  Industrial exploitation of science

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67.9

  86.8

  94.1

  Support for competitiveness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60.3

  73.0

  73.4

  Technical and design infrastructure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69.9

  73.7

  89.4

  Expert advice and other expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.7

  3.8

  2.7

  Total

  305.5

  271.7

  267.8

  290.0

  293.5

  322.3

  342.1

  1 Budget structure changed from 2001–02.

  2 2002–03 outturn will be reported in the 2004 departmental report.

  3 Excludes Office of Science and Technology expenditure on space (except for 2003–04 plans, which include BNSC budgets transferring to the Science budget from 2003–04).

  Source:

  1999–2003 departmental reports (Cm 4211, March 1999, Table 1.5; Cm 4611, April 2000, Figure 3.7; Cm 5112, March 2001, Figure 4.5; Cm 5416, June 2002, Figure 4.5; and Cm 5916, May 2003, Figure 5.2)

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miners' compensation claims for respiratory diseases(a) have been made, (b) have been settled and (c) are outstanding in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside and (iii) the UK in each year since 1997. [149913]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Claims are dealt with on a priority basis, those from the eldest and sickest living miners and their widows being deal with first. Claims that are outstanding may be a lower priority or they may have an outstanding policy issue that is preventing settlement of the claim.

  The figures are:

  Year claim registered

  Claim receipts

  Total settlements including denied/withdrawn (as of 16 January 2004)

  Number outstanding

  Jarrow

  19971

  9

  5

  4

  19981

  93

  55

  38

  19991

  140

  75

  65

  2000

  92

  45

  47

  2001

  191

  59

  132

  20022

  128

  19

  109

  20032

  415

  3

  412

  2004

  36

  —

  36

  Total

  1,104

  261

  843

  374W
  ('CARAD'), before and since the change in the innovation budget structure in 2001–02.

  The following table is based on information published in the 1999 and subsequent departmental reports, where more details and explanation can be found. It includes expenditure on 'Support of the construction industry' under 'Industrial Exploitation of Science' and 'Support for Competitiveness' from 2002–03 (following a machinery of government transfer of responsibility in 2001) and on the Invest to Save Budget funded biotechnology portal, `i-bio.gov.uk', under 'Support for Competitiveness'.

  Year claim registered

  Claim receipts

  Total settlements including denied/withdrawn (as of 16 January 2004)

  Number outstanding

  South Tyneside

  19971

  15

  8

  7

  19981

  298

  162

  136

  19991

  344

  172

  172

  2000

  276

  135

  141

  2001

  560

  180

  380

  20022

  371

  53

  318

  20032

  1,102

  18

  1,084

  2004

  99

  —

  99

  Total

  3,065

  728

  2,337

  United Kingdom

  19971

  3,219

  2,258

  961

  19981

  53,544

  35,977

  17,567

  19991

  28,711

  17,288

  11,423

  2000

  36,665

  18,617

  18,048

  2001

  44,178

  18,279

  25,899

  20022

  39,56

  10,216

  29,344

  20032

  168,574

  3,000

  165,574

  2004

  17,097

  29

  17,068

  Total

  391,548

  105,664

  285,884

  1 The Department was not able to process claims until after the signing of the Claims Handling Agreement, agreed with the claimants' solicitors, on 24 September 1999.

  2 Estate claims put on hold as a lower priority, in agreement with claimants solicitors.

  Notes:

  1. South Tyneside consists of the Jarrow and South Shields constituencies.

  2. Constituency figures can be found on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth The information is complied in the middle of the month and shows figures for the end of the previous month.

  Lottery Revenue
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value is of Lottery revenue used to support Government-sponsored projects within her Department since 1997. [149629]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]My Department has no policy or operational responsibility for distribution of National Lottery proceeds. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) purpose and (b) outcome was of the meeting convened by her Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, on 21 January with representatives of North-East Somerset, Mowlen plc. and Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners Ltd. [151804]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The PUSS met as Construction Minister to discuss construction matters. This was achieved.

  Customer Interruptions—CIs

  DNO

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Aquila (ex-Midlands)

  132.24

  120.82

  139.69

  147.77

  123.54

  EME (ex-East Midlands)

  93.10

  76.47

  77.80

  91.38

  78.82

  EPN (ex-Eastern)

  73.71

  60.40

  66.11

  68.83

  102.02

  Hydro (Scottish Hydro)

  153.10

  155.00

  141.20

  131.61

  124.71

  LPN (ex-London)

  39.18

  36.89

  36.19

  39.75

  38.62

  NEDL (ex-Northern)

  90.07

  92.59

  89.91

  98.09

  93.65

  SP Distribution (ex-Scottish Power)

  72.95

  85.75

  82.24

  91.52

  76.27

  SPN (ex-Seeboard)

  91.00

  95.50

  89.90

  88.50

  93.29

  Southern

  72.73

  63.97

  74.37

  73.78

  103.17

  SP Manweb

  57.33

  44.13

  53.08

  53.01

  51.60

  UU (ex-Norweb)

  83.80

  57.60

  54.10

  54.10

  56.46

  WPD S. Wales (ex-Swalec)

  185.70

  150.20

  152.70

  158.20

  120.73

  WPD S. West (ex-Sweb)

  105.50

  80.10

  90.40

  86.50

  107.06

  YEDL (ex-Yorkshire)

  80.00

  71.79

  73.03

  69.80

  78.79

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

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

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

  The number of businesses added to the regional economy as a direct result of RDA activity is available for financial year 2002–03 and is broken down by

  National Power Provision
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many power cuts there were in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) individual power company. [151259]

  Mr. Timms
  (a) Information by constituency is not held centrally either by DTI or OFGEM—it could only be obtained via a detailed information request to companies which would take considerable time and cost.

  (b) As part of the Regulatory reporting requirements, all Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) submit data to OFGEM (the Industry Regulator) pertaining to 'Customer Interruptions' (or CI) figures. These are effectively an indication of the number of customers who experience an interruption per 100 customers per year. This type of information is expressed in this way as the DNOs serve widely varying numbers of customers, and it enables a comparison to be made between the relative performances of the DNOs concerned.

  The table details the available Customer Interruptions data for each of the DNOs for the last five reporting years.

  Agency in the following table. The information is also available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info/.

  UK Investment
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department has taken to stimulate UK investment in(a) Poland, (b) Lithuania and (c) Latvia. [150826]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK Trade and Investment does not stimulate outward investment to any market. The decision to invest is a commercial one and companies have to decide the best way of running their business. Where companies have made that decision they can ask UK Trade and Investment to provide advice and assistance to enable companies to invest successfully abroad, minimising the associated risks and maximising the benefit to companies and the UK economy.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action her Department has taken to stimulate UK investment in(a) the Czech Republic and (b) Bulgaria; [150828]
  377W
  (2) what action her Department has taken to stimulate UK investment in (a) Hungary and (b) Estonia; [150827]

  (3) what action her Department has taken to stimulate UK investment in (a) Malta, (b) Turkey and (c) Romania; [150825]

  (4) what action her Department has taken to stimulate UK investment in (a) Slovakia, (b) Slovenia and (c) Cyprus. [150824]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answers 26 January 2004]UK Trade and Investment does not stimulate outward investment to any market. The decision to invest is a commercial one and companies have to decide the best way of running their business. Where companies have made that decision they can ask UK Trade and Investment to provide advice and assistance to enable companies to invest successfully abroad, minimising the associated risks and maximising the benefit to companies and the UK economy.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which members of the World Trade Organisation have yet to(a) ratify and (b) implement the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Financial Services. [149079]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The WTO agreement on financial services dates from 12 December 1997 and required ratification and acceptance by 29 January 1999. To date, Brazil, Jamaica and Philippines have not done so.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many delegates from each member of the World Trade Organisation attended the ministerial conference in Cancun in September 2003. [149977]

  Ms Hewitt
  According to WTO Secretariat figures over 3,200 accredited delegates attended the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun held in September 2003, from 144 member country delegations.

  The WTO Secretariat does not provide a breakdown of the number of delegates by member country. A list of all accredited delegates is available from the WTO website at:www.wto.org.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Aldicarb
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to discontinue the use of aldicarb on crops in the UK. [150520]

  Alun Michael
  Council Decision 2003/199/EC of 18 March 2003 requires member states to withdraw approvals for most uses of products containing aldicarb by 18 September 2004.

  However, the Decision allows for certain 'essential uses' of aldicarb to continue until 31 December 2007. These are limited uses for which no efficient alternative control methods currently exist. In the UK the essential uses are for the control of nematodes (parasitic worms) on potatoes, carrots, parsnips, onions and ornamentals.
  378W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made by the Pesticide Safety Directorate of the effects on human health of pesticides containing aldicarb. [150521]

  Alun Michael
  The UK was the `rapporteur member state' for aldicarb in the EC review of pesticides under Directive 91/414/EEC. The Pesticides Safety Directorate was thus responsible for examining extensive scientific data on aldicarb to draft an assessment report for review by all other member states and the EC Commission.

  The EC review of aldicarb concluded that under normal conditions of use there would be no unacceptable risks to workers or consumers. However, the substance is being phased out due to potential environmental impacts.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice the Pesticide Safety Directorate has published on the handling of pesticides containing aldicarb. [150522]

  Alun Michael
  Advice on safe handling of pesticides is provided as 'safety precautions' on the labels and accompanying literature for pesticides. The safety precautions for each pesticide product are checked and agreed by the Pesticide Safety Directorate as part of the approval process.

  Pesticides containing aldicarb carry over 20 safety precautions covering the following areas: operator protection (including details of specified protective clothing); consumer protection; environmental protection; and storage and disposal advice.

  Animal Health Act
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's statutory responsibilities are under the Animal Health Act 1981 in respect of the elimination of contiguous reservoirs of disease which have zoonotic and animal health implications. [150577]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under section 29 of the Animal Health Act 1981, the Secretary of State may, with a view to reducing the risk to human health of any disease of, or organism carried in, animals, make an Order designating any such disease or organism which, in her opinion, constitutes such a risk.

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will also take into account(a) the impact of allowing unrestrained growth of the badger population and (b) the impact of controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels. [150473]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Even where culling does not take place the local badger population is not undergoing `unrestrained growth' as it will be subject to limits imposed by natural and human phenomena. The project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will assess the impact on other wildlife of
  379W
  controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels, in comparison with areas where badgers are not culled.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she reconciled the inability to estimate the effect of alternative capture methods of badgers which would remove 100 per cent. of the population with the findings during the Thornbury trial. [150490]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Krebs Report referred to the difficulty of assessing the effect of different control strategies on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns. The report says"None of the control strategies have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy." (Krebs Report pages 82–83).

  A comparison of reactive culling areas of the Randomised Badger Culling trial (RBCT) and the Thornbury clearance area is not valid. Although indicative of the effect on cattle TB incidence that might be expected if a total badger clearance were achieved, the Thornbury badger removal was performed without contemporary control areas. This limits its usefulness as a basis for comparison with the impact of lesser percentage badger clearances achieved by other methods, since any change in he incidence of TB in cattle subsequent to culling could have resulted in whole or in part from some other cause.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 211W, what conclusions she draws from the data on the location of TB lesions in badgers as to the main route of infection; and whether it is possible to draw similar conclusions in respect of the data available on the location of TB lesions in cattle. [150491]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Infection with Mycobacterium bovis most often causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes, which suggests that the most common route of infection in badgers and cattle is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. In badgers infection by inoculation through bite wounds are also a relatively frequent route of infection.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the scientific rationale was for the choice of the different distance parameters adopted for the culling zones of badgers in(a) the Gassing Strategy and (b) the Clean Ring Strategy, of the Krebs trials. [150509]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  For the gassing strategy: where TB infection was found in badgers, an area of up to one kilometre from the farm boundary was surveyed, to include the full territories of badgers on the infected farm. Social groupings were identified and all infected social groups, and groups in contact with them, were gassed. The area gassed was determined by the location of infected farms, infected badgers, sett groupings and natural boundaries. (Krebs Report 1997, page 142)

  For the Clean Ring strategy: infected social groups, and those contiguous with them were culled. Culling, of social groups that were contiguous to groups found to be infected, continued until a clean ring of social groups
  380W
  containing no infected animals was found and removed, or else there were no badgers found. (Krebs Report page 143)

  The use of broadly circular treatment areas of 100 km2 for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is explained on pages 8–9 of the first report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and is based on the suggested use of 10km by 10km squares in the Krebs Report, pages 90–93.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what distances can be travelled by adult badgers from their setts to their food sources; and what the radii were of the Krebs(a) reactive and (b) proactive areas. [150512]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Adult badgers can travel between a few metres and a few kilometres from their setts to their food sources dependent on the quality of the habitat. None of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are completely circular, so no exact radii can be evaluated. Trial areas are initially described using a 5.64 km radius circle but this shape is distorted by natural features and survey data to end up with areas of around 100 sq km. However, details of the total surface areas of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are available on the Defra Internet site.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 211W, on badgers, what proportion of badgers culled as part of TB control strategies conducted during 1979–97 tested positive for M. bovis; and what the percentage was in (a) 1975–82, (b) 1982–88 and (c) 1988–97. [150547]

  Mr Bradshaw
  The following table gives these data:

  Period

  1979–97

  1975–82

  1982–88

  1988–97

  Badgers culled

  20,252

  2,661

  6,367

  13,401

  Badgers positive for M. bovis

  3,985

  283

  966

  3,118

  Percentage

  20.1

  10.7

  15.2

  24.0

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 212W, what inferences can be drawn from the preponderance of TB lesions found in badgers on post mortem examination arising in the lymphatic nodes of head and chest as to (a) the portal of infection, (b) the possible routes of infection and (c) the risk presented by those badgers to other animals. [150564]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Infection with Mycobacterium bovis frequently causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes of badgers, which suggests that a common route of infection is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. Where there is infection of the respiratory tract, it is probable that there are phases of M. bovis excretion of infected saliva via the respiratory tract, which may contaminate pasture or animal feed containers.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether material contaminated with the M. bovis bacilli deposited on grassland by badgers and subsequently entrained in hay

  381W
  used for the feeding of cattle is considered to present a significant risk of infection to (a) cattle, (b) farmers and (c) other persons who may handle this material. [150570]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As the organism Mycobacterium bovis prefers damp mild conditions it is unlikely to survive the hay making process. We consider that there is no significant risk of infection to cattle, farmers or other persons who may handle hay.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many Krebs reactive areas badger culling was commenced in May 2003; how many farms were involved in these areas; how many of those farms had had(a) one and (b) two 60-day tests after the clearance operations; and what the results were of those tests. [150579]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The first reactive operation in Triplet I commenced in May 2003. Reactive operations in Triplets A, B and C had commenced prior to May 2003 and further operations occurred during May 2003 in these Triplets.

  The number of infected cattle herds triggering reactive culling operations in May 2003 in Triplets I, A, B and C totalled 20. The number and testing details of premises over which these operations took place cannot be provided at proportionate cost.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what methods other than gassing are available for the culling of badgers; and what statutory restrictions apply to those alternatives. [150585]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Gassing is not a legal method of killing badgers.

  The badger is a fully protected species. It is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger by any method (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)).

  Badgers are also listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it a specific offence to poison badgers (including by gassing) (s.11(2)(a)).

  A person guilty of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

  Where killing is carried out under a licence issued by Defra, the technique employed will depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case, but will normally involve cage trapping and humane dispatch by shooting.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes there were in the protocol for badger trapping in the period 1975 to 1997; and what effect they had on the success rate of trapping operations. [150590]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The key operational features of badger control strategies from 1975 to 1996 are set out in Appendix 3 to the Krebs Report. We have no validated data on the success rate of the various culling strategies.
  382W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 212W, on badgers, what her best estimate is of the typical kill rates of badgers during the Krebs culling programmes; what the worst rates were; and what the impact was of low kill rates on the (a) conduct and (b) outcome of the trials. [150592]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no precise way of measuring badger populations pre- and post-culling operations and estimates are made in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial based on field signs at a sample number of setts. Culling success is affected by a range of factors including levels of access, anti-trial activity and the time of the year, and where proactive culling in a triplet has been carried out at a sub-optimal time the next cull, where possible, is planned for more optimal periods.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions can be taken by farmers to guarantee freedom from TB in cattle bought into herds; and to what extent she advises that they can rely on a test or other certification attesting to freedom from TB infection. [150495]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There can be no guarantee of remaining free of bovine TB. However farmers are encouraged to take all practical disease prevention measures to reduce the risk of disease introduction when bringing in new stock, including arranging a tuberculin test of purchased cattle before they are brought into to the resident herd.

  The Department provides advice in the form of a freely available booklet "TB in Cattle—Reducing the Risk". A concise list of disease prevention measures which was developed with livestock industry representatives and vets, was sent to all livestock farmers in 2002; it can be found on the Defra website.

  The comparative tuberculin skin test is used to certify that cattle herds are free from bovine tuberculosis, the comparative skin test at the standard interpretation, provides sensitivity in the range 68 per cent. to 95 per cent. and specificity in the range in the range 96 per cent. to 99 per cent.

  Clearly a negative test result on individual animals brought into a herd will not guarantee their freedom from disease, although it will substantially reduce the risk. A recent clear herd test result for the herd of origin will reduce the risk that imported animals have been exposed to infection still further.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the consultation on the new TB strategy will commence; and whether she expects that the detailed results and conclusions from the Krebs trials will be available prior to that consultation. [150497]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We aim to publish a consultation document "Preparing for a new GB Strategy on bovine tuberculosis" in February. The document will represent the outcome of the first stage of the review announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at last year's NFU Annual General
  383W
  Meeting. The consultation document will contain proposals for action in the short term including measures to prevent the geographical spread of the disease.

  The Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB (ISG) anticipates that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (or the 'Krebs Trial') operations will be complete by 2006. The ISG will report to Ministers thereafter.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the total expenditure by her Department on investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of Bovine TB since 1997; and what the planned expenditure is over the next five years. [150498]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Total expenditure since 1997 on research projects investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of Bovine TB is £17.3 million. Research already commissioned for 2004–5 onwards totals £5.6 million and consultations for research requirements to start from the financial year 05–06 have been initiated. Epidemiology and pathogenesis will continue to be important parts of the bovine TB research programme.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate herd owners for uninsurable losses arising from the event of a TB herd breakdown. [150501]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government currently pays compensation to farmers for the market value of all cattle slaughtered under the TB control programme. There are no plans to compensate for consequential losses.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what inference she has drawn from the number of slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB as to the efficacy of the TB surveillance programme. [150503]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The examination of carcases in the slaughterhouse complements surveillance through the periodic testing of cattle. Identification of infected carcases in slaughterhouses does not necessarily reflect a failure of the tuberculin test to detect the infection: given that infected cattle can develop grossly visible lesions within a relatively short time after infection with Mycobacterium bovis, it would be expected that some animals will become infected and be presented for slaughter in the intervals between herd tests, which can last up to four years. In recent years, the proportion of TB incidents that are detected in the slaughterhouse is lower in parishes where herds are tested more frequently, in other words frequent tuberculin testing reduces the risk that diseased cattle are disclosed during slaughterhouse inspection.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is taken in respect of slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB to trace the animals back to the farm of origin; what proportion of these cases were traced back to source in the last five years; and how many herds identified as a result of such action were subsequently confirmed as TB breakdowns. [150504]
  384W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  All suspects detected in the slaughterhouse are traced back to the farm of origin, movement restrictions are imposed and the herd is check tested.

  Material from animals with lesions detected at slaughter is submitted for laboratory confirmation of the presence of the causative organism, Mycobacterium bovis. Typically, about 35 per cent. to 50 per cent. of suspected cases of TB detected during routine meat inspection are eventually confirmed by culture of M. bovis in tissue samples, which automatically triggers a confirmed TB breakdown in the herd of origin whether or not reactors are found in the subsequent check test. Between 10 and 13 per cent. of all new TB breakdowns confirmed in a given year are started by a `slaughterhouse case' and between 34 and 47 per cent. of such breakdowns will have reactors in the subsequent check test.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has identified a statistically significant correlation between the distribution of TB infection in badgers and the distribution of TB in cattle. [150505]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The report from the Independent Scientific Review Group, chaired by Sir John Krebs, which reported in 1997, concluded that there was "strong evidence for an association between TB in cattle and badgers". This relationship will be investigated further using data collected in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which is currently underway.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB are identified as having originated in animals which have transited through livestock markets immediately prior to despatch for slaughter; what measures are taken in those markets to contain the spread of disease; and what action is taken to trace possible contact animals consequently confirmed as TB breakdowns. [150506]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The transmission of the causative organism,Mycobacterium bovis, between cattle requires in most cases for the animals to be in close proximity with each other. While there is a risk that the organism could be transmitted between cattle at a market, conditions are such that this is a relatively low risk. Thus tracings of cattle that have come into contact with infected animals do not take into account contacts that take place in markets.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what herd TB breakdowns have been recorded in the last 10 years in areas(a) where there have been no badgers detected and (b) following complete clearance of badgers. [150511]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is insufficient reliable data on the extent and varying density of the badger population of Great Britain to identify, with any certainty, areas where there is an absence of badgers. No area, in the last 10 years, has been completely cleared of badgers.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what causation models, or combinations thereof, are being used by her Department to determine the cause of bovine TB and
  385W
  mechanisms of transmission; what the specific criteria are which make up the models; and which criteria remain to be satisfied before a firm association can be made between the presence of infection in the badger population and the presence of the disease in cattle. [150517]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To help to determine the cause of bovine TB and mechanisms of transmission, the Department has investigated spatially explicit GIS-based stochastic simulation badger/TB models. The models are complex and are described in detail in a range of scientific publications available from the Central Science Laboratory. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial is seeking to address the question of the contribution of the presence of infection in badgers to the presence of the disease in cattle, and results will be available in due course.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the TB control operation in Thornbury, what the level was of cattle TB in the trial area prior to the removal of badgers; how many times, by what methods, and how thoroughly the removal was effected; whether these operations led to an elimination of badgers; how soon after the completion of operations badgers re-colonised the area; and at what level the re-colonisation was noted. [150572]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The incidence of herds with visible lesion reactors in the Thornbury intervention area, prior to badger clearance starting, was 74 in 1,314 herd years or 5.6 per cent. No reliable record exists of the number of gassing operations, but the Zuckerman Report refers to gassing starting in December 1975 and continuing to August 1976. Many setts were re-colonised immediately and "a considerable amount of re-gassing was necessary". The gas used in Thornbury was hydrogen cyanide and the badger activity was reduced to a "low level by 1979–80" (Zuckerman Report). The badger population at Thornbury took about 10 years to recover once action to prevent re-colonisation ceased.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the TB control operation in Thornbury, for how long after the completion of operations cattle remained clear of TB, as assessed by use of cattle tuberculin tests. [150573]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the 10-year period following the cessation of gassing.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 525W, when she expects to be able to release details of the content and funding of the future TB research programme, with specific reference to the funding of vaccine research. [150588]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Future funding of the TB research programme, in common with all Government expenditure, will be considered as part of the 2004 Spending Review, which is under way and will be finalised later in the year.
  386W
  Future TB research requirements, including those for vaccine research, will be announced in May or June with the publication of the Animal Health and Welfare Research Requirements Document (RRD). Details of bovine TB research work currently being funded by Defra can be found on the Defra website.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 216W, what criteria have to be satisfied by (a) farmers and (b) livestock hauliers in order to gain multiple pick-up approval: who is responsible for granting approval; and what costs are involved in granting approval. [150595]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All multiple pick-ups and drop-offs must take place at premises that have prior approval from Defra to operate as a multiple pick-up/drop-off site. The conditions under which multiple pick-ups and drop-offs may take place are set out in Annex B of the General Licences for cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. These licences can be found on the Defra website at: http://www.defra goy. uk/animalh/movements/documents/default.htm

  Inspectors or local veterinary inspectors are at Defra's expense. An inspection is carried out to ensure that the requirements of the licences can be met. The inspection is carried out either by animal health officers, veterinary officers, temporary veterinary inspectors or local veterinary inspectors and is at Defra's expense.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further estimate she has made of the increase in bovine TB following the discontinuance of reactive culling. [150625]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISO) has indicated that it will continue to analyse data from the treatment areas randomised as reactive areas as part of its regular interim analyses. The next such analysis, using data to March 2004, is expected to take place in April.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 523W, on badgers, how many individual clearance operations in the Krebs areas were specifically related to individual farms; how many such operations covered more than one farm; and what difference there was in the TB incidence in cattle on farms which were part of an operation covering more than one farm as compared with those which were subject to an operation covering only one farm. [150775]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Management records indicate that 78 reactive operations were carried out under the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and these involved 172 notified, infected premises. Of these operations, 37 related to a single infected premise. The extent of TB incidence was not a factor considered when grouping geographically proximal breakdown premises for reactive culling operations.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Department's responses to Professor Zuckerman's recommendations on protecting badgers and cattle from TB. [150858]
  387W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department's responses to Professor Zuckerman's recommendations are summarised in Appendix 1 of Professor Dunnet's report to the Department in 1986 entitled "Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis—Review of Policy". A copy of the report is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the(a)proactive and (b) reactive and (c) control areas of the Krebs trials underwent boundary changes after initial designation of the areas; and when these changes occurred. [150894]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All trial areas were modified marginally to include or exclude whole farm premises following surveying and prior to initial proactive culling. On occasions, slight changes in treatment boundary have been agreed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB in response to changes observed in badger activity and social group organisation.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department have established a field scale experiment to model postulated modes of transmission of bovine TB between badgers and cattle to test hypotheses relating to the spread mechanisms of the disease using live or attenuated TB bacilli, or indicator organisms which mimic the behaviour of the TB bacilli. [150943]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has not established a trial of this nature. Epidemiological surveys are being undertaken which will provide information on risk factors associated with the occurrence of disease outbreaks.

  British Beef Ban
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to secure compensation for British farmers who suffered loss as a result of the action of the French Government in continuing to ban British beef following the breach of the European Court of Justice ruling of December 2001; and if she will make a statement. [151345]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]The Government cannot claim compensation because they have no direct commercial interest. Those parties who were directly affected by the illegal French ban must decide for themselves whether to seek such compensation for losses.

  However we will provide information and practical assistance (although not financial support or detailed legal advice) to exporters who wish to pursue claims for compensation.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much space, expressed in square metres., the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b)Greater London. [150283]
  388W
  Alun Michael
  Defra's total office space for its civil servants in central London is 63,045.35 square metres with an additional 98.41 square metres in outer London, giving a total for Greater London of 63,143.76 square metres.

  Combustion Plants
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many states in the EU have applied for the National Plan option under the Large Combustion Plant Directive. [148754]

  Mr. Morley
  According to information provided by the European Commission, two other member states in addition to the UK: Ireland and Finland, have submitted a National Plan under the Directive.

  Contractors
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions have been drawn by her Department on(a) commissioning the services of contractors during animal health emergencies and (b) the keeping and auditing of accounts; and what advice she will give to contractors who may be requested to supply goods or services to her Department in a future emergency. [150518]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The conclusions that have been drawn by the Department on(a) commissioning the services of contractors during animal health emergencies and (b) the keeping and auditing of accounts are as follows:
  The Department will deal with those contractors who meet its requirements for eligibility and economic and financial standing, together with the ability and technical capacity to deliver the goods, services and works required;
  The Department will take all sufficient and necessary steps to prevent windows of commercial opportunity being opened up by contractors to taxpayers disbenefit during animal health or any other emergencies;
  The Department requires its contractors to substantiate their charges and allow Defra to verify that the charges invoiced are fully in accordance with the contractual provisions.

  Contractors who may be requested to supply goods, services or works to the Department in a future emergency will be asked, as is currently the case, to comply with the terms of the contracts agreed with them.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to reply to the letter dated 28 October 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to the Minister for Farming, Food and Sustainable Energy, regarding his constituent, Mr. T. Curran of Portsoy. [149778]

  Alun Michael
  The hon. Member's letter of 28 October was addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Department of Trade and Industry approached the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a view to transferring the hon. Member's correspondence there. That Department then approached Defra.
  389W
  The subject raised by the hon. Member is not a matter for this Department and therefore a transfer did not take place. The hon. Member may wish to raise this issue with the Department to whom he originally wrote.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to meet representatives of supermarkets to discuss United Kingdom dairy farming. [149938]

  Alun Michael
  The Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with representatives of supermarkets to discuss milk prices. However, retailers are represented on the Dairy Supply Chain Forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty, which has been looking at collaborative solutions to improve supply chain efficiency, as well as other issues. Retailers are also represented in the Dairy Supply Chain Forum's Industry Development's Cap Reform Sub-Groups which aim to facilitate the long term sustainable development of the dairy supply chain and help it adjust to the new environment created by the reformed CAP.

  Effluent Dumping
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to prevent farmers from dumping effluent in rivers. [148830]

  Mr. Morley
  The dumping of effluent in rivers is an offence under the Water Resources Act (WRA) 1991. The Environment Agency (the Agency) is responsible for regulating discharges of effluent to watercourses and issues discharge consents under Schedule 10 of the WRA. In all cases, consents are subject to strict conditions to ensure protection of the receiving water.

  It is rare for a consent to be issued to a discharge of farm effluent because of the difficulty of achieving the standards necessary to protect the watercourse. It is accepted practice that slurry, manure and dirty water from farm buildings is contained and usually applied to land in accordance with the relevant sections of Defra's Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water.

  The Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991 (and as amended in 1997) specify the size, design and construction standards that must be used for structures built since 1991 and used for storage of these specified materials. These Regulations also provide powers for the Agency to serve a notice, requiring action to avoid pollution, on a storage structure of any age where the Agency considers there is a serious risk of pollution.

  In addition, both Defra and the Agency publish a wide range of relevant advisory literature which is available to farmers.

  Environmental Taxation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 6 January 2004,Official Report,
  390W
  columns 255–56W, on environmental taxation, if she will break down into component parts the 2.85 per cent. UK figure. [150114]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]The OECD breakdown of UK environmental taxation into its component parts for the year 2001 is given in the table herewith.

  OECD breakdown by tax of UK environmental taxation for 2001

  Name of tax

  £ million

  Duty on hydrocarbon oils

  22,046.0

  Leaded petrol

  3.1

  Unleaded petrol

  1,979.5

  Ultra low sulphur petrol

  11,042.2

  Diesel

  59.8

  Ultra low sulphur diesel

  8,754.2

  Non-fossil fuel obligation levy

  86.0

  Vehicle excise duty

  4,061.0

  Air passenger duty

  824.0

  Landfill tax

  505.0

  Climate Change Levy

  588.0

  Gas regulator fees

  13.0

  Electricity regulator fees

  14.0

  Water regulator fees

  13.0

  Fees paid to the Environment Agency

  190.0

  Total

  28,340.0

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions in the UK were brought against fishermen in each of the last 10 years for landing black fish; and how many fishermen were convicted. [150239]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information in the form requested is not readily available. However information extracted from returns on serious fisheries infringements in the United Kingdom submitted to the European Commission since 2000 in response Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2740/1999 shows that the number of infringements involving the falsification of logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes, for which prosecutions were completed and with which black fish landings are associated, were:

  Black fish landing

  Number

  2000

  31

  2001

  55

  2002

  78

  Most of the infringements for which prosecutions were taken resulted in a successful conviction.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of changes in the tonnage of black fish landed by the United Kingdom registered fishing fleet in(a) home and (b) foreign ports in the last five years; and what her estimate is of the tonnage of black fish landed in the last year. [150243]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No estimates have been produced by the Department of the overall levels of illegal landings for the 100 or so fish stocks for which the UK has quota.
  391W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial contributions her Department made in the last five financial years to fisheries research(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned by the European Union; and what the projects were. [150244]

  DEFRA contributions to EU fisheries projects between 1999–2000 and 2003–04

  £

  Title

  DEFRA funded

  EC FAIR Programme: A calibration of different molecular markers for use in the discrimination and management of stocks of commercially Important Species CO135 EC 95/0282

  120,240

  EC FAIR Programme, 1996: European fish aging network—Efan C0300 EC FAIR CT 96 1304

  9,829

  EC FAIR Programme 1997: diachronic changes in growth rate of North Sea fish species in relation lo anthropogenic activities and climate changes C0418 EC FAIR CT 97 3462

  44,150

  EC STUDIES: evaluation and development of spatio-temporal models and survey designs for efficient assessment of mackerel and horse-mackerel C0532 EC 97/0097

  5,974

  EC STUDIES: monitoring fish and epibenthic biodiversity in the north sea and Skagerrak C0738 EC 98/02

  139,550

  EC STUDIES: monitoring discarding and retention on fishing vessels towing demersal gears in the North Sea and Skagerrak C0739 EC 98/097

  116,807

  EC STUDIES: evaluation of market sampling for a number of commercially exploited fish stocks in the North Sea C0768 EC 98/075

  62,928

  EC STUDIES: optimisation of the design of a summer trawl research vessel study for north sea stock C0769 EC 98/029

  19,267

  EC STUDIES: development of stock assessment methodologies egg production estimates of Irish Sea demersal stocks C0798 EC 98/090

  268,967

  EC FAIR: shelf-edge advection, mortality and recruitment (SEAMAR) C0938 FAIR CT98–3695

  2,250

  EC STUDIES framework to improve the assessment of demersal and pelagic fisheries in western European waters FIEFA 2 C0950

  76,341

  EC STUDIES alternative uses of data from satellite monitoring of fishing vessel activity in fisheries management C0955

  52,792

  EC STUDIES development of elasmobranch assessments C0963

  24,375

  EC STUDIES collection and evaluation of assessment data for key European edible crab stocks C0981

  57,618

  EC FPV development of structurally detailed statistically testable models of marine populations (DST) C0982

  152,401

  EC FPV combining geostatistical and Bayesian methods to improve the scientific basis for the management of Atlantic mackerel fisheries C0989

  422,787

  EC FPV European decapod crustacean fisheries: assessment and management (EDFAM) C1047

  11,058

  EC FPV determination of the linkage between hydrographical frontal activity and ecosystem dynamics in the North Sea and Skagerrak LIFECOC1080X5RS-2000–30183

  398,483

  EC STUDIES mackerel triennial egg survey WGMEGS C1237 00/038

  153,448

  EC FPV combining acoustic and trawl data for estimating fish abundance CATEFA C1251 QLRT-2000–02038

  125,914

  Comparative behavioural dynamics of cod in European waters (CODYSSEY) C1451 QLRT-2001–00813

  445,748

  Integrated approach to the biological basis of age estimation in commercially important fish species (IBACS) C1473QLRT-2001–01610

  93,021

  Reproductive potential of cod and hake in relation to recovery plans RASER C1492QLRT-2001–01825

  130,066

  Framework for the evaluation of management strategies (FEMS) CI502QLRT-2001–01824

  95,685

  Technological developments and tactical adaptions of important EU fleets (TECTAC) C1522QLRT-2001–01291

  99,259

  Policy Knowledge in fisheries management—the North Sea cod case (PKFM)C1528QLRT-2001–01782

  36,792

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received from(a) fishermen and (b) their representatives on the (i) application and (ii) utility of selective gear in reducing cod by-catch in haddock fisheries; [150251]

  (2) what consultations her Department had with British fishing industry representatives about linking the increase in the haddock quota with spatial management; [150300]

  (3) when she was first informed of the Commission's proposal to link spatial management with the increase in the British haddock quota; [150301]

  (4) how much time was spent at the December Fisheries Council discussing options for increasing the haddock quota for Scottish boats in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas areas IVa and IVb without resorting to the principle of spatial management; [150302]

  (5) what proposals she and her officials put to the (a) Council of Ministers and (b) Commission in or before December 2003 with the aim of enabling Scottish fishermen to maximise opportunities to catch European haddock. [150856]
  392W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Details of the level of Defra financial contribution to EU fisheries research projects, and the project titles, active between 1999–2000 and 2003–04 is given in the following table.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Representations from the industry indicated, variously, a preference for some kind of spatial management. Technical conservation methods (such as selective gear) were also advocated by some as an option to be considered in parallel with spatial management they are developed.

  At the December Fisheries Council all the options to enable responsible exploitation of the North sea haddock stock were considered at some length, but the solution agreed was developed from the spatial management proposed by the industry. In order to secure additional quota for the UK, we negotiated the special licensing system to ensure protection of the cod stock.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cod sold in the British retail market is caught by British registered boats. [150303]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information available on landings of and trade in cod in 2002 indicates that landings by UK registered vessels accounted for 15 per cent. of total cod consumed in the UK during the year. However, most of the cod imported into the UK has been processed to some extent. As such on a standardised live weight equivalent basis, the landings by UK registered vessels accounted for 5 per cent. of total cod consumed in the UK in 2002.
  393W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment has been made of the economic impact of including steaming time in the days at sea allowance on the fishing ports of north east England; [150318]

  (2) what the reason is for including steaming time in the days at sea allowance. [150325]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The time at sea limits in 2003 provided for a separate allowance of days for steaming to and from the fishing grounds, for vessels using gear of over 100 mm mesh. No separate allowance exists for 2004, because the calculation of days at sea for 2004 takes account of the fleet's time at sea in the base period, including its steaming time.

  The permitted number of days for the vessels using over 100 mm mesh gear is 15 per month for 2004, the same total as in 2003.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what limitations have been placed on the locations in which the(a) monkfish and (b) megrim quota awarded to the Scottish fleet can be caught in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas areas IVa and IVb. [150321]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No such limitations apply specifically to the monkfish or megrim quotas set for the management area comprising International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) areas Ila (EC waters) and IV (EC waters).

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reason is for excluding pelagic boats from the cod exclusion zone in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas area VIa. [150326]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No scientific reason was adduced for this. The Commission has now acknowledged that the provision is more restrictive than is necessary to protect cod, and is working on revised wording.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the approximate landed fish values of the quotas of(a) cod,(b)haddock, (c) monkfish and (d) megrim, awarded to the Scottish fishing fleet in International Council for the Exploration of the Seas areas IVa and IVb were for this year. [150327]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to estimate in advance the value of quota. Fish quota, held in the form of Fixed Quota Allocation Units, has no intrinsic value. Any value placed on uncaught quota used in quota transfers will depend on market conditions and each parties assessment of its value. The table shows the value at first point of sale of fish landed by the Scottish fleet from ICES areas IVa and IVb in the most recent year for which complete figures are available. It gives an indication of the value realised by landings of these quota species.
  394W

  Value offish landed by the Scottish fleet 2002

  £000

  Area of capture

  Landed fish

  IVa

  IVb

  Monkfish

  17,379

  469

  Cod

  20,109

  1,309

  Haddock

  20,114

  4,804

  Megrim

  2,774

  2

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors affect the(a) seaworthiness and (b) ability to trawl in adverse weather conditions of fishing vessels; what effect these factors have on the ability of vessels to exploit fully allocations of days at sea. [150479]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The seaworthiness of fishing vessels, and their ability to trawl in adverse weather, depend on various factors, including their design and construction, the standard of maintenance, and the standard of operation of the vessels. It is the responsibility of the skipper to determine when it is safe to fish.

  In any year fishing operations will be curtailed from time to time by adverse weather. The calculation of permitted days at sea for 2004 takes account of the time spent at sea in the base period, including when fishing was constrained by bad weather. It thus incorporates time for when fishing is not safe.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the implications of the use of days at sea restrictions on regulating fishing effort. [150916]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Limits on time at sea applied in 2003 in the North sea and West of Scotland, to help conserve cod stocks. On the basis of experience with this measure the European Commission and the member states concluded that limits on time at sea should be continued in order to reduce fishing effort as part of a cod recovery plan. Experience in administering the various elements of controls in 2003 informed decisions by the Council of Ministers on the details of successor arrangements for 2004. The Government's objective in negotiations on the 2004 arrangements took account of the views of the fishing industry on the 2003 measures.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will investigate the(a) adequacy of the grounds and (b) quality of decision-making in her Department in pursuing prosecutions of contractors for alleged fraudulent claims or other irregularities relating to the claims made for the work undertaken for or on behalf of her Department in respect of foot and mouth disease. [150561]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The prosecution of contractors for alleged fraudulent claims is a criminal matter. In such cases, Defra would refer the matter to the appropriate authorities tasked with deciding whether to prosecute or not.
  395W
  On the civil side, claims are initiated on the advice of Defra's lawyers. In the commercial disputes pertaining to the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 this advice has been provided by external commercial law firms in conjunction with forensic accountants and quantity surveyors after detailed review of contractor accounts. In many cases Defra has been successful in resolving disputes through negotiation and/or alternative disputes resolution procedures. Other disputes are being pursued through the Courts.

  Defra has a public law duty to protect the public purse. It will do so unfailingly in all circumstances where the evidence is sufficient to meet legal requirements in either a civil or criminal context.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total payments made to date to contractors in respect of works commissioned by(a) her Department and (b) its predecessor, carried out in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic of 2001 are. [150563]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Total payments of £1,247 million have been made to date to contractors in respect of works commissioned by the Department carried out in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been made to her Department concerning the intimidation of contractors and their representatives by officials of her Department in pursuit of reducing or discounting the value of invoices or claims made by them in respect of services provided to her Department in relation to the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. [150566]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Small Business Group has drawn the Department's attention to one case where a contractor has alleged intimidating and inappropriate communications from Defra.

  To date, Defra has not received any evidence in support of the allegation that intimidation of contractors and their representatives has taken place.

  Any such representations would be considered on their merits having regard to the motives of those persons making such representations.

  Genetic Modification
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will define the terms "very low" and "unlikely" as used in the GM Science Review in July 2003. [148904]

  Mr. Morley
  I take the terms "very low" and "unlikely" as used by the GM Science Review Panel to indicate sequences of events or risks that, while theoretically possible, do not occur with sufficient probability to be cause for concern. The precise level of probability associated with these terms with vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the particular issue that is being discussed.

  Lead Content
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 737W, on lead content, what studies she has commissioned concerning lead in glass crystal; and if she will make a statement. [149453]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has commissioned no studies concerning lead in glass crystal.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to her Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148032]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was formed in June 2001. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Municipal Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure that local authorities continue to recycle municipal waste after 2005–06 when statutory responsibility ends; and if she will make a statement. [148755]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 740W. As that answer explained, this year's review of national recycling targets will include consideration of whether to set further statutory recycling targets for local authorities for the years beyond 2005–06. Although I cannot prejudge the outcome of that review, the Government's goal will remain to encourage local authorities to continue to move management of municipal waste up the waste hierarchy in order to meet their obligations under the Landfill Directive.

  Pesticides
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what criteria the Government use to assess the progress of the voluntary initiative on pesticides; [150958]

  (2) what progress has been made with the voluntary initiative on pesticides; and how many hectares of land are now covered by the Crop Protection Management Plan. [150959]

  Alun Michael
  The Government have charged the signatories to the Voluntary Initiative on pesticides with reducing the environmental impact of pesticide use and, in particular, effects on biodiversity and contamination of water. These environmental outcomes will be the ultimate measure of success for the Initiative.

  However, measuring environmental outcomes is difficult because they are slow to emerge, hard to measure and hard to attribute reliably to a particular cause. Because of these difficulties, the Government also assesses progress with the Initiative in terms of uptake by farmers of the key components of the Initiative. Of

  397W
  these, the most significant are the National Register of Sprayer Operators, the National Sprayer Testing Scheme and Crop Protection Management Plans.

  To help test whether delivery of the Initiative will benefit the environment, the signatories are establishing an "Indicator Farms" project to examine the consequences of applying Initiative measures at a farm level. If the results of this project are positive, it will help provide assurance that national uptake of the Initiative could generate national environmental benefits.

  Overall progress to date with the Initiative is encouraging. Uptake of Crop Protection Management Plans is ahead of schedule and, after a slow start, applications for the National Register of Sprayer Operators and National Sprayer Testing Scheme have accelerated with the backing of the crop assurance schemes. The Government will look to see this progress maintained and will also look for the most rapid possible progress with environmental outcomes. In particular, the Government will be monitoring the pilot water catchments and the Indicator Farms project.

  The Crop Protection Association advise that, as of the week commencing 19 January, around 365,000 hectares were covered by Crop Protection Management Plans.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) her Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147908]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in her Department in the last 12 months. [150888]

  Alun Michael
  During 2003 available figures for the core Department show that 108 passes were reported lost and 12 stolen. These passes are electronically programmed and give no indication of the Department to which they relate. Once a loss is reported the pass is cancelled immediately which ends any threat to security.

  Figures for Defra Agencies are as follows:

  Lost

  Stolen

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  16

  1

  Central Science Laboratory

  11

  0

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  6

  0

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  10

  0

  Rural Payments Agency

  350

  5

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  1

  0

  The high figure for the Rural Payments Agency is a result of employees on short term contracts failing to return their passes when they leave. This is being addressed.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy on the use of sunset clauses in 398W
  legislation; and which Acts containing such clauses relevant to her Department were passed in each year since 1997. [149330]

  Alun Michael
  Defra actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate. The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment' advises policy officials to consider sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific circumstances where sunsetting may be appropriate. Additional examples are included in the web-based version of the RIA guidance published in November 2003. No acts containing sunset clauses relevant to Defra have been passed since Defra was established in 2001.

  Underground Fuel Tanks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many leakages from underground fuel tanks were reported to the Environment Agency in the last five years. [150051]

  Mr. Morley
  Information from the Environment Agency's database for these years will take a little time to compile but will be made available to the Library of the House as soon as possible. I will write to the hon. Member when that is, and I will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Dentists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) principal and (b) assistant dentists there were in (i) England, (ii) each NHS region and (iii) each strategic health authority who (A) offered NHS treatment and (B) had vacancies for NHS patients, in each of the last five years. [146218]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to her reply, 14 January 2004, Official Report, c. 800 W]: I regret that the strategic health authority figures for general dentist service dentists for 2003 in table 1 of my previous response, separately for principal dentists and dental assistants were incorrect, and should have read as follows.

  Table 1: Number of general dental service dentists in England by region and strategic health authority for September 1999 to 2003

  2003 Principal Dentists

  2003 Assistant Dentists

  England

  16,649

  1,312

  Region

  Northern and Yorkshire

  —

  —

  Trent

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  North West

  —

  —

  Eastern

  —

  —

  London

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  South and West

  —

  —

  399W

  Table 1: Number of general dental service dentists in England by region and strategic health authority for September 1999 to 2003

  2003 Principal Dentists

  2003 Assistant Dentists

  Strategic Health Authority

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  786

  58

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  602

  62

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  663

  50

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  779

  36

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  346

  8

  Coventry, Warks, Herefordshire and Worcs.

  489

  31

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  601

  23

  Dorset and Somerset

  418

  38

  Essex

  462

  57

  Greater Manchester

  852

  37

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  567

  77

  Kent and Medway

  507

  63

  Leics, Northants and Rutland

  424

  17

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  658

  119

  North and East Yorkshire and N. Lines

  499

  18

  North Central London

  561

  36

  North East London

  438

  54

  North West London

  787

  82

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  469

  13

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  430

  13

  South East London

  525

  44

  South West London

  534

  50

  South West Peninsula

  555

  47

  South Yorkshire

  405

  20

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,084

  87

  Thames Valley

  795

  78

  Trent

  724

  69

  West Yorkshire

  689

  25

  Note:

  Assistant dentist numbers do not include VDPs (vocational dental
  practitioners).

  Food in Schools Programme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Food in Schools programme announced by his Department on 30 December 2003 is linked to the Food in Schools programme announced by his Department in April 2001; and what the differences are between the programmes announced on those dates. [147928]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2001 the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills announced a joint venture on Food in Schools. My announcement on the 5 January 2004 was to publicise the eight new regional projects being piloted in each English region to encourage healthy eating among children throughout the school day which are the Department of Health's strand of the Food in Schools Programme.

  The Department for Education and Skills strand of the Food in Schools Programme comprises eight curriculum focused projects which cover teacher training and professional development, as well as development of guidelines, resources and curriculum materials.

  Hospital Admissions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the delay in admitting Mrs. H. Potter of Warrington to Wrightington Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [144879]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]The strategic health authorities lead the strategic development of local health services and performance 400W
  manage primary care trusts and National Health Service trusts on the basis of local accountability agreements, following the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative.

  Unfortunately, to disclose information without the specific consent of the individual patient would breech patient confidentiality. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the Wrightington hospital.

  Hospital-acquired Infection
  Dr. Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether published figures for deaths from hospital acquired infection are approximate; what the margin of error is for these figures; and what measures have been taken to improve the data. [147506]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The widely quoted figure of 5,000 deaths being caused by hospital acquired infections (HAIs) is an extrapolation from estimates of deaths due to all HAIs in the United States in the 1980s1. Although it is difficult to compare data from different health systems, if rates in the United States were applicable to the United Kingdom then 5,000 deaths might be primarily attributable to health acquired infections.

  Better UK estimates cannot be produced as there are no centrally held statistics on deaths caused by hospital acquired infections.
  1 Haley et al (1985) The efficacy of infection surveillance and central programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals (SENIC). Amercican Journal of Epidemiology 121: 182–205

  Residential Care
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions he has made to ensure that funding of independent residential care providers encourages them to supply expected increases in demands on their services from 2005 onwards. [149826]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There have been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years and it will continue to increase in the period to 2005–06. Councils can use these extra resources to increase local service provision taking into account the needs of the local population and the local supply of services.

  We know that the majority of older people do not want to be in a care home and we are responding to this by investing in new models of provision such as extra-care housing schemes. It seems likely that the number of older people requiring residential care will not rise as fast as demographic pressures alone would suggest.

  Scanners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the normal life expectancy in the NHS is of(a) MRI, (b) CAT and (c) PET scanners. [145055]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The expected life of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scanners is approximately seven to ten years, dependent on the level of upgrade that is possible for that equipment during its lifetime. However, it is not unreasonable for equipment to remain in-situ and in working order after this period.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England were treated for a sexually transmitted disease in the most recent year for which figures are available. [150363]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There were 596,728 episodes of diagnosed or suspected sexually transmitted infections from genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England that were treated during the calendar year 2002. Additionally, there were 112,447 attendances at GUM clinics in England during 2002, where other conditions required treatment.

  The quarterly statutory returns (KC60), made to Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) from GUM clinics, record confirmed episodes of disease, rather than the number of people attending. Individuals may attend more than one GUM clinic and may attend more than once over the course of a calendar year.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list each NHS trust which maintains planned lists on which people wait for operations but which are excluded from the inpatient and outpatient waiting list returns; what his Department's guidance is about the use of planned waiting lists; and if he will make a statement; [150538]

  (2) how many people are waiting for cataract operations on (a) waiting lists and (b) planned lists in each English health trust for the latest date for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [150540]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected on the number of patients currently waiting on planned lists.

  The use of planned lists has been an established practice for over 10 years. The Department has issued guidance to National Health Service trusts within the central return KH07 on recording patients waiting on planned lists. It states:
  Planned Admissions are those who have been given a date, or an approximate date, for admissions, usually as a planned sequence of clinical care. The date of admission for such patients is determined mainly on social or clinical grounds.

  In light of this guidance, it is likely that all trusts submitting waiting lists maintain planned lists for those patients requiring a planned sequence of clinical care.

  Data are not collected on the number of patients currently waiting for cataract surgery. However, data are collected on the number of patients on inpatient waiting lists within the specialty of ophthalmology.

  At quarter two, 2003–04, ending 30 September 2003, there were 130,060 patients on the inpatient waiting list for ophthalmology. Data are not collected on individual procedures within each specialty. Data for earlier quarters can be viewed on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes. The national cataract initiative has been introduced to reduce waiting times for cataract operations to three months by December 2004.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Centres
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children's centres are planned to open in 2004; and if he will make a statement. [148427]

  Margaret Hodge
  There arc now 61 children's centres in England, all of which are based in disadvantaged areas. Local authorities' strategic proposals are currently being assessed and more children's centres that meet the children's centre core offer have been identified. These will be announced in the next few weeks.

  We are currently unable to state how many children's centres will open in 2004 but the exact position will be clearer once local authorities have submitted their implementation plans by the end of May 2004.

  Children's Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on changes in the Children's Fund budget made after the mid-year review; and what assessment he has made of the effects of the changes. [148914]

  Margaret Hodge
  The 2003 –04 mid year review of expenditure identified approximately £12.5 million in underspend from quarters 1 and 2.

  The Department met representatives from the main voluntary sector organisations involved in the Fund, the LGA and the ADSS on 18 December to discuss the review and assess its impact. Officials then wrote to all Children's Fund partnership on 19 December 2003. We advised partnerships that where our decision to take back underspends at the mid-yew review had compromised their ability to meet contractual obligations, we would revisit them. Furthermore, we set aside some money to assist where there was a likelihood of staff redundancy or premature closure of services. The Children's Fund regional teams have continued to discuss the detailed implications with partnerships and this process will be completed at the end of January.

  Disabled Children
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment has been made of(a) disabled children's experience of abuse and (b) the effectiveness of existing systems in protecting disabled children; [150130]

  (2) if he will develop a national strategy for the safeguarding of disabled children through consultation with disabled children and adults and organisations advocating on their behalf. [150131]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills regularly receives correspondence from parents and voluntary groups about issues affecting disabled children including child protection. This has included reports from the NSPCC, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and the National Working Group on Child Protection and Disability, which have influenced policy development. In particular, recent representations from the NSPCC were taken into account by the Disabled
  403W
  Children's External Working Group developing standards as part of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services which will be published later this year. We welcome the publication of the recent report from the National Working Group, "It doesn't happen to disabled children: child protection and disabled children", and will consider its recommendations when developing Government policy and guidance on child protection.

  The Joint Chief Inspectors' Report "Safeguarding Children", published in October 2002, contained a recommendation that all relevant Inspectorates should ensure that, prior to the next report, appropriate inspection activity had been undertaken on children with disabilities. "Safeguarding Children" asked Chief Inspectors to consider whether there was a need to supplement the planned programme of inspections in any way. In planning for the next children's safeguards review, the Inspectorates have identified that additional activity is required in relation to children with disabilities and special needs and are developing plans to enhance their programmes in this area.

  Divorce
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in the East Midlands were affected by divorce in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [150923]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The only figures collected centrally relate to the number of children involved at the petition stage of divorce. The total number of children of couples who petitioned for divorce in the East Midlands region in the given periods are:

  Petitions

  Children involved

  2001–02

  12,467

  7,537

  2002–03

  12,991

  7,707

  Further Education
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the level of funding per pupil in further education in(a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire in 2003 –04. [151278]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not collect information on the level of funding per pupil in further education at local or regional level. Mark Haysom, the Learning and Skills Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the average level of funding per pupil in furl her education in(a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire in 2003–04. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) the national average level of funding per further education student and (b) the level of funding per student for each further education college is in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [151374]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not collect information on the level of funding per pupil in further education at local or regional level. Mark Haysom, the 404W
  Learning and Skills Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the average level of funding per student for each further education college in Shrewsbury and Atcham. A copy of his reply will he placed in the House Library. Participation funding per full-time equivalent student in further education in England in 2003–04 is planned to be £3,830. This figure does not include funding for capital or funding for other specific initiatives. This figure is consistent with that published in the "Departmental Annual Report 2003".

  Higher Education
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average cost to a student of the decision to undertake higher education, taking into account(a) loss of potential earnings while a full time student and (b) all other costs associated with the decision. [147600]

  Alan Johnson
  My officials have estimated that the average net present cost1 of participating in a three-year HE course, starting in 2001–02, is around £29,000 (in 2001 prices). The figure includes:

  (a) direct costs—i.e. contribution towards tuition fees (net of fee remission paid by Government), maintenance support from the family, and Government student loan repayments —of around £12,000 and

  (b)indirect costs—i.e. foregone earnings whilst in HE net of earnings whilst studying of around £ 17,000.

  In undiscounted cash terms, the direct and indirect average costs are around £13,600 and £18,000 respectively. The estimate is based on a hypothetical average individual entering HE at the age of 18, and the costs are averaged across all students.
  1 Discounted at 3.5 per cent.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the proportion of people in Liverpool who have received higher education in each of the last 10 years. [150151]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information is shown in the table. Figures for earlier years are not held centrally.

  Proportion of 18-year-olds from Liverpool local education authority who were accepted for entry to full-time undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Year of entry

  Proportion

  1994

  12.7

  1995

  14.7

  1996

  13.4

  1997

  13.9

  1998

  14.0

  1999

  15.9

  2000

  16.3

  2001

  17.5

  2002

  18.2

  Mature Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to modify the age cap on loans for mature students following his decision to introduce a 25-year cut-off period for student loans. [151113]
  405W
  Alan Johnson
  The age limit is 50 for eligible students meeting the residence requirements. Those aged 50 to 54 at the start of their course can also apply for a student loan provided that they plan to return to work after finishing their course. We have no plans to change these age limits for mature students.

  Outstanding loans for mature students are already cancelled when a borrower reaches the age of 65, and we have no plans to change that age limit. Putting a 25-year cap on the loan repayment period allows outstanding loan amounts to be written off after 25 years or age 65, whichever is the earlier.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the level of employer engagement with the modern apprenticeship scheme. [150003]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  "The Learning and Training at Work 2002" survey reveals that 10 per cent. of all employers of 16 to 24 year olds employ Foundation Modern Apprenticeships (FMA) and 4 per cent. employ Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (AMA). Larger employers are much more likely to employ modern apprentices than small firms: of all employers with over 500 staff who employ 16 to 24 year olds, 29 per cent. employ FMAs and 24 per cent. employ AMAs.

  In 2002, 57 per cent. of employers were aware of AMAs (compared to 51 per cent. in 2001). Meanwhile, 45 per cent. of employers were aware of FMAs (compared to 39 per cent. in 2001).

  The latest survey of MA employers reveals that, in 89 per cent. of cases, employers are very satisfied with the MA programme. Moreover, the majority of current employers (representing 91 per cent. of MAs) say they intend to continue offering MAs in the future.

  National Botanic Gardens of Wales
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Government colleagues with regard to funding for the National Botanic Gardens of Wales. [150665]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about issues affecting Wales, these have included the National Botanical Gardens. It is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government to determine funding priorities in Wales.

  Student Loans
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to raise the threshold at which existing graduates start repaying student loans. [151469]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]We plan to increase the threshold for the repayment of student loans from £10,000 to £15,000 with effect from April 2005. The increase in the threshold to £15,000 will apply to all borrowers regardless of when they took our their income contingent student loan.

  Top-up Fees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of tuition fees on the number of doctors choosing to work abroad after qualification. [151120]

  Alan Johnson
  There is no reason to expect a significant effect. The Government have no evidence that there is a problem of more doctors leaving the UK permanently to work overseas. Doctors earn considerably in excess of the national average. So medical graduates will be able to pay off their student loan for living costs and for tuition fees comparatively rapidly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many times since 1997 the Crown Prosecution Service has given advice to law enforcement agencies on whether an investigation into an offence of bribery of a foreign public official would have a realistic prospect of prosecution; and in how many of those instances its advice was that there would not be a realistic prospect of prosecution. [151440]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not keep records of the nationality of persons who are the subject of police investigations and about whom their advice is sought. In order to obtain this information all relevant files will have to be identified across the 42 Areas and individually checked. The information could not be obtained except at disproportionate costs. But even this would not necessarily provide comprehensive data as a number of relevant older files may well have been destroyed in accordance with archiving procedures.

  Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether the Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries the Department has outsourced these jobs; how much the Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147576]

  The Solicitor-General
  None of the Departments for which the Attorney General holds Ministerial responsibility currently outsource either call centre or IT services to offshore companies and have no current plans to do so. Consequently, the Departments have set no budget for this purpose over the next two years.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in the Law Officers' Department in the last 12 months. [150842]
  407W
  The Solicitor-General
  During 2003, CPS Headquarters was notified that 81 identity cards/access cards had been lost and five had been stolen.

  28 security passes were reported as lost in the Treasury Solicitor's Department within the last 12 months. All 28 passes were reported as lost rather than stolen. Five security passes were reported as lost in the Serious Fraud Office with in the last 12 months. All five 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.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost to his Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148022]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was established in 2001. The latest financial year for which complete expenditure figures are available is 2002–03. Figures on the cost of management consultancy for the Department for Work and Pensions for 2001–02 and 2002–03 and for the former Department of Social Security for 1998–99,1999–2000 and 2000–01 are in the table. Information for the former Employment Service is not available.

  Management consultancy costs

  Department and financial year

  Cost (£ million)

  DWP 2002–03

  47.57

  DWP 2001–02

  23.79

  DSS 2000–01

  21.90

  DSS 1999–2000

  19.00

  DSS 1998–99

  12.98

  Maternity Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many maternity allowance claims were(a) processed and (b) awarded in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [149009]

  (2)what reasons are given for refusing maternity allowance claims; [149010]

  (3)how many women were eligible for maternity allowance in each year since 1997.[149011]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  In order to receive maternity allowance (MA), a woman must have been employed and/or self-employed in at least 26 weeks in the 66 week period ending with the week before her expected week of childbirth (the test period), and earn on average at least £30 a week averaged over any 13 weeks in that test period.
  408W
  In most cases where a claim to MA does not result in an award, it is because the qualifying conditions have not been met. In a very small number of cases, a claim will not result in an award because it was outside the time limits; the earliest a woman may claim MA is 14 weeks before here expected week of childbirth, and a claim must be made within three months of the date her MA is due to start.

  Information on the number of claims that were processed and the number of women who were eligible for MA is not available.

  Maternity allowance claims awarded and disallowed in the periods shown

  Period

  Awarded

  Disallowed

  1 March 1997–31 August 1997

  19,100

  —

  1 September 1997–31 August 1998

  40,100

  —

  1 September 1998–31 August 1999

  39,400

  —

  1 September 1999–31 August 2000

  38,900

  700

  1 September 2000–31 August 2001

  50,600

  3,400

  1 September 2001–31 August 2002

  50,800

  2,700

  1 September 2002–31 August 2003

  51,800

  2,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. These figures have been updated to include late notification commencements.

  3. Figures for the latest year are subject to changes due to late notifications.

  4. Data for disallowed claims prior to August 2000 is not available.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, 5 per cent. samples.

CABINET OFFICE

  Disabled People
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what remit the Strategy Unit has in relation to its work relating to people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [150530]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy Unit has been asked to provide supporting analysis and a strategic assessment of disabled people's life chances —the opportunities available to disabled people, both children and adults, to improve their quality of life.

  The Unit's role will be to:
  improve understanding of disabled people's life chances, and of their underlying drivers; assess the implications of this analysis for disabled people, their families and for wider society; and inform the ongoing development of policy.

  The Unit will work with disabled people and their representatives, with other interested organisations and with other Government Departments, and will report to the Minister for Disabled People.

  The Unit's analysis will be fed into the Spending Review 2004.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [149326]
  409W
  Mr. Alexander
  No legislation introduced by my department during the period in question has contained sunset clauses. The Cabinet Office promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate. The Regulatory Impact Assessment(RIA) guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment' advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific circumstances where sunsetting may be appropriate. In November 2003 we published web-based RIA guidance which contains additional examples of sunsetting.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Audio-described Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase the availability of audio-described services on digital cable television. [151115]

  Estelle Morris
  Digital cable television has a requirement to carry the audio description service, in the same way that we expect digital satellite and digital terrestrial television to carry this service.

  There are technical problems surrounding provision of audio description on cable. It is for the cable operators to resolve these issues. However, DCMS officials have been working with manufacturers, broadcasters, software/applications providers and consumer groups as part of the Digital Television Action Plan to ensure that audio description can be received on all platforms.

  BBC Charter Review
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to meet representatives from the BBC in Northern Ireland in relation to the BBC Charter Review. [151331]

  Tessa Jowell
  I and my ministerial colleagues intend to undertake a number of visits around the UK, including to Northern Ireland as part of the consultation on the review of the BBC's Charter. Those visits are likely to include seminars with representatives of the industry, including the BBC.

  In addition, Charter review more generally will cover all aspects of the BBC's role, structure and function, including its regional organisation. I hope and expect that the BBC will engage fully with the review.

  Digital Television (Access)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress in developing access to digital television for users with(a) sensory disabilities and (b) other special needs. [151116]

  Estelle Morris
  The Communications Act 2003 introduced a number of provisions aimed at increasing access to digital television services. These include extending the targets for subtitling, audio description and signing of services to digital cable and satellite 410W
  broadcasters for the first time. Ofcom also has a duty to encourage the availability of easily usable domestic electronic communications apparatus.

  The Digital Television Action Plan includes actions to ensure that digital television equipment and services are accessible to the broadest range of people.

  The Action Plan's Technical Equipment Group (comprising manufacturers, broadcasters, software/applications providers and consumer groups) has been tasked to investigate the reception equipment requirements for users with sensory disabilities and to recommend actions to help promote usability and inclusive design for all.

  Two recent reports have indicated that some advances have been made in access to services for sensory impaired people, but action is needed to promote their further development and that current designs make digital television equipment more difficult to use than analogue.

  Clearly there are still challenges ahead and we are looking closely at the findings; and recommendations of the reports. We will continue to work within the Action Plan, with industry and consumer organisations to address these issues.

  The reports are available on: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost to her Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148030]

  Mr. Caborn
  The cost to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of using Management Consultants in each of the last five years can be found in the following table.

  Cost (£)

  1998–99

  27,289.12

  1999–2000

  71,106.30

  2000–01

  100,089.26

  2001–02

  90,407.30

  2002–03

  107,299.50

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitution al Affairs how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150272]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs occupies 64,716 square metres of office space in central London and none in Greater London.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what cost savings have been made in the Department since the introduction of the Information Technology Procurement Centre of Excellence; and how these were calculated. [151052]

  Mr. Leslie
  The majority of systems used within my Department are supplied under outsource agreements with Liberata, EDS and Fujitsu Systems. It is the suppliers' responsibility to monitor the use of these systems and associated equipment. Dependent upon the particular system being used, there are a number of measures taken to ensure proper use. These include:access restrictions ensuring that only authorised personnel can use the systems;
  controlled change management procedures for adding and removing hardware and software;
  software auditing and restrictions to ensure unauthorised software/hardware either cannot be installed or that its use is identified; and
  software monitoring tools to ensure that access and use of the web is monitored and audited.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department has spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since its creation to 2003–04 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [149622]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information is listed in the table.

  Only DCA Policy Group and two NDPBs have incurred expenditure on advertising and information campaigns.

  £

  Financial Year April to March 2004

  Expenditure on advertising

  Expenditure on information campaigns

  DCAHQ Policy Group (including Public Guardianship Office and the Court Service)

  207,000

  46,000

  DCA Non-departmental public bodies

  Legal Services Commission

  64,294

  2,879

  Office of the Information

  Commissioner

  Nil

  197,428

  Total

  1271,294

  2246,307

  1 It is estimated that a further £200,000 will be spent by DCA policy Group on advertising covering a recruiting campaign for the lay magistracy up to the end of March 2004.

  2 The bulk of this figure covers on-going publicity for the Freedom of Information campaign and the provision of telephone advice lines and maintenance of the Just Ask website by the Legal Services Commission.

WALES

  Civil Contingencies Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on funding to implement in Wales the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Bill. [149444]
  412W
  Mr. Hain
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss funding for a range of issues including this one.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants, broken down by grade, there are in the Department and the agencies for which the Office is responsible; and what the figures were in January 1997. [150264]

  Mr. Touhig
  This Department was established on 1 July 1999 and has no agencies. The table shows the number of staff-in-post as at 1 October 2003.

  Staff-in-post as at 1 October 2003

  Responsibility level

  Number

  SCS

  1

  Grade 6

  5

  Grade 7

  2

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  15

  Executive Officer

  14

  Administrative Officer

  10

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  Total non-industrial staff

  49

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he has had in his capacity as Secretary of State for Wales in the past 15 months. [150653]

  Mr. Hain
  In common with past Secretaries of State, I continue to hold a wide range of meetings with interested parties. These include meetings with Cabinet colleagues, the First Minister, Assembly Ministers, MPs (including the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy), business/commercial interests, voluntary sector and TUC.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many visits he has made to the National Assembly for Wales in each of the last 15 months; [150655]

  (2) how many meetings he has had with the National Assembly for Wales in each of the last 15 months. [150656]

  Mr. Hain
  I have formally addressed three National Assembly Plenary sessions arising from my responsibilities under the Government of Wales Act. In addition, I meet with the First Minister on a weekly basis, Assembly Government Ministers and the Presiding Officer as the need arises.

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many official engagements he undertook in Wales over the last six months; and how many of those were in Mid and North Wales. [150057]
  413W
  Mr. Hain
  As Secretary of State for Wales I regularly undertake official engagements throughout Wales, including addressing conferences, visiting business and industry and newspaper offices. I also attend major national events such as the Royal Welsh Show, and the National and International Eisteddfods. Since July 2003, I have made five visits to Mid and North Wales for such engagements.

  Press Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases the Wales Office Press Office issued each day in(a) November and (b) December 2003. [150060]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office does not issue press releases on a daily basis but as demand requires.

  Six press releases were issued in November 2003. In December 2003, 14 press releases were issued.

  These figures do not include operational notes, lobby notes circulated after our weekly media briefings, articles for the media or contributions to joint press releases with other organisations.

  The Press Office also arranges press conferences and briefings, media interview requests and inquiries and also maintains the Wales Office website.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total salary cost of the Wales Office Press Office was in 2003. [150061]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office employs three Press Officers, whose basic salary scales currently range from £23,764 to £31,003, £26,688 to £35,214 and £42,999 to £56,737.

  Young Offenders Institution, Glyn Neath
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he received concerning the application for planning permission for a youth offender institution in Glyn Neath; and how many of those supported the application. [150054]

  Mr. Hain
  I have received a number of representations on this issue, expressing a range of views.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Staff
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff work at the British High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan. [149889]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are 94 UK based and 334 locally employed staff working at the British High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average number of staff working at a British High Commission was in 2003. [149890]
  414W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average numbers of staff working at a British High Commission (HM representation in Commonwealth countries) in 2003 was: UK based 19 and locally employed 67.

  Guantanamo Bay
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long each of the British citizens being held in Guantanamo Bay has been held; and if he will make a statement. [151471]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are nine British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. Three of the British nationals were transferred to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002, two in February 2002, two in May 2002, one in October 2002 and one in February 2003.

  The Government's discussions with the US about the future of all the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay are continuing. It is hoped that the situation will be resolved in the next few weeks.

  Iraq
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of the International Trust Fund to manage Iraq's oil revenues. [149534]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]Iraq's oil revenues are being paid into a Development Fund for Iraq which is overseen by an International Advisory and Monitoring Board, as mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1483.

  Middle East
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning(a) illegal settlements in Gaza and the West Bank and (b)continued construction of the security wall. [149820]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government regularly raise these issues with the Government of Israel. We have made clear that settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to a comprehensive peace in the region, and that we regard the building of the wall on occupied Palestinian land as unlawful

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK Government is taking in relation to the building of the partition wall by Israel in Palestinian territory; and if he will make a statement. [151161]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government continues to urge the Government of Israel to re-route the fence away from Palestinian areas. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minster and the Foreign Secretary have made clear our concerns to the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on a number of occasions. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean has raised the matter with the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli
  415W
  Ambassador and the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructure. My noble Friend saw the impact of the fence for herself on 22 January.

  The Government recognises Israel's legitimate security concerns, and deplores the suicide bombings of Israeli civilians. But we consider Israel's building of a wall, or fence, on occupied land to be unlawful, and have urged the Israeli government to reconsider its route.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people employed in his 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. [148635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office holds detailed electronic records on SSP claims from 1999. To provide the information for 1997 and 1998 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Information from 1999 is as follows:

  19991

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032

  Less than 1 week

  125

  244

  229

  169

  105

  1 to 3 weeks

  30

  91

  75

  62

  41

  4 to 6 weeks

  6

  22

  23

  15

  12

  7 to 12 weeks

  9

  16

  24

  22

  9

  13 to 20 weeks

  6

  15

  11

  15

  9

  21 to 28 weeks

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Data for 1999 is incomplete due to the commencement of the data system in-year.

  2 Data available to 1 September only.

  We are committed to managing sickness absence effectively and expect to meet our Service Devlivery Agreement target for reducing sickness absence to an average of 5.7 days.

  Terrorism (Political Parties)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which nations his Department deems that political parties which remain linked to terrorist groups are participating in Government. [149614]

  Mr. MacShane
  Terrorism is incompatible with the legitimate political life of any nation. It is not clear how many political parties globally have operational or organisational links to terrorist groups. In cases where we do believe there are links, for example Hizbollah in Lebanon, we have pressed strongly for the abandonment of all terrorist activity and the exclusive pursuit of legitimate political engagement.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ghana
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the help given to rural Ghana. [151169]
  416W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK, in common with the majority of donors to Ghana, is supporting the implementation of the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy, which prioritises support for rural Ghana, where 56 per cent. of Ghanaians live. Together with others, we are backing programmes to improve land administration, forest management, agriculture, communications, and access to markets and financial services, and to improve standards in health care and primary education.

  Zimbabwe
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [151170]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government of Zimbabwe's poorly implemented land reform programme and misguided economic policies continue to fuel the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, which is exacerbated by the effect of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and low and erratic rainfall. At least six million Zimbabweans will require food assistance in the months leading up to the harvest in April 2004. DFID has contributed £62 million for humanitarian assistance for Zimbabwe since the crisis began in 2001 and provides further funds to help tackle HIV/AIDS.

  Uganda
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the impact of conflict in Uganda on the Department's work there. [151171]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's programme in Uganda, as elsewhere, focuses on poverty reduction. As a result of the conflict, levels of poverty in the north remain high, and have not been falling as elsewhere in the country. 63 per cent. of households in the north live below the poverty line compared with 38 per cent. nationally. The conflict severely hinders long-term development activities. The UK programme in the north has focused on humanitarian support and interventions to help resolve the conflict. We have provided £7.3 million of humanitarian assistance over the last 12 months. We will be discussing the conflict with President Museveni during his UK visit this week.

  Bilateral Aid
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria are used by his Department to avoid fraudulent use of bilateral aid; and if he will make a statement. [151172]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's Programme and Project Management procedures are designed to minimise the risks of bilateral aid being diverted for fraudulent purposes. The procedures include strict controls over project appraisal, approval, procurement, payments, monitoring and evaluation. In addition, all DFID's activities are open to scrutiny by my Department's Internal Auditors and by the UK National Audit Office (NAO).
  417W
  DFID is also committed to supporting the improvement of governance, transparency and accountability in developing countries. My Department itself operates, and encourages in others, a "zero tolerance" stance towards fraud and corruption.

  Along with other aspects of development, DFID harmonises its anti-fraud and anti-corruption policies with other donors. The NAO commented in a recent report that "DFID's work is well-regarded by its partners who acknowledge the leading and proactive role that DFID plays in tackling corruption issues."

  EU Overseas Aid
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the UK's priorities for EU overseas aid. [151173]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK Government's main objective for EC development co-operation is to improve its poverty focus and the effectiveness of its programmes. Our Public Service Agreement sets a target for increasing the proportion of EC overseas development assistance going to low-income countries to 70 per cent. by 2006.

  Over the next year it will be important to engage the new European Parliament, Commission, and member states on developments issues and to continue to ensure development issues are adequately reflected in the debates on future financing and post Inter-governmental Conference discussions.

  Botswana
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's work on HIV/AIDs in Botswana. [151174]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is contributing 0.65 million over five years to a programme implemented by the Southern African Development Community to help address HIV/AIDS in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. The programme supports the social marketing of condoms, strengthening of National AIDS Commissions in each of the countries and work to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission at cross border sites.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on development assistance to Vietnam. [151175]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development will spend approximately £24 million bilaterally to support poverty reduction in Vietnam in 2003–04, and up to £60 million by 2005–06. The new Vietnam Country Assistance Plan (CAP), to be published shortly, will set out in detail the Department's plans in Vietnam for the next 3–4 years. The key priority will be to support the broad strategy laid out in the Government of Vietnam's own poverty reduction plan, the Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS 418W
  DFID's Country Assistance Programme for Vietnam will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library

  Iraq
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the current humanitarian situation in Iraq. [151176]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In spite of difficulties resulting from the security situation in Iraq, there is no humanitarian crisis in the country. Significant progress has been made since the end of the conflict in restoring essential services, restoring the Public Distribution System for food rations, reopening hospitals and schools, and beginning process of longer-term reconstruction.

  US$33 billion in grants and soft loans was pledged for the reconstruction of Iraq at the Madrid Donors' Conference in October. DFID has already committed £220 million to humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the result was of the consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers on possible next steps in maintaining public order in Iraq. [150001]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office consult regularly with Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) representatives on a range of issues related to the UK support for police training and reform in Iraq.

  ACPO's international affairs office has made a critical contribution to these efforts. This has included facilitating the secondment of 80 serving British officers currently involved in advisory and training roles in Baghdad, Basra and at the Jordan International Police Training Centre; and advice on the overall shape and objectives of the UK police contribution in Iraq.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent estimate had been made of the state of essential civilian infrastructure prior to the commencement of the military conflict in Iraq; and what plans his Department prepared for maintenance and repairs of the infrastructure. [150223]

  Hilary Benn
  United Nations and NGO organisations active in Iraq made assessments of civilian infrastructure prior to the conflict. These included United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, International Committee Red Cross and CARE International UK. The Joint Needs Assessment prepared by the UN and World Bank before the Madrid Donors' Conference in October 2003 also assessed the condition of infrastructure pre and post conflict.

  The Department's assistance prior to the conflict and in the immediate aftermath was largely channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs. These organisations had experience of working in Iraq, well-established local networks and a capacity to deliver assistance on the ground. They were able to move back

  419W
  into Iraq quickly after the major conflict ended and set up effective humanitarvian operations. The Department helped these organisations to prepare for the post conflict phase.

  As it became clear that the continuing insecurity meant that the UN was unable to operate in Iraq, we provided support to essential infrastructure in Southern Iraq. This was also informed by the needs assessment work in the lead-up to the Madrid Conference in October, following which we committed £20 million as a contribution to a US․127 million CPA Essential Services Programme for the restoration of essential infrastructure in Southern Iraq.

  World Trade Negotiations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the progress of world trade negotiations, as they affect less developed countries. [151177]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  There have been intensive informal discussions since the Cancun ministerial meeting between Perez del Castillo, chair of the WTO Governing Council, and the various WTO delegations in Geneva, to try to resolve the outstanding issues left over from the Ministerial. However, del Castillo reported to the senior officials meeting on 15 December that these discussions had not achieved their objective.

  Despite this, I am encouraged by the statements made by all WTO members that they remain committed to a resumption of talks and to the ambitions of the Doha Development Agenda. The expected increase in global welfare from a reduction of trade barriers will be shared by both developing and developed countries. It is in all our interest that we make progress with the trade negotiations and bring them to a successful conclusion.

  Afghanistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps are being taken to ensure recent flooding in the Herat region of Afghanistan does not hamper future crop production; [150977]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact which recent flooding has had on (a) basic transport and (b) educational infrastructure in the Herat region of Afghanistan; [150978]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in the Herat region of Afghanistan, following recent flooding. [150975]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A three-day persistent rain, which started on 16 January 2004, resulted in heavy flooding in Guzara district of Herat Province.

  Although there were no human casualties, 500 families were affected, 250 houses were partially destroyed and over 850 hectares of cultivated land was left under water. However, There are as yet no confirmed reports of educational or basic transport infrastructure destruction.

  A combined disaster management team including representatives from Government Ministries, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
  420W
  has dispatched an assessment mission to the affected villages. Humanitarian assistance has now been supplied to the affected families by international aid agencies, which includes tents, blankets, jerry cans, kitchen utensils, and one-month food ration. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has pledged to provide seeds and will work on re-enforcement of the Guzara district canal, while the US led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) has earmarked US․50,000 for rehabilitation efforts.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact the closure of the Salang tunnel has had on humanitarian efforts in the northern regions of Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [150979]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Heavy snowfalls on 15 and 16 January with high winds and avalanches forced a temporary closure of the Salang tunnel, the key route from Kabul to the country's northern provinces. However, this closure was fortunately short, and the Salang road and tunnel reopened to traffic on 18 January. Although all UN road missions were temporarily suspended during the closure period, there are no reports of any significant impact on humanitarian operations, as a result of this closure.

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are in place to provide people living in the slums of Bangladesh with(a) clean water and (b) electricity. [150345]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  As elsewhere, slum dwellers in Bangladesh have few legal entitlements to essential services. As a consequence, they experience poor service provision, including water and electricity.

  There are two distinct types of slum in Bangladesh, public and private:
  (i) In public slums, some NGOs have taken the initiative to act as intermediaries between municipal water service providers and slum dwellers occupying public land. These NGOs become the customer of the water service provider and supply the slum dwellers through tap points. Those who use the tap points pay for the water they use. DFID is supporting such activities through a £17 million grant to WaterAid. Electricity is not usually affordable for slum dwellers, although it is not unusual for houses to be served by illegal connections; and
  (ii) In private slums, the landlord makes arrangements for the provision of services such as water and electricity and charges slum dwellers for use of the service.

  Central America
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are in place to aid the employees of garment factories in Central America who are exploited by their employers. [150346]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  There are two sets of measures in place to try to assist employees of garment factories in Central America. First, in a range of Central America countries governments have in place, national Competitiveness Programmes. In Nicaragua for example, this Programme is supported through the World Wide Response on Apparel Production (WRAP), and funded by the World Bank. It aims to put in place codes of conduct that include labour standards.
  421W
  Second, US retailers, the main purchasers of garments from the Central American garment or "maquilla" industry, are under pressure from northern consumers to conform to these codes and many are including monitoring of such codes as part of contractual agreements with wholesale garment producers, as well as spot checks in factories. In such cases lack of compliance is subject to sanctions by the retail purchasers.

  During 2003 DFID Central America supported a national level workshop in Nicaragua to enable government, private sector and civil society to discuss national codes. This was the first time in Central America that institutions involved in the setting, operating and monitoring of codes had all met to debate this issue.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that food aid in Ethiopia is purchased from local farmers. [150104]

  Hilary Benn
  During the crisis of 2002–03, DFID was largely unable to provide food aid from local purchase. This was because of the severity of the overall national food shortage. Ethiopia required 1.8 million metric tonnes of food assistance, and at the request of the Ethiopian Government, this was mostly imported.

  This year will provide better opportunities for local purchase of grains as production is up by 46 per cent. DFID is also considering providing cash instead of food to people in need. This will reduce the negative impact of imported food aid on local markets and farmers and will increase the purchasing power of those affected by food shortage.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the predicted harvest in Ethiopia and its impact on the numbers requiring food aid in that country. [150105]

  Hilary Benn
  The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) estimate national cereal and pulse production for the main harvest of 2003–04 in Ethiopia to be just over 13 million metric tonnes. This is a 46 per cent. increase on the 2002–03 harvest and an 11 per cent. increase on the last five year average.

  Despite the good crop, about 7.2 million people will need food aid —almost half that of last year. This equals an overall food requirement of 980,000 metric tonnes compared with 1.8 million metric tonnes in 2002–03.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what cost savings have been made in his Department since the introduction of the Information Technology Procurement Centre of Excellence; and how these were calculated. [151047]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID are currently embedding the key COE functions in our programme for reviewing Business Processes and Corporate systems (which is called Catalyst). As cost benefits will not accrue until improvements start to take effect, it is too early to measure cost savings.
  422W
  Detailed information will be available in future once the Catalyst programme is fully in place and has had an opportunity to collect the necessary statistics.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what audit mechanisms are in place to determine whether all Information Technology hardware and software products are being properly utilised in his Department. [151055]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A series of audit mechanisms are in place within DFID to determine that all IT hardware and software products are being properly utilised. User guidance on Acceptable Use is in force and is published on the DFID Intranet (InSight).

  The arrangements to track hardware assets are as follows:
  1. Details of PC and printer hardware are maintained in the Desktop Inventory software package by Peregrine. Equipment is held both by type and by allocated serial number, and details are entered at the time of issue (or re-4 issue) of to whom equipment is issued and where it is located. Periodic stocktakes are undertaken to confirm and to update the information held in the inventory database, and anomalies are investigated.
  2. Details of remote working laptop computers are held in a separate Microsoft Access database. This has been found to be more convenient from a support point of view since laptops tend to require rather more maintenance in service, and more configuration information can be held in this form of corporate record. Again, the equipment is recorded by a uniquely-allocated serial number, and is allocated to a named individual.
  3. A separate issue and return record is maintained for pool laptops, under which authorised individuals may draw a laptop, and sign for it when taking it out. Issues are time dependant, with users being responsible for the safe return of the equipment—late returns are followed up.

  The arrangements to retold software products in use are as follows:
  1. DFID employs a standard desk top system, which is distributed to all users. The latest version of this is locked down —this means that only the system supervisor can load application software onto the machine, and executable program files cannot be downloaded from the Internet.
  2. The Information Systems Department will load other authorised software for specific individuals or departments who require it, but not until it has been fully tested to confirm that it does not interfere with any other, software loaded on the machine or the network.
  3. The Desktop Inventory product is used centrally to report on what software is loaded on DFID computers, and to check for the presence of files that contravene the central Acceptable Use Policy. Where suspicious files (eg. MP3,.jpg and.bmp files) are identified, these are either deleted or the reason for their presence is investigated by the Technical Security Manager.

  Software licences are held and managed centrally, as a manual exercise at the moment. A Software Asset Management (SAM) system is currently under investigation to automate this process.

  Operationally, user activity on the system, including file accesses, is logged, and the log files are subject to spot checks. User Internet activity is likewise logged and available for spot checks—this includes sites visited from remote working systems.

  Malnutrition (Africa)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his most recent
  423W
  estimate is of levels of malnutrition in (a) Ethiopia, (b) Malawi and (c) the Democratic Republic of Congo. [149979]

  Hilary Benn
  There are a number of ways to measure malnutrition. Height for age (stunting) is the most common way of measuring chronic poverty and malnutrition by showing the percentage of children that have not reached an expected height at a given age. According to UNICEF and correct up to 2001, the stunting rates for Ethiopia, Malawi and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are 52 per cent., 49 per cent., and 38 per cent. respectively.

  Wasting is an indicator that better measures short-term changes in malnutrition during an emergency by showing the percentage of children that are underweight in relation to their height. It is more difficult to determine for a country because it varies according to the degree of emergency and tends to be area focused rather than reflect a national trend. For example, in Ethiopia, 2002–03 figures for wasting rose as high as 32 per cent. in some areas. The same areas—a few months later—showed rates of 8 per cent. following the emergency operation.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost to his Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148027]

  Hilary Benn
  Expenditure on consultancy services for the development programme in each of the last five years is recorded in "Statistics on International Development", Table 12. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House. We do not keep a central record of the cost of management consultants in particular and this information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of maternal mortality rates in refugee camps in Pakistan. [149996]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A report by the Commonwealth Development Corporation covering the period from 1999 to 2000 found that 41 per cent. of deaths of Afghan refugee women of reproductive age in Pakistan were due to maternal causes. This exceeded the proportion of deaths related to any other cause for this group.

  In response to the high levels of maternal mortality, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees runs basic health units in its camps for Afghan refugees. The health units include female health workers and doctors, who provide health care to pregnant refugees and advise women on all health issues. The improved access to health care has helped to reduce maternal deaths among refugee women.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many new investments have been made by CDC in sub-Saharan Africa in the past 12 months. [151165]
  424W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  CDC Capital Partners has made six new investments totalling nearly £104 million in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 12 months. These include a £53 million investment in Songas, a Tanzanian power company and a £10 million investment in Flamingo Holdings, an integrated agribusiness in Kenya. CDC also made additional investments of £19.9 million into 26 of its existing holdings in the region during 2003.

  Sudan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian impact which the closure of Intifada camps Number one and Number two by Sudanese authorities will have; and if he will make a statement. [150110]

  Hilary Benn
  We continue to be concerned about the protection and assistance afforded to all internally displaced people (IDPs) in the Darfur region of Sudan, where there are reports of further significant population movements due to the ongoing conflict. This includes those IDPs relocated from the Intifada camp in Nyala, South Darfur. We continue to urge the parties to engage in peaceful negotiations, and to allow humanitarian agencies full and unimpeded access to IDPs and to those affected by the conflict.

  Swaziland
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has made to the government of Swaziland over the decision to build new palaces for King Mswati's wives. [150981]

  Hilary Benn
  We understand that the Government of Swaziland has not yet reached a decision on this matter. Our High Commissioner in Mbabane has discussed the issue with senior Ministers in Swaziland, and has expressed concern that non-essential government expenditure could undermine the government's ability to deal with pressing poverty issues, including food security and HIV/AIDS.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact the decision by the Government of Swaziland to spend ․14 million on new palaces for King Mswati's wives will have on(a) UK bilateral aid programmes and (b) multilateral aid to that country. [150982]

  Hilary Benn
  Swaziland faces serious challenges in the next few years—including HIV/AIDS, constitutional reform and economic growth. At present DFID is only directly financing two programmes in Swaziland—support to the Coalition of Non-Government Organisations, and a programme on rural water supply. Neither channel funds directly to the Government and both are due to end during 2004.

  The European Union, who expect to provide €43 million to Swaziland under the ninth replenishment of the European Development Fund is pursuing a process of political dialogue with the Government of Swaziland under the Cotonou Agreement.
  425W
  Swaziland is also expected to receive support from international humanitarian agencies to assist with food security issues in the country, and from organisations such as the Global Fund against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria to help address HIV/AIDS.

  Trade-related Assistance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the countries which have benefited from the Government's funding for trade-related capacity building and technical assistance since 1998; and how the money has been used. [149071]

  Hilary Benn
  £160 million has been committed to trade related capacity building from 1998—more than treble the pledge in the 2000 White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor."

  Trade related capacity building assistance and technical assistance has been delivered through bilateral, regional and multilateral channels for the benefit of individual countries and groups of countries.

  Therefore all developing countries and territories and some of the countries and territories in transition listed in the Departmental Report 2003 have benefited from the Government's trade-related capacity building and technical assistance since 1998.

  Funding has been provided for the development of trade sectors such as services, tourism, fisheries, forestry, public/private sector networking, banking and finance, business support services and institutions, industry and agriculture.

  Assistance has also been provided for the formulation of trade policy through to benefit poor people with an emphasis on including trade issues in national poverty reduction and country assistance plans. Support has also been provided for training in trade negotiation techniques, agriculture, intellectual property rights, dispute settlement, regional trade agreements, assisting with accession to the WTO and trade facilitation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the countries that will benefit from the £50 million support announced by his predecessor in September 2003 for trade-related capacity building and technical assistance. [149072]

  Hilary Benn
  Nigeria will benefit from a programme designed to improve poor people's access to commodity and services markets.

  Ukraine will benefit from a programme designed to support progress towards accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and greater integration into the global economy.

  The Government are also supporting a regional trade facilitation programme with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Secretariats. The precise allocation of resources within and between these regional groups will be for the Secretariats to decide.
  426W
  In addition, direct support to central government budgets will be provided to a number of developing countries, especially in Africa.

  Uzbekistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the levels of household fuel poverty in Uzbekistan. [150980]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has not made an assessment of the levels of household fuel poverty in Uzbekistan. The World Bank is currently undertaking a survey of the Energy Policy Sector that will link poverty and access to fuel by households in Uzbekistan. The results of the study will be available later this year and can be accessed through the World Bank website (www.worldbank.org).

  World Social Forum
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department(a) was represented at and (b) sent observers to the World Social Forum held in Mumbai this month. [149963]

  Hilary Benn
  Two Social Development Advisers from DFID's office in New Delhi attended the World Social Forum held in Mumbai, India from 16 to 21 January, as Delegates. Also, an official from DFID London attended the Forum as an Observer. Feedback suggests that their contribution to the broad range of issues discussed was highly valued.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason the data used to calculate area cost adjustment includes pay data for the public sector; and if he will make it his policy to use only private sector pay rates in future calculations. [151129]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The area cost adjustment (ACA) is the element of the funding formula which takes account of the different costs of labour and non domestic rates between areas. The labour cost element of the ACA is calculated using hourly wage data for both the public and private sector from the New Earnings Survey (NES).

  To use exclusively private sector pay in calculating the ACA would take little account of how any public sector employers, such as the NHS, affect pay in their local labour market. Private sector wages also vary more across the country than public sector wages because many public sector employees are paid according to national pay scales. To base the ACA on private sector wages alone would overstate the variability in staff costs for local authorities across the country.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently reviewed the grant distribution system and introduced new formula from 2003–04. It was announced in the 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" (CM5237) that the funding formulae

  427W
  will be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intend to change the way that the ACA is calculated during this period.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason the data used to calculate area cost adjustment excludes overtime pay data; and if he will make it his policy to include such data in future calculations. [151130]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The area cost adjustment (ACA) is the element of the funding formula which takes account of the different costs of labour and non domestic rates between areas. The labour cost element of the ACA is calculated using hourly wage data excluding overtime from the New Earnings Survey (NES). The NES is a snapshot of the wages people earn in a given week in April each year.

  In calculating the ACA the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister need to be able to compare wage costs in different areas on a consistent basis. This is why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looks at hourly rather than weekly wages, and why the wage data used is only taken from those on adult pay rates, whose weekly wage has not been affected by absence and excludes overtime. The availability of overtime to individual workers is erratic. Because. the NES is a snapshot, it is impossible to tell whether an individual is working overtime as a routine part of their job, or because a colleague is sick and the firm needs cover. And overtime payments often depend on the time and day overtime is worked. All of which diminishes our ability to compare labour costs between areas on a like for like basis.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced in the 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" (CM5237) that the funding formulae will be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intend to change the way that the ACA is calculated during this period.

  Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Essex's Fire Service; [149693]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Essex Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [149695]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Essex on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; and what their advice was; [149699]

  (4) what community consultation he has held in Essex on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [149700]

  (5) what effect regionalisation of the Fire and Rescue Service in Essex will have on fire stations in (a) Colchester, (b) Manningtree, (c) Dovercourt, (d) Frinton, (e) Clacton, (f) Brightlingsea, (g) Weeley, (h) Wivenhoe, (i) West Mersea, (j) Tollesbury, (k) Tiptree, (l) Coggeshall and (m) Halstead. [149705]
  428W
  (6) whether the Fire and Rescue Service in Essex will be regionalised whether or not the people of Essex will vote for an elected regional assembly. [149718]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for Buckingham, Taunton, North Thanet, North Wiltshire, Runnymede and Weybridge, South East Cambridgeshire, Brentwood and Ongar, Poole and Spelthorne on 22 January 2003,Official Report, columns 1456–58W.

  A 'soundings exercise', inviting views, information and evidence on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum on the creation of an elected regional assembly was held between December 2002 and May 2003. A summary of material received in this soundings exercise is available in the Library of the House. In the light of the views expressed, no referendum is currently planned for the East of England.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what community consultation he has held in Staffordshire on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service; [149848]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Staffordshire Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service. [149850]

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whom he has consulted on the plans to regionalise Hereford and Worcester's Fire Service; [149833]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the West Mercia Police Authority on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [149835]

  (3) what discussions he has had with (a) retained and (b) full-time firefighters in Hereford and Worcester on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; and what their advice was; [149839]

  (4) what community consultation he has held in Hereford and Worcester on his plans to regionalise the Fire Service; [149840]

  (5) what research relating to Hereford and Worcester he has commissioned to provide the evidential basis for his plans to regionalise the Fire Service. [149841]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given to the hon. Members for Buckingham, Taunton, North Thanet, North Wiltshire, Runnymede and Weybridge, South East Cambridgeshire, Brentwood and Ongar, Poole and Spelthorne on 22 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1456–58W.

  Leaseholders (Insurance)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to introduce a commencement order under the Commonhold and Leasehold Act 2002 to prevent landlords from insisting that their leasehold tenants use a particular insurance company to insure their property. [151541]
  429W
  Keith Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 569W.

  Leisure Facilities (Brent, East)
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment the Audit Commission has made of leisure facilities in Brent East. [151122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission carried out an inspection of the London Borough of Brent's Sport and Leisure facilities in April 2002, in which the council was awarded a poor, no star score with poor prospects for improvement. The council has made investments in this area and an Audit Commission inspection team is planning to return to Brent later this year to check on the council's progress.

  Education formulae

  PSS

  EPCS

  Primary education

  LEA

  Older people

  LT EPCS

  Child aged 5–10

  Sparsity top up (£) per Resident pupil aged 3–18

  Person 65+

  Resident

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.00

  0.00

  0.27

  0.53

  Barnet

  0.00

  0.00

  0.21

  0.39

  Barnsley

  15.70

  12.65

  1.85

  3.61

  Bath and North East Somerset

  38.00

  30.63

  2.50

  6.86

  Bedfordshire

  73.15

  58.96

  3.59

  —

  Bexley

  0.00

  0.00

  0.23

  0.57

  Birmingham

  0.00

  0.00

  0.18

  0.31

  Blackburn with Darwen

  13.37

  10.78

  1.40

  2.88

  Blackpool

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.18

  Bolton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.62

  1.29

  Bournemouth

  0.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.09

  Bracknell Forest

  8.75

  7.05

  1.16

  2.98

  Bradford

  10.75

  8.66

  0.77

  1.78

  Brent

  0.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.13

  Brighton and Hove

  0.00

  0.00

  0.40

  0.93

  Bristol

  0.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.18

  Bromley

  2.54

  2.05

  0.42

  1.29

  Buckinghamshire

  70.08

  56.48

  3.63

  —

  Bury

  0.00

  0.00

  0.69

  1.53

  Calderdale

  30.14

  24.29

  2.01

  4.92

  Cambridgeshire

  129.06

  104.02

  5.57

  —

  Camden

  0.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.14

  Cheshire

  61.04

  49.20

  3.01

  —

  City of London

  6.89

  5.55

  1.16

  2.22

  Cornwall

  131.55

  106.03

  6.85

  —

  Coventry

  0.00

  0.00

  0.21

  0.39

  Croydon

  0.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.13

  Cumbria

  158.10

  127.42

  7.06

  —

  Darlington

  38.75

  31.23

  1.65

  4.14

  Derby

  0.00

  0.00

  0.14

  0.35

  Derbyshire

  68.29

  55.04

  4.09

  —

  Devon

  165.22

  133.17

  6.46

  —

  Doncaster

  62.86

  50.67

  2.15

  4.71

  Dorset

  125.14

  100.86

  4.21

  —

  Dudley

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.11

  Durham

  63.30

  51.02

  3.91

  —

  Ealing

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  138.85

  111.92

  5.74

  16.30

  East Sussex

  68.98

  55.59

  3.11

  —

  Enfield

  0.00

  0.00

  0.21

  0.52

  Essex

  54.60

  44.01

  2.82

  —

  Gateshead

  7.33

  5.91

  1.05

  1.98

  Gloucestershire

  89.78

  72.36

  4.08

  —

  Greenwich

  0.00

  0.00

  0.18

  0.28

  Hackney

  0.00

  0.00

  0.13

  0.09

  Halton

  5.08

  4.09

  1.09

  1.99

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Local Government
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the rurality factor given to each of the(a) county councils and (b) unitary authorities in England for the latest local authority financial settlements. [150601]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The formula spending shares (FSS) formulae listed in the following table have sub blocks which contain a sparsity factor.

  Formula

  Sub block

  Environmental Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS)

  Lower Tier EPCS

  Education

  Primary Education

  Local Education Authorities

  Personal Social Services (PSS)

  Older Peoples

  The sparsity top up for each county council and unitary authority for each of the above formulae is listed in the following table:
  431W

  Education formulae

  PSS

  EPCS

  Primary education

  LEA

  Older People

  LT EPCS

  Child aged 5–10

  Sparsity top up (£) per Resident pupil aged 3–18

  person 65+

  Resident

  Hampshire

  56.51

  45.55

  2.29

  —

  Haringey

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.08

  Harrow

  0.00

  0.00

  0.14

  0.38

  Hartlepool

  15.23

  12.28

  0.99

  2.07

  Havering

  0.00

  0.00

  0.40

  1.16

  Herefordshire

  224.49

  180.94

  8.97

  25.24

  Hertfordshire

  30.10

  24.26

  1.82

  —

  Hillingdon

  0.00

  0.00

  0.26

  0.61

  Hounslow

  0.00

  0.00

  0.16

  0.31

  Isle of Wight Council

  85.79

  69.15

  3.38

  9.75

  Isles of Scilly

  252.53

  203.54

  10.57

  28.96

  Islington

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Kent

  49.65

  40.02

  2.81

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  0.00

  0.00

  0.26

  0.45

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.00

  0.00

  0.12

  0.30

  Kirklees

  28.79

  23.20

  1.33

  3.10

  Knowsley

  16.26

  13.10

  1.06

  1.79

  Lambeth

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Lancashire

  47.57

  38.34

  2.56

  —

  Leeds

  12.11

  9.76

  0.98

  2.26

  Leicester

  0.00

  0.00

  0.17

  0.31

  Leicestershire

  66.58

  53.66

  3.28

  —

  Lewisham

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  Lincolnshire

  169.39

  136.53

  6.68

  —

  Liverpool

  0.00

  0.00

  0.21

  0.36

  Luton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.13

  0.24

  Manchester

  0.00

  0.00

  0.10

  0.20

  Medway

  17.10

  13.78

  0.75

  1.96

  Merton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.21

  Middlesbrough

  0.00

  0.00

  0.23

  0.45

  Milton Keynes

  38.37

  30.93

  1.70

  3.76

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.00

  0.00

  0.43

  0.86

  Newham

  0.00

  0.00

  0.11

  0.14

  Norfolk

  139.41

  112.36

  5.85

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  29.02

  23.39

  1.15

  2.82

  North Lincolnshire

  101.56

  81.86

  5.61

  14.66

  North Somerset

  49.84

  40.17

  2.22

  6.10

  North Tyneside

  0.00

  0.00

  0.51

  1.12

  North Yorkshire

  215.57

  173.75

  7.10

  —

  Northamptonshire

  71.82

  57.89

  4.01

  —

  Northumberland

  129.48

  104.36

  6.02

  —

  Nottingham

  0.00

  0.00

  0.16

  0.38

  Nottinghamshire

  50.68

  40.85

  2.65

  —

  Oldham

  10.08

  8.12

  0.61

  1.20

  Oxfordshire

  91.54

  73.78

  4.44

  —

  Peterborough

  32.78

  26.42

  1.49

  3.43

  Plymouth

  0.00

  0.00

  0.14

  0.29

  Poole

  0.00

  0.00

  0.16

  0.43

  Portsmouth

  0.00

  0.00

  0.19

  0.39

  Reading

  0.00

  0.00

  0.12

  0.37

  Redbridge

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.20

  Redcar and Cleveland

  31.13

  25.09

  1.42

  3.25

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.00

  0.00

  0.25

  0.64

  Rochdale

  0.00

  0.00

  0.92

  1.90

  Rotherham

  20.32

  16.38

  1.85

  3.67

  Rutland

  210.25

  169.46

  8.52

  28.11

  Salford

  0.00

  0.00

  0.46

  0.82

  Sandwell

  0.00

  0.00

  0.18

  0.27

  Sefton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.63

  1.34

  Sheffield

  8.00

  6.45

  0.50

  1.00

  Shropshire

  193.67

  156.10

  8.62

  —

  Slough

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.23

  Solihull

  21.19

  17.08

  0.89

  2.44

  Somerset

  129.42

  104.31

  5.97

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  49.33

  39.76

  2.00

  5.80

  South Tyneside

  0.00

  0.00

  0.49

  0.89

  Southampton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.14

  Southend-on-Sea

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.23

  Southwark

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  St Helens

  8.58

  6.91

  0.97

  1.91

  Staffordshire

  59.27

  47.77

  3.24

  —

  432W 433W

  Education formulae

  PSS

  EPCS

  Primary education

  LEA

  Older People

  LT EPCS

  Child aged 5–10

  Sparsity top up (£) per Resident pupil aged 3–18

  Person 65+

  Resident

  Stockport

  0.00

  0.00

  0.25

  0.69

  Stockton-on-Tees

  17.80

  14.34

  1.06

  2.49

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0.00

  0.00

  0.24

  0.53

  Suffolk

  109.96

  88.63

  5.29

  —

  Sunderland

  0.00

  0.00

  0.43

  0.81

  Surrey

  27.67

  22.30

  1.77

  —

  Sutton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.17

  Swindon

  25.15

  20.27

  1.16

  3.05

  Tameside

  0.00

  0.00

  0.40

  0.80

  Telford and the Wrekin

  38.88

  31.33

  2.53

  5.25

  Thurrock

  14.93

  112.03

  1.74

  4.04

  Torbay

  0.00

  0.00

  0.46

  1.12

  Tower Hamlets

  0.00

  0.00

  0.12

  0.13

  Trafford

  0.00

  0.00

  0.27

  0.58

  Wakefield

  9.00

  7.25

  1.56

  3.19

  Walsall

  0.00

  0.00

  0.33

  0.64

  Waltham Forest

  0.00

  0.00

  0.09

  0.14

  Wandsworth

  0.00

  0.00

  0.09

  0.12

  Warrington

  3.13

  2.52

  1.36

  3.09

  Warwickshire

  80.60

  64.96

  3.99

  —

  West Berkshire

  87.56

  70.57

  4.14

  12.26

  West Sussex

  48.61

  39.18

  2.27

  —

  Westminster

  0.00

  0.00

  0.18

  0.24

  Wigan

  0.00

  0.00

  1.04

  1.97

  Wiltshire

  159.07

  128.21

  6.06

  —

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  40.69

  32.79

  1.53

  4.48

  Wirral

  0.00

  0.00

  0.43

  0.89

  Wokingham

  31.19

  25.14

  1.02

  3.60

  Wolverhampton

  0.00

  0.00

  0.08

  0.19

  Worcestershire

  53.30

  42.96

  3.52

  —

  York

  23.19

  18.69

  1.79

  5.26

  The figures are from the 2004–05 Local Government Finance Settlement, laid in Parliament on Thursday, 29 January and are consistent with the simple presentation guide to that settlement, available on the ODPM website.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from organisations campaigning in(a) the North West, (b) the North East and (c) Yorkshire and Humberside in favour of an elected regional assembly for powers to be granted to those assemblies in addition to those set out in Your Region, Your Choice (Cm 5511). [151006]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has received representations from Campaign for a North East Assembly, Campaign for Yorkshire, Copeland Liberal Democrats, Labour North West, Sheffield Hallam Liberal Democrats, North East and Yorkshire and Humber Liberal Democrats who have all expressed views that elected regional assemblies be given additional powers to those set out in the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Motor Vehicle Recovery
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the statutory fee for the 434W
  recovery of a motor vehicle from a motorway was last reviewed; and what the policy of the Government are in relation to variations of the fee. [151248]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]The statutory fees for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles from motorways or other roads were last increased in 1993. Any charges outside these fees are non-statutory and a matter for resolution between the parties concerned.

  The Government believe that the statutory charges should be set at a level which is fair to all parties, including the motorist and vehicle recovery operators.

  We are currently considering the level of the fees and how they should be applied in different circumstances.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of proof is required by magistrates courts before an application for an anti-social behaviour order can be granted. [150996]

  Ms Blears
  In the McCann case in October 2002 the Law Lords ruled that the equivalent of the criminal standard of proof, ie beyond reasonable doubt, should be applied in the interests of fairness and pragmatism to prove past acts of anti-social behaviour which are usually of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature. The necessity of a anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) for the protection of other persons from future anti-social acts remains an exercise of judgment not subject to a standard of proof.
  435W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the success to date of anti-social behaviour orders in Gloucestershire. [150425]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are one of a number of methods being used in Gloucestershire as part of their local strategy to tackle anti-social behaviour. Local practitioners report that ASBOs have been successfully used alongside other tools—such as mediation and anti-social behaviour clauses in tenancy contracts—to reduce anti-social behaviour in the area and transform the behaviour of several perpetrators. Nine ASBOs were granted in Gloucestershire between April 1999 and September 2003.

  As part of the Government's Together campaign to tackle anti-social behaviour, we will be doing more to improve the local response, this includes:
  £75 million over three years to support the Government's action plan,
  Funding for every Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership,
  An ActionLine, Academy and website to help practitioners do more to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been put in place, broken down by(a) police authority and (b) local authority; and how many people have been charged with breaking anti-social behaviour order provisions. [151349]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]Data on the number of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) granted, from 1 April 1999 up to 30 September 2003 (latest available) by Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCC) area, Crown Court circuit, and the county court group and by local authority area have been placed in the Library.

  Information on the number of people charged is not collected centrally. From the Home Office Court Proceedings database, available information relating to breaches of ASBOs, covering the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2002, show s that the number of people who have been prosecuted for breaching an ASBO is 329, of which 305 were found guilty.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been(a) made and (b) breached in each police authority area; and if he will make a statement. [150426]

  Ms Blears
  Data on the number of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) made are reported to the Home Office on a quarterly basis by Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCC), and on a rolling basis by the Crown court (since 2 December 2002) and county courts (since 1 April 2003). Table A gives data on the number of ASBOs made, from 1 April 1999 up to 30 September 2003 (latest available), by MCC area, Crown court circuit, and county court group.
  436W
  The available information relating to breaches of ASBOs, covers the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2002. Table B gives data on the number of ASBOs made, and the number breached, within this period.

  Table A—Number of anti social behaviour orders made, at all courts, as reported

  Magistrates' Courts

  Total ASBOs on application/conviction

  MCC/Police force area

  Avon & Somerset

  45

  Bedfordshire

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  Cheshire

  33

  Cleveland

  23

  Cumbria

  28

  Derbyshire

  21

  Devon & Cornwall

  18

  Dorset

  5

  Durham

  28

  Essex

  4

  Gloucestershire

  9

  GLMCA/Metropolitan Police1

  113

  Greater Manchester

  240

  Hampshire

  37

  Hertfordshire

  26

  Humberside

  19

  Kent

  42

  Lancashire

  56

  Leicestershire

  7

  Lincolnshire

  7

  Merseyside

  66

  Norfolk

  30

  Northamptonshire

  9

  Northumbria

  53

  North Yorkshire

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  South Yorkshire

  44

  Staffordshire

  38

  Suffolk

  27

  Surrey

  10

  Sussex

  39

  Thames Valley

  21

  Warwickshire

  25

  West Mercia

  100

  West Midlands

  154

  West Yorkshire

  82

  Wiltshire

  3

  England

  1,539

  Dyfed Powys

  11

  Gwent

  8

  North Wales

  15

  South Wales

  25

  Wales

  59

  England and Wales MCC/PFA

  1,598

  County Court Group (ASBOs on application)

  London

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  England and Wales County Court Group

  2

  Crown Court Circuit

  Midland

  4

  Northern

  5

  North Eastern

  3

  South Eastern

  1

  South Eastern Provincial

  2

  Western

  7

  Wales and Chester

  1

  England and Wales CC Circuits

  23

  Total all courts England and Wales

  1,623

  1 Including City of London

  437W

  Table B—The number of breaches1 of an anti-social behaviour order from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2003, by MCC/Police Force Area, Crown Court

  Total ASBOs

  Percentage

  MCC/Police Force Area

  Issued

  Breached

  total Breached

  Avon & Somerset

  25

  27

  28

  Bedfordshire

  8

  6

  75

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  2

  40

  Cheshire

  16

  7

  44

  Cleveland

  13

  7

  54

  Cumbria

  15

  2

  13

  Derbyshire

  15

  9

  60

  Devon & Cornwall

  11

  4

  36

  Dorset

  4

  1

  25

  Durham

  21

  16

  76

  Essex

  2

  1

  50

  Gloucestershire

  5

  1

  20

  GLMCA/Metropolitan Police3

  51

  217

  33

  Greater Manchester

  104

  230

  29

  Hampshire

  15

  3

  20

  Hertfordshire

  16

  25

  31

  Humberside

  16

  5

  31

  Kent

  36

  3

  8

  Lancashire

  23

  10

  43

  Leicestershire

  5

  3

  60

  Lincolnshire

  3

  21

  33

  Merseyside

  32

  6

  19

  Norfolk

  19

  28

  42

  Northamptonshire

  9

  1

  11

  Northumbria

  30

  211

  37

  North Yorkshire

  7

  26

  86

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  8

  50

  South Yorkshire

  24

  28

  33

  Staffordshire

  22

  6

  27

  Suffolk

  9

  1

  11

  Surrey

  6

  23

  50

  Sussex

  23

  5

  22

  Thames Valley

  14

  2

  14

  Warwickshire

  18

  8

  44

  West Mercia

  75

  225

  33

  West Midlands.

  93

  42

  45

  West Yorkshire

  29

  13

  45

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  100

  England

  836

  294

  35

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  4

  3

  75

  North Wales

  8

  5

  63

  South Wales

  7

  3

  43

  Wales

  19

  11

  58

  Total England and Wales

  855

  305

  36

  1 Breaches are counted in this table on a persons basis; i.e. multiple breaches (occurring at the same time)

  2 Includes breaches where the ASBO recipient was a juvenile

  3 Including City of London

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in tackling terrorism in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [145077]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 147WS. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has improved our ability to fight crime and terrorism in a number of ways. I have provided several examples of the Acts effectiveness as follows:
  Under Disclosure of Information powers over 100 disclosures were provided to law enforcement agencies in relation to ongoing terrorist investigations.
  Terrorist cash has been seized on 18 occasions since the Act's introduction.
  438W
  Several arrests and prosecutions have been made under the newly created offences of "withholding information relating to a terrorist act" and "Hoaxing".
  24 individuals have been convicted under the newly created offence of "religiously aggravated crime".

  A fuller and more detailed assessment of the improvements that Act has made will be made in the coming weeks when the Privy Council's report on Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is debated in both Houses of Parliament.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the basis was of his refusal to grant asylum to Shahir Patrolli, port reference number Man/02/176; and if he will make a statement; [144475]

  (2) what evidential basis he stated in his refusal to grant asylum to Shahir Patrolli port reference number Man/02/176 that he was aware that no one from the Roma ethnic group lived at Suhodol; and if he will make a statement. [144476]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon Member on 27 January 2004.

  Business Crime
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require police authorities to provide him with statistics each year on the level of business crime in each area; and if he will make a statement. [150772]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office currently publishes annual total crime statistics recorded by the police in England and Wales for the following offences specifically relating to business crime: robbery of business property, theft by an employee, theft from shops and theft of an automatic machine or meter. Statistics for these offences have not been published at police force area level. The most recent volume of recorded crime statistics was published in July 2003, in Statistical Bulletin 7/03, "Crime in England and Wales 2002/03", which is available via the Research Development Statistics (RDS) website. A copy of the Bulletin has been placed in the Library.

  The business crime team within the Home Office has recently begun a process of examining how current information on business crime, including retail crime, can be enhanced. To this end, the Research, Development and Statistics Department have been approached to examine the feasibility of different options. This work is on-going.

  However, in view of the complexity and range of crimes experienced by the business sector, it has rapidly become clear that no one single method of collecting data will provide a sufficiently complete picture. We are therefore considering how both police and survey data collection can be refined and extended to give us a more accurate and comprehensive overview of the crimes experienced by businesses.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants are available for introducing CCTV into(a) villages and (b) rural railway stations. [151267]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently funds available for the installation of CCTV in all locations, including villages and rural railway stations, under the Building Safer Communities Fund. The Home Office allocates the Building Safer Communities Fund to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to enable them to tackle local crime priorities through a number of interventions, including CCTV facilities. For 2003–04, the Building Safer Communities Fund has provided Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships with £72.3million.

  Community Sentence Breaches
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to amend the rules on evidence relating to magistrates courts cases involving breaches of anti-social behaviour orders to allow hearsay evidence to be heard. [150995]

  Ms Blears
  Breach of an anti-social behaviour order is a criminal offence and rules relating to criminal evidence apply as they do for other criminal offences. The basic rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible in criminal proceedings unless the maker of the statement is unavailable or where business documents are involved. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 will change the rules relating to hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings to make it admissible in specified circumstances such as where it is in the interests of justice.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 10 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. S. Khan. [145963]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27 January 2004.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 10 November 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Gohal Ali Khan; [147617]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 10 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Gohal Ali Khan. [149548]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27 January 2004.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 13 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. E. Ebasani. [151233]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 23 January 2004.

  Criminal Justice Boards
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from victim and witness services since the announcement of the transfer of funding to local criminal justice boards. [143645]

  Paul Goggins
  We are piloting the devolution of funding for the Witness Service to Local Criminal Justice Boards in four areas (Essex, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Surrey) from April 2004. The aim of the pilots is to improve local responsiveness to the needs of witnesses and accountability for services. We are working closely with the National Association of Victim Support Schemes and the local Victim Support schemes which run the Witness Service in the four areas on the detailed arrangements for the pilots.

  In November, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary met the Chief Executive of the National Association of Victim Support Schemes and the Chair of National Association's Board of Trustees to discuss their concerns about the proposal, and a similar meeting took place in July with Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

  The Chief Executive of the National Association of Victim Support Schemes has also drawn these concerns to the attention of the Criminal Justice Council, which advises the National Criminal Justice Board.

  The Home Office has received 15 representations from Victim Support schemes that are not involved in the pilot projects.

  There is a range of views among local Victim Support Schemes and other practitioners about the proposal to devolve funding to Local Boards. The purpose of the pilot is to test whether devolution of funding results in more effective support and services for witnesses. The pilots will only be rolled out nationally if the evaluation demonstrates that the new arrangements are effective.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the number of employers who have decided not to employ someone as a result of a Criminal Records Bureau disclosure in the last five years; and what guidance is given to employers to ensure that such decisions are based on a fair assessment of the relevance of disclosed offences; [144963]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of employees turned down for jobs following a Criminal Records Bureau check in the last five years. [144964]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 December 2003]There are no records available to indicate the number of employees that have been turned down for jobs following a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check. Recruitment decisions are entirely a matter for the employer and the CRB would not normally comment on a person's suitability for a position. However, an independent survey has shown that, since the CRB launched its Disclosure service in March 2002, an estimated 18 per cent. of employers that have used the service have decided not to employ an individual as a consequence of conviction information or another matter contained in a Disclosure.
  441W
  All recipients of Disclosure information issued by the CRB are subject to a Code of Practice, made under the Police Act 1997 and laid before Parliament. This makes it clear that no recipient of Disclosure information shall unfairly discriminate against the subject of the information on the basis of conviction or other details revealed. The ode requires job applicants to be advised that successful applicants will be required to request a Disclosure, but that a criminal record will not necessarily be a bar to obtaining employment. The CRB has also produced other guidance, and has collaborated with and endorsed guidance produced by other bodies designed to help employers to arrive at fair and balanced recruitment decisions.

  Dog Kidnapping
  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the incidence of the kidnapping of dogs has been in the last 12 months; [150093]

  (2) what strategy is in place to counter the effects of professional dog-nappers. [150094]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics on the kidnapping of dogs are not held centrally.

  There is no national strategy to counter the effects of professional dog-nappers. Where this is a pressing local crime issue it would be for the police, in consultation with the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership to take appropriate action.

  Knives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding self-regulation schemes for retailers selling knives, with particular reference to the CV One Knife Code. [150952]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]The Government support action which tackles the problem of illicit knife carrying. The Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers believe that it is best for individual police forces and local authorities to decide how to establish and set up schemes like the CV One Knife Code in Coventry, taking into account local factors.

  Market Research
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) opinion polling and (b) market research projects his Department has undertaken in the last financial year; and what the costs were of each project. [149729]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office research department undertakes a wide range of research activities that support the development of information-led policy, including scientific and social research, and includes research gathered from market research and focus groups.

  The Department conducts or commissions market and opinion research and focus groups only when it is justified by the specific needs of a particular policy or programme and when this is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.
  442W
  Consulting and involving the public helps inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services.

  A table of commissioned projects involving opinion polling and market research included at Appendix 1, and also placed in the Library. It has not been possible to provide detailed breakdown of costs of projects where this information is either not held centrally or is commercial in confidence.

  Medicines (Disposal)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on inspection procedures at sites licensed by the Drugs Inspectorate for disposal of medicines and pharmaceuticals. [150438]

  Caroline Flint
  Inspections may be conducted routinely, approximately once per year, or unannounced; such visits may take place on occasions when controlled drugs are being destroyed. In addition to checking the operating procedures the records containing details of consignments and their destruction will be examined.

  Some operators are licensed to store controlled drugs pending destruction while others are only authorised to destroy upon arrival on site.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the minimum security procedures at sites licensed by the Drugs Inspectorate for disposal of medicines and pharmaceuticals. [150439]

  Caroline Flint
  Security requirements are assessed on an individual basis but in all cases controlled drug consignments are required to be recorded and kept safely locked away. In conjunction with the issue of the licence, advice is given on a range of matters bearing on security. This includes appropriate staffing, good handling practice, vehicle management and electronic security as well as liaison with local police.

  National Offenders Management Service
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where the National Offender Management Service will be based. [147435]

  Paul Goggins
  The headquarters will initially be based in London, probably in accommodation currently occupied by the Prison and Probation Services, but once the eventual size and structure has been decided, further consideration will be given to the most appropriate long-term location. Regional offender managers and their staff will of course be located in their regions.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will act as the employer for(a) probation and (b) prison staff within the structure of the National Offenders Managment Services. [147721]

  Paul Goggins
  For most staff in prisons and probation the changes outlined in "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" are unlikely to have an immediate impact. They will continue to be employed by the probation boards and prison service. In time the relationships will change but those changes have yet to be finalised and will be subject to the usual consultation arrangements with staff and unions.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which London boroughs run neighbourhood warden schemes; how many wardens each of these boroughs employed at the latest date for which figures are available; which London boroughs directly fund and employ police community support officers; how many police community support officers each borough funded or employed at the latest date for which figures are available; which London boroughs run community safety accreditation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [151076]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]The following table shows London boroughs that have warden schemes funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Neighbourhood Wardens Team and the number of wardens the council employs:

  Borough

  Number of wardens

  Barking and Dagenham

  4

  Barnet

  12

  Brent

  9

  Camden

  15

  City of Westminster

  25

  Croydon

  12

  Ealing

  8

  Greenwich

  10

  Hackney

  25

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6

  Haringey

  14

  Harrow

  6

  Havering

  11

  Hounslow

  7

  Islington

  28

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3

  Lambeth

  12

  Lewisham

  27

  Merton

  12

  Newham

  12

  Redbridge

  5

  Southwark

  27

  Sutton

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  29

  Waltham Forest

  10

  Wandsworth

  23

  We are unable to supply figures for other types of warden schemes or warden numbers in London as these data are not collected.

  Community Support Officers (CSOs), as defined by the Police Reform Act 2002, are all employees of the local Police Authority. In London and elsewhere local authorities have contributed to the funding of CSOs but they cannot employ them.

  The Commissioner for the Metropolis informs me that the following boroughs operate additional CSOs funded through Special Services Agreements under section 25 of the Police Act 1996.

  Borough

  Number of CSOs

  Camden

  2

  Greenwich

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  Hillingdon

  7

  Islington

  4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  444W
  At present the Metropolitan Police Service does not yet run a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme in any of the London boroughs.

  Pesticides
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of theft of(a) pesticides containing aldicarb and (b) other pesticides have been reported in each of the last five years; and what quantities of pesticide have been (i) reported stolen, (ii) reported missing and (iii) recovered. [150519]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Code of Practice on the police use of firearms and less lethal weapons. [150183]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement I made on 3 December 2003,Official Report, column 61WS.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to sustain the planned increase in police numbers. [150128]

  Ms Blears
  The number of police officers in England and Wales reached a record 136,386 on 31 August 2003. The major component in the rise in police numbers since March 2000 has been the use of the Crime Fighting Fund to fund additional recruits above that which forces were planning to train.

  As announced in the provisional funding settlement for 2004–05 on 19 November 2003, the Home Office will provide continuation funding for the 9,000 posts created by the Crime Fighting Fund from 2000–03. In addition it is proposed to provide part funding of 60 per cent for the 650 additional Crime Fighting Fund recruits in 2003–04.

  The Home Office is also promoting a number of initiatives to ensure the increasing effectiveness of the resources devoted to policing. Both workforce modernisation and reducing bureaucracy will release officers to do the job they were trained to do and help them undertake their duties in an increasingly effective way. We will this year be establishing a baseline measure for the amount of time officers spend on front line duties, which will enable forces and police authorities to plan for improvement. The National Intelligence Model developed by the police service will enable forces to deploy officers in a more strategic way.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have retired early owing to ill-health in each year since 1997. [151416]

  Ms Blears
  The figures relating to the number of police ill-health retirements between 1997 and 2003 are given in the table.
  445W

  Medical retirements

  1996–97

  2,012

  1997–98

  1,811

  1998–99

  1,642

  1999–2000

  1,232

  2000–01

  1,209

  2001–02

  1,114

  2002–03

  821

  Prisons
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the review of prison industries conducted by the Prison Service has been completed; and if a copy of the review will be placed in the Library. [143294]

  Paul Goggins
  An internal review of the strategic oversight and management of public sector prison industries in England and Wales was completed earlier this year. The report of the prison industries review was written for internal discussion, and contains proposals for improving the way in which prison industries are operated and managed. These proposals are now being implemented. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been held in prisons in each year since 1997; [147355]

  (2) how many prisoners have been held in police cells in each year since 1997 because of overcrowding in the Prison Service; [147357]

  (3) how many (a) convicted prisoners and (b) remand prisoners who should have been in a prison establishment have been held in police cells in each year since 1997. [147376]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the annual average population in prison and in police cells by type of custody is given in table 1.3 of Prison Statistics England and Wales, 1997 to 2002. Copies of Prison Statistics England and Wales are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to reduce prison overcrowding in the next two years. [147360]

  Paul Goggins
  On 6 January a radical reform of the management of offenders was announced with the publication of the document 'Reducing Crime—Changing Lives'. The overriding purpose of the reforms is to improve the management of offenders and reduce re-offending. Offenders for whom prison is the right penalty will continue to be sent to prison. But there are many offenders for whom tough non-custodial penalties will be more appropriate. Our proposals will provide sentencers with a full range of penalties and advice on what is most likely to be effective in reducing re-offending in particular circumstances.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on the licensing of brothels. [150633]
  446W
  Caroline Flint
  It is an offence to keep or manage a brothel.

  Reoffending
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those who have undertaken the Intensive Change and Control Programmes in each year since 1997 reoffended within(a) one year, (1)) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years. [147364]

  Paul Goggins
  The Intensive Control and Change Programme (ICCP) was launched on 3 April 2003. There have been 269 commencements to date, but since orders are made for 12 month periods no yearly reoffending statistics are available.

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether separate statistics are kept on retail crime. [151350]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]Currently, with the exception of a limited number of crime categories, such as 'theft from shops'. which explicitly relate to retail crime—police recorded crime figures provide only a very limited picture of crimes experienced by the retail sector.

  However, surveys such as the recent Commercial Victimisation Survey 2002 (a survey of over 6,500 retail and manufacturing premises) provide a fuller and more accurate picture of business crime, measuring both reported and unreported crime.

  This survey captures statistics on crime experienced by businesses in the previous year, the cost of crime, concerns about problems and crime in the local area, action taken by businesses to respond to criminal incidents and their crime prevention precautions.

  Provisional headline findings were released on 13 August 2003. The main findings should be published this spring.

  Road Rage
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data the Government collates on the average annual number of crimes committed as a result of road rage incidents. [148149]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Independent Monitoring Boards concerning the treatment of children in young offender institutions. [144363]

  Paul Goggins
  The treatment of children is mentioned in every Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Boards of Young Offenders Institutions. There were five specific questions asked of the Secretary of State during the 2002–03 reporting year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cat and Dog Fur
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  On 17 July last year I made a written statement to the House,Official Report cols 79–80WS, on the issue of cat and dog fur. I asked interested parties to try within six months to produce hard evidence of the extent of imports of domestic cat and dog fur into the UK. I said that if such evidence could be produced, I would in principle, be prepared to support a ban on the import of these furs. If, after six months hard evidence had not been produced, the Government would not legislate until evidence is forthcoming.

  The six month deadline has ended. The Government understands the ethical concerns about the alleged import of cat and dog fur and is therefore reporting back to both Houses on progress made over the last six months.

  Our priority on this issue has always been, and remains, the need to establish the facts about the extent of this alleged trade and to act in a measured way. The Government has maintained regular contact with interested parties over the last six months. However, over this time, we have received only one alleged sample of domestic dog fur and no samples of domestic cat fur.

  We have asked scientific experts at the former Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC Limited) to determine the reliability of mass spectrometry as a possible means of accurately distinguishing the furs of domestic cat and dogs from that of other animal species. Such a test is necessary to determine whether domestic cat and dog fur is being imported into the UK, to permit effective enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act and that of any future legislation governing the import of these furs.

  Known samples of fur from both domestic and wild species within the cat and dog families, fur from other animals and the alleged sample of domestic dog fur were sent for testing last year. Some of these samples were also tested in an altered state to replicate the effects of textile processing. Thirteen samples were tested in total, all of them were tested twice, further to the discovery that technical problems might have affected the initial results.

  LGC Limited has confirmed that four of the thirteen samples were correctly identified in the initial testing and six out of thirteen were correctly identified in the subsequent testing. Less than half of the samples were therefore correctly identified, and probability ratios demonstrate that there is a high chance that these samples could in fact have come from another species.
  12WS
  Given these results, LGC Limited has recommended that mass spectrometry is not yet currently sufficiently reliable as a means of identifying domestic cat and dog fur from the fur of other animal species.

  I have placed copies of LGC Limited's report in the Library of the House.

  Whilst these results are very disappointing, there is some evidence that the reliability of mass spectrometry may improve as the database of known samples is built up and the software improves.

  In my previous written statement, I made clear that, whilst the Government is prepared to take practical and proportionate action to address this matter, any action would be most effective if taken at EU level. There is stronger evidence that domestic cat and dog fur has been used in products found in some other EU countries. For this reason, we have been working hard over the last six months to raise the profile of this issue at EU level. In November last year, I publicly supported calls by the European Parliament for an EU ban on trade in cat and dog fur, whilst making clear that it was also essential to have in place a reliable scientific test to ensure effective enforcement. The UK has also, in the context of various EU meetings, either raised the issue of cat and dog fur or supported calls by other Member States for the European Commission to consider this issue further. We continue to be in regular contact with officials from other countries and from the Commission in order to share information and our approaches to this emotive issue.

  In July I undertook to give support to a ban on the import of domestic cat and dog fur if clear evidence could be produced of the extent of this problem in the UK This has not been achievable over the last six months, and as I made clear last summer, I cannot therefore support an import ban at this point in time. However, this Government will continue to encourage interested parties to provide evidence of the extent of this problem. I have also asked LGC Limited to submit new known samples of fur for testing in order to further analyse the reliability of mass spectrometry and we will continue to push for greater EU involvement on this issue.

  I can assure you that this Government remains fully committed to establishing the facts about this issue and to taking proportionate and practical action. I therefore further undertake to report back to Parliament on progress made at the latest within twelve months and earlier if there are any substantive developments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Bury metropolitan borough council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
  13WS
  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Bury metropolitan borough council against the performance standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the performance standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments. However, the council is performing well in a significant number of elements of the standards.

  The report finds that historically the council's benefit service has been given low priority within the council and performance overall has been mixed. While counter-fraud performance has been sound, performance in the processing of claims has been weak and there are significant arrears of work.

  The report finds that since the comprehensive performance assessment result, announced in December 2002, the council has made progress across many areas of the performance standards.
  14WS
  The major challenge for the council is to significantly improve its benefits processing performance. This will be helped by a more systematic approach to planning, backed up by project disciplines and gathering management information.

  In 2001–02, Bury metropolitan borough council administered some £31.3 million in housing benefits, about 15.5 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

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

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

TREASURY

  Double Taxation Convention (United Kingdom and France)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  A new comprehensive double taxation convention with France (which will replace the existing agreement) was signed on 28 January 2004. After signature, both texts were deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. The text of the convention will be scheduled to a draft order in council and laid for consideration by the House in due course.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Local Government Funding: Council Tax
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to legislate to change the way that the council tax or equivalent local government tax is levied.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans for legislation on local government taxation. However, we have established the balance of funding review to consider possible reforms to the current arrangements. The review will consider possible options for change in the course of the next few months. It is due to report in the summer.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that the level of council tax, which is up by 70 per cent since 1997, is reaching the limit of public acceptability, so that even pensioners are going out on to the streets to protest?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no one can argue with the figures, but I have nothing really to add to what I said. We have set up the balance of funding review; it is looking at possible reforms; and it will report in the summer. No doubt there will be public debates about the issue. We have given significant extra sums to local government in real terms over the past few years and a substantial sum for the next financial year—some £3.6 billion extra.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, now that about 80 per cent of local government expenditure comes from central government or specific grants, there is a danger that local government will become little more than the agent of central government, at the expense of a democracy that we should cherish?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, again I do not have much to add to my Answer. I will agree, though, that the balance of central funding for 2003–04 was 74 per cent central funding and 26 per cent locally determined taxes.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Local Government Association that council tax distorts accountability, is not fair and cannot meet demand? Can he confirm that the review of local
196
government finance that the Government are undertaking will consider in some detail the local income tax options?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hate to be boring about it, but I do not have a great deal to add to what I said in my original Answer. A balance of funding review is already under way. It is considering a range of options, and we will report in due course.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister said that, over the past few years, local government had been given many extra millions of pounds. However, as he will know, the Audit Commission report that came out just before Christmas put the blame fairly and squarely on the Government for the enormous rise in council tax last year, caused by the redistribution of grant.
Over the past few years, the Government have required local government to do more and spend more than is allowed by the grant that it is given. They have used that as a stealth tax. What will the Government do in the short term to address that problem? It cannot happen; it is unacceptable to the public. The council tax cannot be used as a substitute for income tax.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is worth pointing out that we have increased the grant to councils by 30 per cent in real terms since 1997, compared to a 7 per cent cut under the four years of the previous government. For the next financial year—the one that really counts—the increase for local government will be £3.624 billion. That is an increase of 7.1 per cent, and we therefore expect council tax increases in low single figures.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the proposals that could come out of the Minister's consultation require legislation, or could the Government, for example, alter council tax bands by regulation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would be wrong to pre-empt the balance of funding review. It may come up with a range of options or one option; I do not know. Some things can be changed by secondary legislation, and some would require primary legislation. It depends on which way forward we choose to go, with the approval, obviously, of Parliament.

Energy: Generating Capacity
2.40 p.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much new generating capacity (excluding wind power) they expect to be commissioned in England and Wales during each of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the construction and operation of new generating capacity is a commercial matter for generating companies. According to data from National Grid Transco on the possible non-renewable future power stations in England and Wales that have the necessary legal consents, around 1.7 gigawatts of new capacity could be commissioned in 2004; 0.8 gigawatts in 2005; and 1.7 gigawatts in 2006.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is intriguing that, since the seven-year statement by National Grid Transco for 2003, the figure has fallen by almost 50 per cent—that is in years during which the prospects for construction should have been fairly certain.
The Minister will know that I already think that the margins are inadequate. Does he take the view that the Government have any responsibility for securing electricity supplies? How much of the reduced capacity now to be commissioned in the three years considered will be on interruptible gas supplies?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, we discussed the issues recently. Of course, the Government are responsible for the security of energy supplies to the nation. We monitor the situation with great care, through the Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group in order that signals should be sent to the market about where shortfalls might occur in sufficient time for there to be a proper commercial response to such shortfalls. It is on that basis that we have confidence in the system as it works at present.
This winter, there has been only one occasion on which a signal was sent out about an immediate shortfall, which did not occur. No signal is being sent out in the present week, although noble Lords will recognise that this is the coldest week we have experienced thus far.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the very powerful letter in the Times a fortnight ago by two very respected and acclaimed experts in this field, Professor Sir Hermann Bondi and Professor Ian Fells? They said:
"A decade or two ago there was in this country a comfortable excess of generating capacity over peak demand, but this margin has been allowed to be eroded almost to vanishing point".
Do Ministers take that seriously?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Certainly, my Lords, Ministers take the margin seriously. What has been reflected is that the margins of security which obtained 20 years ago look to have been wider than were necessary for the system to guarantee that heating, light and power were provided to our people. At present, plant operating margins, for example, are considerably lower than they were in the 1980s. However, I put it to the noble Lord that I thought that was the principle under which his administration introduced privatisation of the system.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is
198
the Minister aware, and does he agree, that in the period between now and 2020, according to the DTI Energy Paper 68, the closure of coal-fired and nuclear plant could result in a one-third reduction in present generating capacity? In view of the fact that there is a reluctance to introduce sufficient new gas-fired plant, that the contribution from renewables is likely to be limited and that the Government have deferred their decision on new nuclear plant, the question I put to the noble Lord is: how is the generation gap to be filled?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for projecting the issue two decades further on. It is right that we address the issues of electricity generation in the long term because we need to make long-term plans for it. The noble Lord will recognise that the Government have a commitment to renewables—to increase generation from that source by 10 per cent by 2010 and by 20 per cent by 2020. Of course, if that target looked as if it were not realisable for any reason, it would be necessary to review the process and the programme whereby, for example, nuclear production is being run down. However, he will appreciate that the Government are regularly monitoring not just the immediate needs of this particular year but also projections over the next three decades.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the generation of electricity from renewables must have certainty? At the moment, the only certain thing is that it has the status of a letter written to Father Christmas, hoping that by the years 2010 and 2020 we may have a present of that magnitude. In the mean time, there should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggests, no closures of existing power stations, be they coal-fired or nuclear-powered, unless and until the adequate alternatives are in place rather than merely on a plan.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend presents a cheering line about the light-hearted approach to renewables. That is not exactly the view of the Danish Government with regard to renewables; they have invested substantially in offshore wind generation. Of course he is absolutely right that any one group of turbines will be subject to intermittency because of the wind factor, but the proposal is that the wind turbines will be spread very widely across the United Kingdom. Most parts of the United Kingdom, for most of the year, have a fairly significant wind factor. It is also the case that we need additional research to ensure that from wind turbines energy can be stored more effectively than at present. However, I assure my noble friend that wind turbine technology is not quite at the primitive and insecure level that he suggests.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the wind factor is infinitely variable? All Governments should be aware of that.

199
The Minister's reference to some decades ahead was very welcome. But so far as the DTI is concerned, are not those decades a vacuum, altogether lacking in any long-term policy?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that that is fair, given that there is a clear series of dates for the decommissioning of individual nuclear power stations, for example. That process could of course be subject to reverse, given that one of the power stations we are talking about will not be decommissioned until 2035. The process can be adjusted against a background of changes in energy supply if necessary.
However, there are very significant developments in potential energy provision to this country—the stupendous investment that is being made across the world. The development of liquid natural gas and of major pipelines which will serve the whole of Europe— and Britain will play its part here—is guaranteed to meet the energy needs of a continent, not just the United Kingdom.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, if the Minister is giving figures, will he make them quite clear? He said that we had 4.2 gigawatts of new capacity coming on stream in the next three years, or the potential for that. Is that a net figure or does it make an allowance for the decommissioning that will take place?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Question was asked about new plants being developed, and I replied on those plants that have obtained planning permission and will be constructed and will therefore be contributing to the grid along the lines of the figures that I mentioned in my initial Answer.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, would the Minister mind if I reminded him that in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, he quoted the Denmark experience? Perhaps he has forgotten that at the moment Denmark has stopped all that. I would have thought that that was quite significant.
I bring the Minister back to the first reply that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, about new generating capacity. What is likely to be the amount of generating capacity during that same period, if there is decommissioning for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gave, relating to the closure of nuclear and coal-fired power plants?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not have those precise figures to hand. The reason why I have not is straightforward. I was asked a Question about new plant, in which we would invest and on which money would be spent in this country over the next three years, in terms of the committee's report and surveillance of the availability of energy to meet our needs for generation. That is kept under regular review.
I have sought to indicate to the House that it is of course not the case that Britain relies totally upon self-sufficiency as regards energy. That will certainly not be the case five years from now, because of the reduction
200
of North Sea products. It is against that background that into the equation must come the question of energy sources from elsewhere, to which I referred in my previous answer.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that replacing the Magnox stations with new nuclear stations might be a better alternative than extending the life of stations that have pretty well passed their useful life? Does he further accept that all that needs to be set against the background that we shall be increasingly dependent on imported gas from politically volatile regions? Therefore, we do not have the security of supply that we have traditionally had.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we do not currently have that security of supply in terms of indigenous resources. We certainly cannot foresee, in the fairly near future, anything that obviates the need to import, in exactly the same way as every other country in the European Community will be a net importer of energy. There is no solution to the situation in the way indicated by my noble friend.
As for the question of whether new nuclear power stations would be superior to the old, that is a market decision. It is not the Government who build nuclear power stations; that issue will be decided by the market and whether the generation of nuclear power becomes more economic than it has been in the recent past, which has led to the fact that nuclear-powered electricity has been so expensive.

Special Advisers and Civil Servants
2.53 p.m.
Lord Sheldon Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to produce a clear delineation of roles and lines of accountability between special advisers and permanent civil servants.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in their response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government proposed an amendment to the code of conduct for special advisers to provide a clarification of the relationships between special advisers and permanent civil servants. Since then, the Government have agreed to remove the reference to special advisers relaying ministerial instructions to officials from the amendment.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the recommendation of the Wicks Committee on Standards in Public Life called for a clear statement of what special advisers cannot do, which is to be set out in primary legislation? Will the draft legislation do that, and what assurances can he give that following the Government's draft

201
legislation in this Session, in the next Session a Civil Service Act will reach the statute book in Parliament to be implemented in due course?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confirm that during the current parliamentary Session, a draft Bill will be published. However, what I cannot do— and it would be improper for me to do this—would be to give a commitment to legislation being in the following parliamentary Session, as is the usual convention. I am sure that the matters that the noble Lord raises in this context are the sort of issues that will be covered in the draft legislation. They have been extensively discussed and, of course, we recognise the importance of the issue.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over the past 30 years the system of political advisers, properly structured, has given excellent advice to successive governments? Would he further agree that, unless there is a clear delineation of roles and lines of accountability, there is a very real danger that political appointments will chair committees that they should not chair and that civil servants who are supposed to be giving neutral advice will find that subconsciously that advice is influenced by a political input?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for confessing to a former life, in a roundabout fashion. It is right that we have clear guidance and guidelines on these matters. It is worth reminding your Lordships' House that this Government were the first to introduce a model contract and code of conduct for special advisers. That transparency did not exist in previous administrations, so our Government have a very good track record in ensuring that that transparency and clarity is there and understood.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why the numbers of special advisers and the costs of running the Government's media operation have increased so much since 1997? Is it that civil servants are so much worse or spin so much more important?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, each government must decide what they require in terms of special advisers. It is true that the number of special advisers has increased with the current Government. However, it is worth quoting the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, when as Cabinet Secretary he gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. He said:
"I do not think the senior 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".
He was quite clear that our Government were acting properly in having the number of special advisers that we currently have.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that it is a very long time since
202
the Cook-Maclennan agreement between my party and his party agreed on the need for Civil Service legislation? Would he also agree that there is a pressing public need to create a proper constitutional framework and to ban special advisers, such as I was, from exercising any executive power?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding him of his former life. We are clear about the boundaries that exist, and there is a clear delineation. The number of special advisers with executive powers is carefully guided. We have waited some time for there to be legislation on this and there has been a very valuable debate on these issues. We have given a commitment, which I repeated today, that we shall publish our own draft Bill in the current Session. The noble Lord may see that as slow progress, but it is progress that is right and we want to ensure that the legislation is right when it is brought forward.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, will my noble friend just reply to this question about the Wicks Committee, which is a very important committee. It said that the legislation should set up what special advisers cannot do. There are some serious matters here, as there have been some claims that they have gone beyond what had been expected, way back to the Fulton Committee. That is a matter that needs to be dealt with with some clarity for the purposes of proper government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the concerns that the noble Lord raised have existed for a number of years. In a sense that is recognised in the code of conduct, which is worth quoting. It states:
"Special advisers must ensure that, while they may comment on advice being prepared for Ministers by officials, they do not suppress or supplant that advice".
Their role is merely advisory. That is understood. I have no doubt that that issue will be covered in the detail of a Bill.

Avian Flu
3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the avian flu virus, H5N1 sub-type, has been found in the wild bird population in Thailand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the authorities in Thailand have confirmed the presence of H5N1 sub-type of avian influenza in poultry in Thailand, but there have been no reports that they have found this sub-type in wild birds.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps that makes the biosecurity measures needed slightly simpler. Will the Minister confirm that the importation into this

203
country of all poultry meat and eggs from all of the 10 countries now affected has been banned? What help is this country giving through the EU in response to the Food and Agriculture Organisation's call for international concerted help to address this serious and developing crisis? Will the Minister assure the House that as this is a developing crisis that is moving very fast, Statements will be made both here and in another place as appropriate and that the Government will not simply rely on Questions from these Benches to address the matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a high level of biosecurity in this country's poultry industry but we have informed the industry itself, the Meat Hygiene Service and the port authorities that they must be extra vigilant now that this situation has occurred. As regards the banning of imports, of the affected countries in south-east Asia imports were allowed only from Thailand. Imports from the other affected countries in the area have been banned for some time. There is now an EU-wide ban on all fresh and frozen poultry meat from Thailand as well.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that evidence to date suggests that the transmission of this avian virus occurs only as a result of direct contact between the chickens or poultry involved and the individuals and that as yet there is no evidence of person-to-person transmission of the virus? Has any progress been made in producing a vaccine against this particular strain of the influenza virus?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that there is no known human-to-human transmission and that all human cases of avian flu have arisen in people who have contact with poultry. The virus is normally transmitted both between birds and to humans via poultry droppings. That continues to be the case. Although medicines and vaccines exist that deal with some strains of avian flu, there is not yet a vaccine to counter the particular strain that we are discussing. Work has begun on it but it is unlikely to be available for several months at best. So at the moment there is no vaccine to counter the virus in humans.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, how does the Minister equate his reply with the report by Miriam O'Reilly on that excellent BBC programme, "Farming Today", earlier in the week in which she reported that she had seen on television wild birds falling out of the sky? Will any members of the veterinary department go out to the Far East to assist and to make an assessment of what is going on there with regard to the spread of avian flu?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I did not say that no strain of avian flu existed in wild birds. There is a low level of avian flu in most bird populations. However, the strain that we are discussing has not been found in wild birds in Thailand. Clearly, if the disease were to spread much closer to this country and we were affected by
204
migratory patterns the danger from wild birds would be greater, as it was at the time of the Netherlands outbreak last year. As regards veterinary help, both the veterinary side and the public health side in the form of the Health Protection Agency have offered help to the WHO, should it want it. There is a meeting in Bangkok today of the countries involved with the WHO and the FAO. We shall see whether they put in requests for help.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, what measures are in place to increase surveillance for the virus in both wild birds and domestic stock in this country? In connection with that, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will respond positively to requests for surveillance from international organisations such as WHO and other countries to detect the virus wherever it might be?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have already said, we shall respond positively to requests for help from the WHO, the FAO or, indeed, the EU. On general surveillance, clearly our request to the industry, the regulatory authorities and the port authorities to maintain a high level of vigilance should cover a possible outbreak in this country. Indeed, the very high level of surveillance prevented the Netherlands outbreak of less than 12 months ago spreading far beyond the Netherlands itself, although, of course, that necessitated a very substantial slaughter of poultry within the Netherlands.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, what discussions has the Minister had with the industry regarding what would happen if avian flu occurred in this country? We hope that it will not occur. What would be the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to infected flocks and any contiguous culls that might be necessary?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have established contingency plans in discussion with the industry. We have raised the level of vigilance, as we did at the time of the Netherlands outbreak. The industry is aware of, and involved in, those contingency plans. Should an outbreak of any strain of avian flu occur in this country, affected flocks would have to be slaughtered. As contamination occurs via droppings rather than by aerial transmission, normally the issue of contiguous cull would not arise although there may be situations in which a wider cull might need to take place. As this is a notifiable disease, there are compensation arrangements.

Sudan
3.7 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What implication the recent postponement of negotiations on Sudan will have for the peace process.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Sudan peace talks at Naivasha have not been postponed. They were adjourned on 26 January and are due to resume on 17 February. Consequently this has no adverse implications for the peace process: on the contrary we expect the parties to make good use of this break to identify ways to resolve the remaining issues and to prepare for discussion of detailed ceasefire and implementation arrangements.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. The situation in Sudan is deteriorating rapidly with 18,000 refugees fleeing Darfur last week. What steps are being taken to verify reports of major human rights violations there and to protect inhabitants of that region?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as your Lordships had the opportunity to discuss on 15 January, the situation in Darfur is peculiarly difficult. It is not a situation that pervades throughout the whole of Sudan. There are remaining problems which are being discussed in the peace talks, but Darfur is a very particular problem. Our Special Representative, Alan Goulty, has reported back to me on these issues. I understand that our representatives in Khartoum are speaking on an almost daily basis not only to the Sudan Government but also to the various factions in Darfur. We are doing our best to monitor what is going on. It is extremely difficult when the situation is as violent as it is. What is needed first of all is a ceasefire and then access by the NGOs.
In relation to human rights I can, however, tell your Lordships—I am very pleased to be able to say this— that we have now learnt that one of the situations which was giving rise to considerable difficulty; namely, the cross-amputation sentence on a 16 year-old boy who had been accused of armed robbery, has now been successfully appealed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but was there not common agreement that the final peace deal would be signed by the end of this month? Has she noted that the SPLA has said that, from its point of view, there was no reason at all for the adjournment? Does that not indicate at least some possible difficulties, either with the constitutional status of the Abyei region, or, possibly, the power sharing? Can the Minister throw any light on that? Regarding Darfur, is she aware that the World Food Programme said that 110,000 people have fled across the border into Chad—many of them seriously injured—and that none of the humanitarian agencies has access to the people who are suffering in Darfur itself? Will Her Majesty's Government and the European Union under the Irish presidency make strong representations on the matter to allow humanitarian access to that territory?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are making strong representations and I hope that none of your Lordships is in any doubt about that. We
206
are speaking on an almost daily basis to the parties and that indicates just how engaged Her Majesty's Government have been. Of course we are concerned about the situation in Darfur. I have said that the priorities have to be a ceasefire and humanitarian access. Until there can be a ceasefire it is difficult for monitors to go in safely. The priority after that will be aid to feed the people.
Regarding whether there is another agenda, which was the implication of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the adjournment in the talks, I have specifically asked questions of officials. I am told that it was thought to be a good thing to have the adjournment, because some of the participants wanted to celebrate Eid.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her reply to the debate on Sudan on 15 January in this House has given hope to a number of people who are seeking to improve the human rights situation there? Is she further aware that a number of the cases that were referred to in that debate have met with full and frank replies from her department? I should like to place on record my own appreciation of the efforts that she and her colleagues have been making.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that and for his participation in that debate on 15 January; and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating it in an energetic manner. It is important to put some of those messages across and I am grateful that they are reaching the places where we wish them to be received. Regarding human rights, the involvement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has had some impact in relation to the cross-amputation sentence. We now await a response on the other question that raised considerable anxiety among your Lordships concerning the sentence of flogging on a 16 year-old girl. We are still working on that important case.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments on Darfur province and for her recent Written Answer to me. However, can she assure the House that the Government will use their best efforts to make certain that the problems of all of the outlying and marginal areas of the Sudan are fully taken into account when the larger peace negotiations resume?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that we will do our best. I am sure he will accept that it is not possible to be able to monitor what is happening when very violent situations exist. We have a special unit. We have a special representative, Alan Goulty, and his able team, comprising officials from both the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, who are working hard on the issues. We continue to remain heavily engaged on the Southern Blue Nile areas, the Nuba mountains and the Abie area, which are part of the central negotiations in Naivasha.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
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 debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Gardner of Parkes and the Lord Astor of Hever set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hutton Report
3.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall make a short Statement on the Hutton report and then repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
This morning I received formal delivery of the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Dr Kelly. Perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for the exemplary way in which he and his team conducted this inquiry.
The inquiry was carried out in a meticulous and fair manner in little over six months. The report runs into 328 pages plus appendices and stands as a testament to the unstinting efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
The report was laid before the House at 12.25 p.m. today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, delivered a summary of his conclusions immediately afterwards, in the Royal Courts of Justice. At 2 p.m. the Prime Minister made a Statement in the other place outlining the Government's view in relation to the conclusions of the report.
With the leave of the House I would now like to repeat that Statement.
"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement following Lord Hutton's report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.
"I am immensely grateful to Lord Hutton, his team and inquiry staff for the work they have carried out. The report itself is an extraordinarily thorough, detailed and clear document. It leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. We accept it in full.
"Lord Hutton has just finished reading the summary of his findings. Before coming to those, I want to echo one thing Lord Hutton said about Dr Kelly himself. Lord Hutton makes his findings about Dr Kelly's conduct in respect of the matters at issue here, but as he says, nothing should detract from Dr Kelly's fine record of public service to this country. He was respected here and abroad. I am sorry that as a result of the gravity of the allegations made it was necessary to have this inquiry and that
208
the Kelly family have had to go through reliving this tragedy over the past months. I hope, now it is over, they will be allowed to grieve in peace.
"Lord Hutton has given a most comprehensive account of the facts. It is
unnecessary for me to repeat them. But let me emphasise why I believed it right to establish such an inquiry. Over the past six or more months, allegations have been made that go to the heart of the integrity of government, our intelligence services and me, personally, as Prime Minister. There are issues, of course, as to how the case of Dr Kelly was handled in personnel terms; and I shall come to those.
"But these have not sustained the media, public and parliamentary interest over all this time. What has sustained and fuelled that interest has been, to put it bluntly, a claim of lying, of deceit, of duplicity on my part personally and that of the Government. That claim consists of two allegations: first, that I lied over the intelligence that formed part of the Government's case in respect of Iraq and WMD, published on 24 September 2002; the second, that I lied or was duplicitous in respect of the naming of Dr Kelly, leaking his name to the press when it should have remained confidential.
"Lord Hutton finds the following: first, contrary to the claim by the BBC that intelligence was put in the dossier against the wishes of the intelligence services, the dossier of 24 September was published with the full approval of the Joint Intelligence Committee, including the intelligence about Saddam's readiness to use some WMD within 45 minutes of an order to do so.
"Secondly, that the allegation by the BBC that the Government deliberately inserted this 45 minute claim probably knowing it was wrong was 'unfounded'.
"Thirdly, that the allegation by the BBC that the reason for it not being in the original draft of the dossier was because the intelligence agencies did not believe it to be true, was also 'unfounded'.
"Fourthly, that no one, either in the JIC or Downing Street, acted improperly in relation to the dossier.
"Fifthly, that the BBC claim that it was 'sexed up' in the sense of being embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false was also 'unfounded'.
"Sixthly, that Mr Gilligan's key allegations repeated by the BBC were never in fact said, even by Dr Kelly himself.
"Seventhly, that there was,
'no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media'.
"Eighthly, that on the contrary it was reasonable for the Government to conclude that there was no practical possibility of keeping his name secret and that the Government behaved properly in relation to naming him.

209
"Ninthly, that the suggestion that either I or Sir Kevin Tebbit in our evidence were in conflict with each other or that one of us was lying was,
'incorrect and not supported by the evidence'.
"Tenthly, and for good measure, he also dismisses the allegations surrounding what I said on a plane to journalists in these terms:
'Some commentators have referred to answers by the Prime Minister to questions from members of the press travelling with him on an aeroplane to Hong Kong on 22 July and I have read the transcript of that press briefing. As I have stated, I am satisfied that there was not a dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy on the part of the Prime Minister and officials to leak Dr Kelly's name covertly, and I am further satisfied that the decision that was taken by the Prime Minister and his officials in 10 Downing Street on 8 July was confined to issuing a statement that an un-named civil servant had come forward and that the Question and Answer material was prepared and approved in the MoD and not in 10 Downing Street'.
"Let me now return to the two central allegations. On 29 May 2003, following the end of the conflict in Iraq, the BBC "Today" programme broadcast a story by its defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan. It dominated the morning bulletins and reverberates to this day. It alleged that part of the September 2002 dossier—that Saddam could use WMD within 45 minutes of an order to do so—had been inserted into it by Downing Street, contrary to the wishes of the intelligence services and that moreover we,
'probably knew it was wrong even before we decided to put it in'.
There could not be a more serious charge. The source for this extraordinary allegation was said by the BBC to be,
'a senior official in charge of drawing up that dossier',
and an,
'intelligence service source',
implying a member of the JIC or assessments staff who would be in a position to know. If true, it would have meant that I had misled this House on 24 September and the country, that I had done so deliberately, and I had behaved wholly improperly in respect of the intelligence services.
"From that day, 29 May onwards, that story in one form or another has been replayed many times in the UK, and all over the world. It dominated my press conference in Poland on 30 May and PMQs when I returned. It led that week to the Foreign Affairs Committee deciding to conduct an inquiry into the issue. In particular, on the Sunday following the story, Mr Gilligan wrote an article in the Mail on Sunday, not merely standing by the story but naming Alastair Campbell as the person responsible in Downing Street. The headline read:
'I asked my intelligence source why Blair misled us all over Saddam's weapons. His reply? One word … CAMPBELL'.
This again, was completely untrue, and not merely stood up but further inflamed the original allegation of deceit.
210
"The BBC has never clearly and visibly withdrawn this allegation. This has allowed others to say repeatedly I lied and misled Parliament over the 24 September dossier.
"Let me make it plain: it is absolutely right that people can question whether the intelligence received was right and why we have not yet found WMD. There is an entirely legitimate argument about the wisdom of the conflict. I happen to believe now, as I did in March, that removing Saddam has made the world a safer and better place. But others are entirely entitled to disagree.
"However, all of this is of a completely different order from a charge of deception, of duplicity, of deceit, a charge that I or anyone else deliberately falsified intelligence.
"The truth about that charge is now found. No intelligence was inserted into the dossier by Downing Street; nothing was put in it against the wishes of the intelligence services; no-one, either in Downing Street or the JIC, put any intelligence into it,
'probably knowing it was wrong';
and no such claim to the BBC was made by anyone,
'in charge of drawing up the dossier'.
Indeed, Lord Hutton's findings go further. The claim was not even made by Dr Kelly himself.
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. And I simply ask that those who made it and those who have repeated it over all these months now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly.
"Furthermore, Lord Hutton deals with the issue of the 45 minute claim. Instead of this being disputed by the intelligence services and inserted into the dossier at the behest of Alastair Campbell or Downing Street, the true position was that a concern about how it was phrased in the dossier was raised by a Dr Jones in Defence Intelligence Services, was rejected by the Head of Defence Intelligence and never actually came to the attention of the chairman of the JIC let alone Downing Street.
"In any event, Dr Jones did not say it should have been omitted from the dossier. On the contrary, Dr Jones thought it should be included as it was 'important intelligence'. Dr Jones told the inquiry that Dr Kelly thought the dossier was 'good' and Mr A, from the Counter Proliferation Arms Control Department, said of himself and Dr Kelly,
"Both of us believed that if you took the dossier as a whole it was a reasonable and accurate reflection of the intelligence that we had available to us at that time'.
"Lord Hutton does fairly comment:
'However, I consider that the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which, whilst consistent with the available intelligence, was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, may have sub-consciously influenced Mr Scarlett and other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment'.

211
"However Lord Hutton goes on to say:
'although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett, the other members of the JIC, and the members of the assessments staff engaged in the drafting of the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC'.
"Lord Hutton also says, in terms, that Mr Scarlett,
'only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence'.
"I hope that from now on the wholly unjustified attacks on the chairman of the JIC, John Scarlett, and the JIC will cease. These people are people dedicated to this country and its well-being. The publication of intelligence by Government—which we did, let me remind the House, because of the clamour for it—was a unique exercise never done before, and difficult for all our agencies. But in the interests of openly sharing intelligence with people, they worked hard in good faith to release it properly. And let me also remind the House that when this dossier was published, it was routinely described at the time as 'low key' and by Mr Gilligan, no less, on 24 September 2002 as,
'sensibly cautious and measured',
and actually moved public opinion hardly at all. Only in retrospect was it elevated into the single thing that conclusively persuaded a reluctant country to war.
"The dossier reflected independent reports such as that of the IISS on 9 September. It reflected precisely that evidence which led the UN Security Council unanimously in November 2002 to agree Saddam and his weapons posed a threat to the world. The 45 minute claim was in fact mentioned once by me in my Statement in this House on 24 September and not mentioned by me again in any debate, not even in the debate on 18 March or indeed by anyone else in that debate. Only again in retrospect has history been rewritten to establish it as the one crucial claim that marched the nation into conflict.
"Lord Hutton establishes clearly why the 45 minutes was put in the dossier, what its provenance was—and whether or not subsequently it turned out to be correct or not—finds it was put into the dossier entirely in good faith by the JIC.
"So much for the first charge of dishonesty over the dossier.
"The second charge was over the naming of Dr Kelly. Again throughout these past six months, the context in which this has been debated has largely been that Dr Kelly's name should not have been revealed, it should have remained confidential and therefore anyone, including myself, who discussed or acted upon the issue was acting improperly.
"In hindsight, of course, the name of Dr Kelly and his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee has taken on a different and altogether more tragic aspect. Rightly, Lord Hutton puts it back into its proper contemporary context.
212
"The truth is that by early July the Foreign Affairs Committee was actively engaged in examining the truth of the Gilligan allegations and due to report on 7 July. The Intelligence and Security Committee was about to begin its deliberations the same week. Evidence had already been given by the Government to the Foreign Affairs Committee and all of us, myself included, were due to give evidence to the ISC, beginning with the chairman of the JIC, on 9 July.
"Suddenly in late June, Dr Kelly came forward and said to his managers he believed he may have been at least part of the source for the Gilligan story. That information was given to me personally on 3 July. By Monday 7 July it was apparent that: in all likelihood he was indeed the source of the Gilligan story.
"The dilemma we were in, therefore, as Lord Hutton accepts, was how we could possibly keep this information secret not just from the FAC, who had just taken evidence on this very point: but also from the ISC who were about to interview us all about the intelligence relating to Iraq, with the first session on the morning of Wednesday 9 July.
"The evidence, very frankly given, of both my right honourable friend, the Chairman of the FAC, and at least one of the Committee's members, was that if they had been told that the MoD knew the source and had interviewed him, the FAC would have wanted to do the same. As, of course, they did. Indeed, they told the inquiry that they would have liked to have been told sooner.
"The context therefore for the meetings on 7/8 July which I chaired was how to act properly in relation to these two committees where we were in possession of information plainly relevant to their inquiries and when one committee was on the point of publication and another about to begin proceedings.
"The evidence of Sir David Omand was that it would be 'improper' to keep this information secret and that we were under a duty to reveal it to Parliament. So as Lord Hutton accepts the whole basis of the claim that somehow Dr Kelly should never have been named or that his name was leaked in breach of a duty of confidentiality is based on a false premise. On the contrary our duty was to disclose his name to the committees and allow them to interview him if they so wished; and Lord Hutton finds that our concern, at being accused of misleading those committees was 'well-founded'.
"In any event, again as Lord Hutton finds, no one in fact 'leaked' his name. Not myself, not the Secretary of State, not the officials. As Lord Hutton finds, the decision by the MoD to confirm Dr Kelly's name, if the correct name was put to it by a journalist, was based on the view that in a matter of such intense public and media interest it would not be sensible to try to conceal it.
"There was no dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to name Dr Kelly. He was named for the reason we gave. And again I ask that

213
those that have repeatedly claimed that I lied over this issue or that Sir Kevin Tebbit did, now withdraw that allegation also, unequivocally and in full.
"Lord Hutton does however find that the MoD was at fault in not telling Dr Kelly clearly and immediately that his name would be confirmed to the press if it was put to the MoD. The MoD accepts these findings. However Lord Hutton goes on to say:
'However these criticisms are subject to the mitigating circumstances that (1) Dr Kelly's exposure to press attention and intrusion, whilst obviously very stressful, was only one of the factors placing him under greater stress; (2) individual officials in the MOD did try to help and support him in the ways which I have described in paragraphs 430 and 431; and (3) because of his intensely private nature, Dr Kelly was not an easy man to help or to whom to give advice'.
"I believe that the civil servants concerned were acting in good faith doing their best in difficult and unusual circumstances. Lord Hutton has not criticised any individuals in the MoD. Some have been subject to trenchant media criticisms far beyond what they ever should have had to bear. Sir Kevin Tebbit has, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Both are cleared of any allegations of impropriety. My right honourable friend in particular has been subject to a constant barrage of such claims as parts of the media have alternated between wanting his scalp or mine.
"I hope that these attacks on him over this issue also cease.
"I come to the final issue: the cause of Dr Kelly's death; in effect, why he took his own life, since it is now beyond doubt that he did.
"Lord Hutton finds that no one could have foreseen that Dr Kelly would commit suicide. He finds further that in all probability, he did not decide to do so until the day of his death. He finds that the reason he did so was not for any reason of conspiracy or dark motives. The truth is that Dr Kelly did speak to Mr Gilligan and whatever the distortion, it was an unauthorised meeting, as was his conversation with Susan Watts, the 'Newsnight' journalist; and he was surprised to be asked about this at the FAC. Lord Hutton finds that the existence of a note of that conversation must have weighed heavily on his mind. Finally, on the day of his death he received notice of a series of parliamentary Questions about his contacts which he was going to have to answer.
"Dr Kelly was a decent man, whose very decency made him feel wretched about the situation in which he found himself.
"No one wished this tragedy to happen. All of us felt, and feel still, desperately sorry for Mrs Kelly and her family. None of us could have foreseen it because none of us, at that time, knew what Dr Kelly knew.
214
"Lord Hutton puts it in this way at paragraph 15 of his report:
'I also consider it to be important to state in this early part of the report that I am satisfied that none of the persons whose decisions and actions I later describe ever contemplated that Dr Kelly might take his own life. I am further satisfied that none of those persons was at fault in not contemplating that Dr Kelly might take his own life. Whatever pressures and strains Dr Kelly was subject to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no-one realised or should have realised that those pressures and strains might drive him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so'.
"In conclusion, I repeat what Lord Hutton said in his summary, at page 322.
'The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media'.
"That is how this began: with an accusation that was false then and is false now.
"We can have the debate about the war; about WMD; about intelligence. But we do not need to conduct it by accusations of lies and deceit. We can respect each other's motives and integrity even when in disagreement.
"Let me repeat the words of Lord Hutton:
'False accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others …should not be made'
"Let those who made them now withdraw them".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement this afternoon. It is a long Statement and comes after the publication of an extremely long report. I hope that noble Lords will take time in examining it before the House debates it a week today.
We now know that the Prime Minister believes that everything he did was right; that the Government have nothing to apologise for and that he proposes no action to change the culture in his Government to avoid what happened to Dr Kelly ever happening again.
I wonder if I was alone in finding the Statement just a little self-righteous in what was said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, says at paragraph 472,
"I have no doubt that…the Government will take note of the criticisms which I have made in this report".
Sadly, the Prime Minister said nothing to justify that confidence. So perhaps the noble and learned Lord can make it clear in his response that the Government will take those criticisms seriously and will take action to implement the changes that are so clearly needed.
We on this side of the House accept the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in full. His report was in response to narrow terms of reference. The comments in his report as to matters that he was unable to investigate underline yet again how much

215
there is that the public yet needs to know, and deserves to know, about the origins and planning of this war. The call for a wider public inquiry into this matter is not stilled by the Hutton report. Indeed, I believe that it is strengthened by the report and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will tell the House that such an inquiry will now be established.
Turning to the substance of the report, the fundamental truth remains stark and unavoidable. Last July, a distinguished public servant, whose record of service to the country was set out in the warmest terms by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton— he was hounded by the media about whose onset he had not been warned and let down in a number of respects by his employers, as the noble and learned Lord finds—in utter despair at his predicament, walked out on his loving family and in an isolated wood took his own life.
We must never forget the human dimension of this tragedy. Dr Kelly was caught up in a war of words of obsessive intensity and ferocity between No. 10 and the BBC. He was used as a pawn in that war by both sides, with little understanding, if any, of what the consequences would be for him. The consequences could not have been more dire. As the Kelly family has rightly said again today, no public servant should ever be put in such a position again.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds as unequivocal fact what has previously been a matter of some uncertainty. The decision to issue a press statement that led to the naming and hounding of Dr Kelly was taken by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 8 July. He describes, and the evidence given to the inquiry described, the frenetic series of unminuted meetings, unrecorded telephone calls and conversations between the Prime Minister, Mr Hoon and Mr Campbell, not about whether to release Dr Kelly's name but about how and when to do so. It is clear that all concerned knew that the action taken would lead to the outing of Dr Kelly's name. I find it difficult to equate that finding with the Defence Secretary's statement on oath that he made,
"great efforts to ensure Dr Kelly's anonymity".
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can explain Mr Hoon's statement.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, acquits the Prime Minister of any dishonourable intention. He says that the Government were anxious only not to be accused of a cover up; if only the Government were always so free with their information. I accept the view that was taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. But is it not an inescapable fact that, intended or not, the events set in train on that day in No. 10 led to a terrible conclusion? A man who would have been alive today is dead. The result may never have been intended. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, may be right to say that the Government acted reasonably in issuing a press statement, but those close to Dr Kelly will find little comfort in the fact that the wrong thing was done for the right reason.
216
So will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor apologise fully and unreservedly to Dr Kelly and his family on behalf of the Government? When he replies, will he also say, without qualification, what the Prime Minister failed to say; "We are sorry that our actions led to Dr Kelly's death and we apologise unreservedly"?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords will have an opportunity in a few moments to ask questions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concludes by saying that he does not make any recommendations because he is certain that both the BBC and the Government will take note of the criticisms made in his report. I trust that that will be done. He is right to say that the BBC has a very great deal to reflect on. No one in this House would for a moment question the serious criticisms levelled at the BBC. However, will the noble and learned Lord set out the actions that the Government will take in the light of this report? The evidence given to the inquiry throws light on the ugly and unappealing culture of life at the top of government—expletives deleted and all. It shows a Prime Minister spending hours and days not fretting about the health service or schools but about a war of spin with the BBC. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds that Mr Campbell sexed up the dossier—
Noble Lords: Where?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in paragraph 228(8)— in an acceptable way. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, certainly confirms that Mr Campbell was up to his neck in drafting and redrafting the document. It may be that the intelligence services on this occasion managed to restrain his enthusiasm just on the right side of what would have amounted to changing the evidence, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concludes. However, is it not the case that on matters of peace and war and intelligence of this kind, on which the lives of many thousands of people may depend, it is inherently undesirable that a political appointee should be involved in the drafting and redrafting of such a document? There is a risk of the intelligence services and indeed other civil servants being drawn too far into essentially political matters and public confidence in them being undermined. In matters so important, the public interest and public confidence and trust in government cannot be put at risk.
Does the noble and learned Lord therefore agree that these events underlie the need for four measures? First, an end to the system whereby any political appointee inside government is enabled to issue instructions to civil servants; secondly, a reinforcement of the ministerial and Civil Service codes such that factual documents of the kind represented by the dossier, and certainly those relating to intelligence, should be drafted by civil servants and

217
civil servants only; thirdly, a reinforcement of the ministerial and Civil Service codes such that no civil servant can again be treated as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds Dr Kelly was, left without the support that he was entitled to expect from his line managers in a position of such pressure; and, fourthly, as a matter of urgency in this Session of Parliament, a Civil Service Bill on the lines recommended by the Public Administration Select Committee in another place. Will he set in hand all those measures, in order to restore a proper separation between the political and official arms of government?
Dr Kelly's death was an avoidable tragedy. The consequence was unintended. But consequence it was of a culture of government and a loss of any sense of proportion at the top of government obsessed with the media. Only a real will to change the culture of government can go some small way towards atoning for Dr Kelly's tragic death—that and the renewed commitment to the wish to be open and avoid any suspicion of cover up. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds that avoiding any charge of cover up was the motivating force of government in taking the action that led to Dr Kelly's name becoming known. If that truly was the Prime Minister's motivation in those dark and difficult days, a wider inquiry into the origins of the war must inevitably now follow, with terms of reference cast far wider than the restricted ones given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. Announce such an inquiry today, and the whole country will see that the Government have nothing to cover up in relation to the origins of the Iraq war and no wish to hide it from the British people.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement made in another place. I add my regrets and those of these Benches for the very sad death of Dr Kelly, who, whatever the later arguments swirling around his name, was clearly a very considerable and remarkable public servant who dedicated most of his life to the pursuit of the legitimate aims of a country such as ours to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We extend to his family our deep sympathy.
It is important to start where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, started. In paragraph 9 of his report, he specifically states that he does not regard himself as having the right to go into the detailed material concerning the issues of weapons of mass destruction or the origins of and arguments for the war. He also said in so many terms that he believed that it would be right and proper to consider the issue of whether or not the evidence provided was "sexed up" in an unacceptable way. The noble and learned Lord said:
"The term 'sexed-up' is a slang expression … It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable … or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein
218
as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government 'sexed-up' the dossier".
The next question is: did they?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I have quoted from this whole section. I now turn to the ways in which that happened. In the original draft dossier, Iraq was said to be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes. That language was queried by Mr Campbell. He then received a reply from Mr Scarlett saying,
"the language you queried … has been tightened".
The dossier was finally published to read,
"the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within forty five minutes".
I repeat: "able to deploy", instead of "may be able to deploy".
Under delegated authority, Mr Scarlett removed the following phrase from the original document:
"Saddam is prepared to use chemical and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat".
That was what the Joint Intelligence Committee said. The crucial phrase,
"if he believes his regime is under threat",
was removed by the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the direct prompting of Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.
I could go on, but it is clear that the final dossier was different in certain critical respects from the original dossier. As, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, points out in paragraphs 210 to 218, which I suggest the House should read carefully, that follows from the fact that Mr Alastair Campbell made no less than 16 proposals for altering and strengthening the dossier.
I draw several conclusions from that. It is incredibly dangerous to run together political servants in the employ of a Prime Minister with the absolute necessity for independence and integrity in the intelligence services. While I in no way wish to suggest that it would be wrong to do so or that the Prime Minister lied, the truth is that the appearance of that intervention has, in the eyes of our public, done grave damage to the integrity of the intelligence services.
Because of time restraints, I shall turn quickly to one other comment. I believe that the Ministry of Defence was rightly criticised for failing to inform a fragile and vulnerable figure—Dr Kelly—that he was about to be revealed as the source of the intelligence on both 8 and 9 July. I also believe that the BBC—the BBC is a jewel of integrity in this country in the reporting of information—must now address the weaknesses in its senior management that allowed its conduct of this case to fall below the standards to which it normally and, thank goodness for this country, usually adheres.

219
Finally, I want to say that the great issues still lie, as the Leader of the Opposition said, unplumbed. However, perhaps I should also add that, in my view, it is not for the Conservatives to raise questions when they themselves accepted, without query, the case for a war against Iraq.
However, profound questions arise about the intelligence that was used to support that war and about the reasons that were given for conducting and carrying it out. I remind the House that on this very day in the United States Congress, evidence is being given by the leader of the Iraq Security Group to the effect that, in his opinion, no weapons of mass destruction are stockpiled and have not been since shortly after the first Gulf War. He said that he did not believe that they would or could have been used. Even the Secretary of State said that, in his view, the question was now open. It is therefore of critical importance to the integrity of this Government and this country that these issues are explored in great detail by a further and far wider inquiry.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has had only a few hours to read the report. As he will know from the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, we accept the criticisms in relation to not telling Dr Kelly that his name would be confirmed if stated and in relation to not telling him immediately—it took about an hour and a half—that his name had in fact been confirmed. We utterly accept those criticisms.
What was disappointing and worrying about the noble Lord's response was that he did not appear to have gathered the full import of the report. The crucial finding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was that a very grave allegation had been made against the Government; namely, that they had deliberately put into a report false information and that they had done so against the wishes of the intelligence services. As soon as that statement had been made, the Government denied it emphatically. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has now inquired into the situation and has discovered, first, that Dr Kelly never made such an allegation. Therefore, there was no basis for Mr Gilligan to make that finding. Secondly, he found that it was perfectly legitimate for the Government to protest, and to continue protesting, and to seek to have that put right.
Two parliamentary committees set up investigations into whether or not the allegation was true. If someone had come forward, as someone did, saying that he could be the source of Mr Gilligan's allegation, how could it have been legitimate to keep that information from the two committees investigating the matter? Surely any government would have had to bring that forward and surely it was inevitable that the name would come out. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, found.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is popular in this House and is regarded as a decent person. However, I found what he said distressing and disappointing.
220
Every single person in this House will appreciate the sensitivities of those who have been investigated and will realise that people might wrongly say that they had contributed to the death of that fine public servant. The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—albeit because he did not have enough time to read the report—were not helpful and, in my view, were irresponsible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams—again, I am sure that it was because she did not have enough time to prepare properly for her comments—read half the quotation in relation to the sexing-up of the dossier and gave an entirely misleading impression of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, found. She read one part but then did not read the next part, which states:
"However in the context of the broadcasts in which the 'sexing-up' allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts I consider that the allegation"—
that is, the allegation that the dossier was sexed up—
"was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case"
Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, makes an explicit finding rejecting the allegation of sexing up.
As to the other parts of the noble Baroness's intervention, she said that it was wrong for people in 10 Downing Street to play a part in commenting on the dossier. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, explicitly finds the reverse. He finds that it was perfectly appropriate for No. 10 to comment because this was a document for which the Prime Minister would take responsibility in Parliament. I quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton:
"As the dossier was one to be presented to, and read by, Parliament and the public, and was not an intelligence assessment to be considered only by the Government, I do not consider that it was improper for Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting made by 10 Downing Street'
Therefore, I believe that both the allegations that the noble Baroness made were misleading and wrong, but I am sure that that was not deliberate.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that over recent months fine government servants, as well as members of the Government, have been subjected to the most scurrilous allegations about their professional and personal integrity, all of which the excellent report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds to be unfounded? Does he agree that those who made those allegations should now apologise and withdraw them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I strongly agree. What is so distressing about the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—which I am sure is because they have not had time to read the report—is that they will not

221
accept that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has acquitted all those public servants, whether political or official, of the wrongdoing that has so often been misalleged against them.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can help on a matter that is puzzling me. Why, when the Government were so anxious to correct the statements made by Mr Gilligan, were they not equally anxious to correct the false impression given in the Prime Minister's foreword to the September dossier? I remind your Lordships of the foreword, which states that Saddam Hussein's,
"military planning allows for some of the weapons of mass destruction to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".
The Prime Minister said that without differentiating between battlefield weapons and strategic weapons. Why, therefore, when the Sun newspaper ran the headline, "45 Minutes to Doom", did not the Prime Minister say at once, as was the case, that the statement in the foreword that some weapons of mass destruction could be ready within 45 minutes was a reference to battlefield weapons only, and that there was no question of strategic weapons being ready within 45 minutes or of a threat to this country? The Prime Minister seems to have been happy for the public to remain misled when it suited him for them to be so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is rather unrealistic to suggest that the Prime Minister should correct every false statement in a newspaper. If the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reads the report—I certainly do not criticise him for not having done so— he will see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concludes that the report to which the foreword refers represented an entirely legitimate account of the intelligence then available.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I join in gratitude that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, undertook the task, and in compassion and sympathy for the pain and suffering of the Kelly family, which has been made sharp again today.
There is a tendency in this country that is sometimes encouraged by the media and politicians—or, indeed, by the Church and faith communities—to rush to judgment. The danger of wanting things to be absolutely in black and white was perhaps the trait that the inquiry has highlighted. We should be wary of repeating that now. The humility implicit in not rushing to judgment has a wider resonance. Power and influence exist to be exercised, but with a humility that makes us pause before seeing our fellow human beings, whoever or whatever they are, as mere instruments or tools for others.
Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that whatever the long-term lessons to be learnt from this tragedy, it already highlights a deep lack of trust within our society? The building, or
222
rebuilding of trust, be it in the media, politics, or in the Church and faith communities, takes effort, time and patience. There are no quick fixes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate that trust is at the heart of the issue. I also agree that rebuilding trust will take a considerable time. One aspect of trust, and a point that was emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, time and again, was not to make false allegations against people's integrity. There still appears to be no apology or withdrawal now that there is a definitive account of what happened. We know that neither Sir Kevin Tebbit nor my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was telling an untruth, as Mr Michael Howard alleged in the House of Commons. Yet, there has been not a sound of a withdrawal now that the position is plain. I cannot understand that.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I join those who have paid tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for the competence, speed and comprehensive quality of his report, and for the skill with which he has conducted the inquiry.
I also express unqualified relief that the Prime Minister has been acquitted of dishonesty. Relieved though I may be in that respect, one cannot be at all reassured at the circumstances which gave rise to the allegation and to the need to refute it.
On one aspect, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acknowledges fault. Dr Kelly is the victim whose death gave rise to the inquiry. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, demonstrated that there was a curious lack of consistency in the Government's handling of the disclosure of his name. On the one hand there was an endeavour to prevent it leaking out, but on the other there was a determination that it should leak out. It is clear that it was not published, but it was left to a kind of journalistic Russian roulette.
It is equally clear that Dr Kelly had no idea when his name would leak out, and for a considerable time, had no idea that it had leaked out. He was handled with what I might call casual ruthlessness. What worries us so much about the conduct of this matter is the sustained tenacity to achieve calculated ambiguity in the handling of information. Now that I have expressed my relief at the acquittal of the Prime Minister and others—there is nothing worse than being accused of dishonesty when there is no foundation for it—I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will acknowledge that there is something unsatisfactory about the conduct of the Government in the respects that I have tried to identify. Something is embedded in the culture of government, and I should love to see it removed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not blame the noble and learned Lord, but he gave a thoroughly inaccurate account of the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, on the way in which government works. The noble and learned Lord said that the name came to the Ministry of Defence at

223
or about the end of June or the beginning of July, and it took considerable trouble to ensure that Dr Kelly was the single source as it was not 100 per cent sure. The MoD was rightly criticised for not warning Dr Kelly in advance that his name would be confirmed—there being an hour or two before telling him that it was confirmed.
The idea that there was deliberate ambiguity, or that there was ruthlessness is not the flavour of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds. He specifically draws attention to three mitigating circumstances, which are referred to in the Statement made by my right honourable friend. First, there were other factors pressing on Dr Kelly at the time. Secondly, people in the MoD did try to support him. And, thirdly, he was a difficult man to help. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and without impugning his motives for a moment, he did not convey accurately what the report says.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree with me that this has been a bad day for the Opposition, and a bad day for Parliament? Would it not be much more dignified if, both here and in another place, it was recognised that the report underlines the total exoneration of the Prime Minister? The Opposition have indulged repeatedly in allegations of deceit and duplicity. It would be much more fitting if the Opposition in both Houses threw in the towel.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for others to judge how bad or good a day it has been for the Opposition. My noble friend's account of the report is accurate. I share the concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Ramsay that nobody in this House should encourage the sense that honourable public servants, whether officials or politicians, are to blame for events, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has made it absolutely clear that they are not. That is especially true in such an area of sensitivity as we are discussing.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that Dr Kelly, who was a distinguished scientific civil servant, was authorised to speak to journalists about matters concerning his work? Is it not right to say that occasionally journalists were referred to Dr Kelly as an expert on Iraq and that that could be the possible source of the great tragedy that befell him? He was a scientist doing scientific work, but if he was authorised to speak to the press—journalists will press their interviewees for the best result that they can obtain for their particular viewpoint—that could be the source of the trouble. Should not the rules in regard to this matter be looked at anew?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that in certain specified circumstances Dr Kelly was authorised to speak to the press; he is right to say that Dr Kelly was a distinguished scientist; and he is right to say that from
224
time to time journalists were referred to Dr Kelly to deal with particular issues. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, also finds unequivocally that he was not authorised to speak to Mr Gilligan on 22 May, which was the conversation that led to the broadcast on 29 May. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, commented in his report on whether overall the rules of authority need to be tightened.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that today two people have said that they agree entirely with the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton? The Prime Minister said it and the noble Lord, Lord Srathclyde, said it. Does my noble and learned friend believe that the ensuing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were compatible with complete acceptance of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in particular, when having said that he accepted the report in full, he went on to imply that the Secretary of State for Defence had some culpability in the death of Dr Kelly, a death that we all regret and in which we find sorrow? Does he also find incompatible with full acceptance the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, tries to quote a paragraph, but misquotes it, and goes on to imply that there were government responsibilities for Dr Kelly's death? When the Leader of the Opposition sees fit to apologise for his statements, would it not be appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to apologise equally for exaggerating the claims even further this afternoon?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, say that he accepted all the findings of the report. It was perfectly plain from what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, then said that he had not read the report—he obviously had not read the whole report. What he said clearly was not consistent with the report that I read.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is it not clear that there is great public interest in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, partly because the public was under the impression that it would cover much wider terms of reference than the noble and learned Lord was asked to discharge? while the House accepts that the Government have been exonerated from knowingly using false intelligence, the issue will arise of great public concern about the fact that intelligence has apparently proved to be quite incorrect. I reinforce the point that following the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, there will be public disappointment that he did not deal with the wider issues and that, in the interests of the intelligence services as regards their integrity and reputation, it will be necessary for the Government to address those matters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not agree with the initial premise of the noble Lord. He said that the reason why there was great public interest in the report related to whether the intelligence was reliable, ignoring issues about what untruths were said. As my

225
right honourable friend said in another place, the reason for the great interest is that people have persistently said that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had lied and behaved duplicitously in relation to this matter. That kept the interest alive. On whether there should be an inquiry into the reliability of intelligence, no, I do not believe that that would be appropriate.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, today we are debating an independent and very lengthy report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. I am distressed and disappointed that, although the leaders of the opposition parties clearly welcome and indeed accept the findings of the Hutton report, they go on to cherry-pick certain paragraphs, sometimes quoting and qualifying their statements and sometimes misquoting. That is a great disappointment. We have been at war with Iraq and many members of our armed services have been killed as a result of that war. Dr Kelly has committed suicide and his family is extremely distressed. It seems to me that the approach taken by the opposition parties in respect of the report today is rather shameful and somewhat shallow. I hope that in the future they will cease that behaviour. Does my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agree with me that they have been shameful and shallow in their responses?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have made completely clear what I think about the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I withdraw completely the word "learned" in relation to the noble Lord—some would regard it as an insult. His remarks were irresponsible and I hope that he will withdraw them.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that in various parts of the report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, confesses that his narrow terms of reference do not cover a number of very key issues? I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor has yet responded positively to the call for a wider inquiry. Does he accept that what unites this House is a feeling of deep sadness for the friends and family of the late David Kelly? Does he also accept that many noble Lords have not had the opportunity of reading every word in the report? I have spent several hours doing so and as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out, in paragraph 472 the noble and learned Lord states:
"I have decided that it is unnecessary for me to make any express recommendations because I have no doubt that the BBC and the Government will take note of the criticisms which I have made in this report"
Will the noble and learned Lord accept from me that there are not just the two narrow points that he mentioned, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, also refers to a number of disquieting elements? I know that the Lord Chancellor received the report only yesterday, but when we debate the issue I hope that he will be able to come forward with some constructive points in answer to my noble friend Lord
226
Strathclyde, who made four points. In this country we are proud of the independence, impartiality and integrity of our civil servants. I believe that the family and friends of David Kelly want to be reassured that the circumstances in which he endured the agony through which he was put can never occur again to one of our civil servants.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said about our feelings towards Dr Kelly and his family. As far as I could see the four points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not come from the report; they were more general points and were not based on the report. I dealt explicitly with whether there should be a wider inquiry when it was put by the noble Lord, Lord King, and I said that I did not believe that that would be appropriate.
On the terms of reference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, being restricted, at no stage was there any suggestion that he should inquire into the reliability or otherwise of the intelligence. He was to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly and there was never any allusion to the intelligence.

Postal Services
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to call attention to the Post Office and the postal services; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am privileged to have the opportunity to bring this debate to your Lordships' House today. The postal services have always been of great interest to me personally and have played a significant part in most of our lives.
In July of this year it will be 50 years since I arrived by ship from Australia to live in London. I remember the excitement and wonder of seeing for the first time the famous buildings and the sights of this great capital city. As for so many throughout history, letters were my link with home and always eagerly awaited. I could hardly believe it when my letter came through the letter-box slot on to the hall floor in the flat right inside my own dwelling. I wrote to my mother to tell her of this wondrous happening.
As a child in Sydney, it was often my turn to collect the post from the letter-box when the postman blew his whistle. The box was always at the front gate, usually some 100 metres from the front door. I would put my hand very gingerly into the letter-box as Sydney had many venomous spiders and they sometimes lurked in the box. So you can see that the British delivery of post right into the home, taken for granted by those who have always enjoyed this, was something amazing indeed for me. In Australia the recipient of post had to do more work and the postman less. In blocks of flats, the letter-boxes are all together downstairs.
I remain a devoted fan of the British postal system. I consider it essential to ensure the continuance of the universal post, which benefits everyone in this country.

227
The Royal Mail Group plc is the official name for the Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd and Parcelforce with about 200,000 employees and a turnover of over £4 billion in the last half year's published accounts. I shall deal with the whole group and individual sections in this debate without losing time in identifying separate parts.
I must, however, remind your Lordships of the disastrous and costly failed name change to Consignia—stoutly defended by the Minister at the time—now consigned to the dustbin. The present heading of "network reinvention" sets my Australian "anti-conman" alarm bells ringing. I see why, when I read that it is to deal with,
"an oversupply of Post Office branches in order to encourage the migration of customers to nearby Branches".
Progress is inevitable and desirable. We would not want to prevent that. Letters to Australia, which took six weeks by sea in the 1930s and a week by air in the 1940s, can now be received almost instantaneously by e-mail, but there is still a place for the posted communication. The prediction that we were to become a paperless society has proved quite untrue.
It is not only new technology that has damaged the Post Office. Sadly, the self-inflicted wounds of strikes in past years have been damaging and have accelerated the change-over to alternative means of communication. I recall earlier strikes, with solicitors having to set up methods of clearing documents. Later, faxes became the answer and now e-mail is everyday. Strikes have disrupted both deliveries and counter services. Every time people deprived of their normal postal service find another way to manage it means a loss for ever of some users of the postal service.
The postal services remain very important to this country. The Post Office has the largest retail branch network in the UK, with some 17,000 post office branches. It is bigger than the major building societies and banks combined—14,000—and is the largest post office network in Europe. Every week, 42 million customers visit post office branches—51 million transactions. Counter services are so convenient for people—to get TV licences, register their cars, draw cash, pay bills and buy stamps—and are widely used. Special delivery costs more but is a guaranteed next-day delivery to any part of mainland UK.
Daily, 82 million items of mail are handled. I could go on quoting figures but they are meaningless to the man in the street who simply wants to retain and, if possible, improve the postal services and certainly to have them readily available and easy to reach.
In spite of these impressive figures and the claim that in urban areas people have access to a post office within a mile, there can be real difficulty in finding a post office.
When in London, I have lived for 18 years opposite a Crown post office, of which there are only 576 of the 17,000 post offices. Two years ago this large post office was relocated around the corner. Every day I am asked: "Do you know where the post office is?" Its invisibility is seriously damaging its turnover and certainly creating difficulty for customers. The local
228
council is about to permit the erection of notices on the main road directing people to this somewhat obscure position, as they have had so many complaints about the disappearing post office.
But a large number of sub-post offices are disappearing due to a closure programme; 3,000 urban post offices are to be closed by the end of this year. Many have already gone, originally without consultation and now with token consultation. Sub-postmasters are usually private business people using their own premises and staff who have a contract with Post Office Ltd. People are losing their local services, their needs are being ignored and they usually know nothing about it until the decision to close has been made.
The closure of rural sub-post offices is even more serious. At least in urban areas, transport is available to get people to a post office somewhere. There is often no such transport in rural areas. For vulnerable, elderly and disabled people the village post office, often within the village shop, is a lifeline. Only 9 per cent of villages have a bank; 60 per cent have a post office branch.
The village post office is a meeting place and a social service and while I accept that the Social Network Payment will help continuance until 2006, I personally am very disappointed that the Government are talking about ending the right of pensioners to draw their benefits in cash. Drawing cash from pension books is a long-established habit and comfortingly familiar to the elderly who may not accept new methods easily. Habits gradually change but the Government are unwilling to allow time for this change. Post Office card accounts sound like a good idea. If people saw that such accounts meant little change, they would gradually accept them. Why are the Government making it so difficult for people to open these accounts? Some counter staff have told me that the application form is so complex that they doubt whether they would even be able to complete one themselves, much less assist customers to do so.
Rural Australian post has huge distance problems. Post boxes have to be raised on posts and are usually large open boxes so that the postman puts the delivery in from his car window. He delivers bread—usually one baker supplies a radius of 100 miles—and other essentials at the same time. In this densely populated island there are still remote parts and I was a keen campaigner for a practical service of this type. So I was delighted when the post bus was introduced. It brings the mail, takes passengers and delivers goods. I went with a parliamentary group to travel in a post bus in the north of England. I understand the service is still going and meeting the special needs of the areas of this country where the population is very sparse.
The post train has gone as electronic sorting has become the norm. The Post Office tells me that the whole delivery system is based on the sort code. I am therefore surprised that telephone books do not show sort codes with addresses and telephone numbers. I know you can buy a special postcode book and you can find the information on the Internet but very many

229
individuals will never have access to these means. It should be simple to include postcodes with any listing in the phone book. Could the Post Office not come to some agreement with BT over that?
For years I was keen to see regulators appointed in various fields—energy in particular—and I think these early regulators worked well. I now find that we are becoming over regulated and I am quite shocked by Postcomm's A Review of Royal Mail's Special Privileges. I am never opposed to improvements but I am horrified by some of the changes being considered. I do not want to see change in the exemptions, particularly from VAT, and the right for Post Office vehicles to pull up and empty post boxes, or deliver post.
On VAT, the consultation document published this month states:
"Postcomm considers that the evidence clearly supports the view of private postal operators that this privilege distorts competition in postal services. Postcomm also considers that, whatever may have been the case in the past, there is now no universal service justification for it"
I emphasise the words,
"supports the view of private postal operators"
Postcomm's remit is,
"to exercise its functions in a manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service"
Any talk of competition is only secondary in its remit.
Universal service means anyone getting their post anywhere in the country, and is very important to the individual, whereas Postcomm seems to be more interested in competition than anything else. VAT at 17.5 per cent on stamps could add 5p to the cost of a first class stamp. Even a reduced rate of, say, 5 per cent would add more than the rate of inflation.
I am unimpressed by the fact that businesses could reclaim that VAT. Ordinary people sending and receiving post could not. That would be just another nail in the coffin of the personal post—the universal post. It would be yet another stealth tax for the ordinary man. I would prefer to see an honest extra penny on a postage stamp than go down the VAT road, which widens but never narrows. VAT is a matter for the Chancellor. Will the Minister today rule out ever applying VAT to stamps?
The Post Office tells me that a penny on first and second class post represents an estimated £170 million in a year. The last penny increase brought the Post Office back into profit. At 28p, our current price for a first class stamp is cheaper than in almost every other European country. The average is 34p. In Germany it is 37p; in Italy about 50p; and in the Netherlands, 54p. For the Post Office to add one penny to the stamp value here, Postcomm must authorise it. To add VAT does not require that. It is important that the Government continue to resist any suggestion of VAT on postage stamps.
I turn to parking. The red Post Office van is entitled to pull up at the post box with impunity. That is under threat because it is not allowing competition the same rights—that is according to Postcomm again. What
230
rubbish. Thank heavens police and ambulance vehicles are not within the Postcomm remit. I consider the postal service to be a public service too. I appreciate that the Royal Mail is now a corporation, but it has only one shareholder: the Government. Will the Minister assure the House that that nonsense will be rejected? We cannot risk loss of the universal post by allowing the Government to remove the Royal Mail's special privileges.
We all tend to take for granted the many excellent counter services provided at post offices: licences, premium bonds, car registration and parcel post—all involving lots of form-filling. Am I alone, however, in thinking that some of the procedures are unnecessarily bureaucratic and laborious for both staff and customers?
The Post Office plays a very important part in all our lives, be it in town or country. I must pay tribute to the splendid postal service—counter and delivery— provided by the dedicated and helpful staff in this House.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said:
"it is very difficult … for Ministers and civil servants to try to control the operational arrangements of an industry of this scale and complexity".—[Official Report, 8/7/03; cols. 129–130.]
That may well be so, but at times I feel that the Minister gives the House the impression that the Government do not really mind about the quality of service or care provided to people in our post offices.
The Royal Mail is a vast enterprise and it is important for the nation that it should be a successful one. Let Postcomm support the universal post, not threaten it. Royal Mail delivers letters and parcels to all 27 million UK addresses, no matter how remote, at a uniform affordable price. Long may it continue.
I beg to move for Papers.
4.34 p.m
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for giving us this opportunity once again to debate something that, as she rightly said, affects all of us. I must declare an interest, because I am a member of Amicus, one of whose sections is the Communication Managers' Association.
I shall say a little more about rural post offices. The noble Baroness was right to talk about the importance to a community of having its own rural post office. Closures that have occurred under governments of both parties—3,000 under the previous government— mean that many communities have been deprived of the last place to which they can go and, often, the last shop in the village.
I know that the Government are committed to preventing unnecessary closures; nevertheless, the noble Baroness was right to say that that is being undermined in other ways. For example, benefits are no longer paid over the counter—or, at least, all the emphasis is on them going through bank accounts. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness about the difficulty of obtaining a Post Office card. Why do we have to have the complex form to which she referred? Why can people not just walk into their local

231
post office and open an account there and then? They can do that at the bank; why can they not do so at the post office? There appears to be undermining by another department. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he will explain why it appears that one department is against another. One department is recommending that people go for a bank account instead of using the post office. Yet most people prefer to use the post office, which gives them an opportunity to meet other people, get out and about and use the local store.
If we are promoting in-town and in-village shopping, it seems silly to deprive the one centre that can offer that service of part of its revenue, because 40 cent of post offices' revenue comes from payment of benefits. If they are to be deprived of that, they need other resources on which they can fall back and all the help they can get.
It is not much good our saying that according to the most recent available statistics, closures have fallen considerably and are probably at their lowest since 1994–95. That is not helpful if those running post offices feel insecure, see their actual returns dropping and find it difficult to dispose of rural post offices— which means that as they come to retire, the post office closes and the community is deprived of that service. Will my noble friend tell us why we cannot have that simple method: going into a branch and obtaining a card there and then? If we cannot, why not?
It is right to say that in many urban areas post offices have joined together to try to make themselves viable, but that again deprives people who have been near to a post office, as it moves further away from them. The people who suffer in all of this are pensioners and those with disabilities. We ought to take them into account all the time.
I am pleased that Post Office Ltd is, as has been said, becoming a major player in the financial services field. It provides personal loans, credit cards, motor insurance and bureaux de change —one of, if not the, largest networks in the country. However, again, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness—we seem to be agreeing a great deal on this occasion. Why cannot post offices be made more attractive? Why cannot people know more about them? Why is it so difficult sometimes to discover them when they can offer all these services? That issue needs attention.
I turn to the Royal Mail's industrial relations with its employees, a matter which concerns me greatly. I asked a recent Starred Question on the 3,000 managers who were being made redundant. I pointed out that there had been no consultation with the Communication Managers' Association. The first it knew about the matter was when it was told that once again there was to be a further review of managers— the fourth review in four years. How can people feel secure against that background?
On 20 November, the union was told that there was to be another review. On 2 December that was confirmed verbally. On 11 December, a letter stated that there would be 3,000 redundancies. No consultation had taken place and Section 188 had not been complied with
232
The answer given by the Minister with responsibility for science, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, to my Starred Question was not completely accurate. I asked about the fact that the partnership was not working. He replied:
"As for the partnership, I think that I am right in saying that it was the unions that withdrew from the partnership arrangements. It would be highly desirable for the two sides to come together again to drive forward the change".—[Official Report, 8/1/04; col. 250.]
Since then the Minister has received the letter from Peter Skyte, the National Secretary of the Communication Managers' Association, pointing out that that is not completely accurate. It is true that CWU suspended its involvement in the partnership; but against that the Communication Managers' Association has never withdrawn and has continued to play a part in the process. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity of putting the record straight in that regard.
Managers and other employees are its most valuable asset. I do not understand why it is treating its staff in this way. Someone who is now a director of the Post Office may move from Royal Mail to another company but many of the staff have worked for Royal Mail for a lifetime. Their security and the welfare of their families depend on the good relationship with Royal Mail.
I agree with the noble Baroness that Postcomm is behaving in a shabby way towards the Post Office. I fail to understand how we shall maintain a universal service with the cherry picking which is being allowed. Equally, if the Royal Mail is to meet increased competition and the changes required in the liberalised future which it faces, how can it do so without working in partnership and consultation with its employees? Why cannot it be more open with them? Why cannot it disclose to them their future plans for investment, how it sees the corporate plan coming about and how it intends to meet the increased competition. I fail to understand why it does not seek more co-operation from them and why it is not working with them.
At the end of the day all of us—I do not refer simply to those who work for the Post Office or are the managers of the Post Office—have a stake in maintaining that high standard of service we have received in the past. I say this to my noble friend. We shall not receive that if employees are treated in this shabby and disgraceful way.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Post Office. When preparing these notes, I had intended to say that I was particularly grateful to the noble Baroness because as recently as 6 June of last year I had raised an Unstarred Question about the role of Postcomm which did not take place. It had not arisen again by the time the House prorogued. In my innocence. I thought that it might do so but it has not. However, we have this debate today.

233
In my time in this House, I have never enjoyed a speech so much as that of the noble Baroness today. I say that because of my emotional attachment to the Post Office. The noble Baroness said that she arrived here 50 years ago. Fifty-eight years ago I joined the Post Office. I declare my interest as a former telegraph boy, postman, sorter, the deputy general-secretary of my union and a trustee of the Post Office pension fund.
Having been directly associated with the Post Office for over half a century I feel a sense of deep sadness when I see what has happened to what was, and I believe could still be if it were given the chance, the best postal service in the world. The noble Baroness touched a range of emotions in me when she described postal conditions in Australia. All I experienced were squirrels in Kenwood, Hampstead, biting my fingers and the odd fox running in front of the mail van I was driving down to the Iveagh estate.
For many years the Post Office was contributing large financial surpluses to the Exchequer. I recall that in my maiden speech in your Lordships' House I drew attention to the success story the Post Office could tell. I said at that time—December 1998—that it was not just in 1998 that the Post Office had met the financial target set by the Treasury. During the preceding 20 years the Post Office had achieved subsidy-free profits. It had exceeded the external financing limit target set for it in 13 of the previous 16 years. At that time in 1998, in the 16-year period I referred to the Treasury benefited by more than £2 billion, on the backs of good, dedicated servants of the Post Office.
There were hopes among many that the coming of commercial freedom would herald a new dawn in Post Office finances. It was widely hoped that the successful public service would be able to build on its successes and meet the challenges that it would face as a result of the Postal Services Act 2000.
The Act came into being and this House has from time to time been reminded—by me, among others— that the hopes I have referred to have been dashed. The biased hand of Postcomm has rested heavily on the Post Office management. The long protracted discussions on the sensible rate to be charged for downstream access by the competitors of the Royal Mail is but one example of a waste of money.
It is worthwhile informing the House of the way in which Postcomm is funded. Postcomm is funded by the fees it charges to the companies it licenses to provide postal services. The licence fee increases with the volume of mail the company handles. By far the largest contributor to Postcomm's running expenses is Royal Mail which handles 80 million items of mail a day. Postcomm's annual budget is around £7 million. It has a staff of around 40 people. How on earth did we manage to be such a successful business without this wonderful group of people sitting in judgment, day after day, on what the Post Office should be doing?
There are many post offices that I would like to speak about during this debate. I will attempt to deal with just a few. A few issues cause concern, not just to me and the people with whom I have worked all my
234
life, but to the public. This concern is felt by people in the Post Office, and people outside; the customers and the clients—both business and domestic—who rely on the maintenance of a reliable service.
The first issue is the role of Postcomm. I have not altered my view of this unnecessary organisation since I first described it as the vehicle by which the get-rich carriers would cream off profitable business, then dump their work on the Royal Mail, which, by the terms of the Act, must deliver the final mile to the addressee.
Just before Christmas, on 17 December, Postcomm's Graham Corbett welcomed the announcement that Royal Mail and UK Mail were likely to reach a voluntary agreement over the prices and conditions under which Royal Mail will carry its rivals' letters over that final mile. The announcement came as a result of Postcomm being asked to determine access prices, after talks between the companies originally broke down. Following the initial proposals as long ago as last May, Postcomm's final proposals were due for publication prior to Christmas, but we now are told that they will be published by the end of this month.
It is reported that Postcomm has agreed to postpone this publication to enable both parties to finalise the details of their agreement. If a final agreement is reached, Postcomm said that it would issue a paper giving its views on an appropriate framework for other firms whose business model requires access to Royal Mail's delivery network. If an agreement is not finalised, Postcomm's proposals will be published in their original form shortly afterwards. Can the Minister inform the House of the current situation?
I share my union's view of Postcomm's liberalisation and competition agenda. It is fundamentally in conflict with its primary duty to protect a universal service at a uniform tariff. Since its creation, the competition proposals from Postcomm have introduced too much competition, too soon, in the wrong form, at the wrong time. They directly contradict the measures and timetable being introduced by the European Union. Postcomm's interpretation of competition and postal services is that it will bring major benefits to customers without putting at risk the maintenance of the universal service at a universal tariff. That is unsustainable. That interpretation puts at risk the universally provided service. There is a belief in many countries and postal administrations that the postal industry is a unique and natural monopoly, which can be maintained only by preserving a system of cross-subsidisation, on which it depends.
The general principle of allowing third party access to Royal Mail's pipeline will undermine the simple business model of cross-subsidisation, on which the universal service depends. Allowing the development of this form of third party access would threaten Royal Mail's long-term viability, hit the company's revenues, undermine the recently determined pricing structure, and prevent Royal Mail from effectively meeting its universal service obligations.

235
It is my firm belief that access determination is being used to accelerate the introduction of competition in the postal market, by allowing competitors to take advantage of Royal Mail's economies of scale in delivery. Setting the access price at a level less than half the price of a first-class stamp amounts to a green light for mail operators to cherry pick profitable mail and thus threaten Royal Mail's ability to maintain the universal service obligation.
I am confident that anyone who believes in the British Post Office wants it to be an expanding postal industry that provides a first-class service to the public. At a time when mail volumes continue to grow, and the number of delivery points is increasing, the future of the industry can be built only by greater investment in staff and capital, a delivery service that concentrates on customer needs with a more customer-focused range of products and services, and constructive industrial relations. I will mention industrial relations again at the end.
On financial, operational and legal grounds, the proposed access arrangements will prevent Royal Mail from fulfilling its primary statutory duty to preserve the universal service obligation and a uniform tariff. In the light of the damaging impact that the current arrangements will have on the future provision of services, I have asked the Minister to look again at the role and actions of Postcomm, with a view to getting it to withdraw its existing proposals on access and to allow the matter to be looked at afresh by the new postal regulator.
It will not satisfy me to be told, as I have been told so many times in this House, that this is a matter for the Post Office and the regulator. This Government, whom many worked so hard to get elected, created Postcomm. They brought in the Postal Services Act 2000. They should not walk away from their responsibilities to the public.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Hoyle referred to post office closures. I will not mention names, but an 86 year-old lady living in south London rang her daughter miles away to ask her to come and help her, because she had been to the post office three times and had three forms. She did not understand what was happening, and she wanted to get her money. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville has told me many times in correspondence that people will always be able to get their money.
The Post Office is being encouraged not to provide post office cards and accounts—people are being directed to banks. It is no good for the Government to say, "This is a matter of understanding". This lady sat in tears in her kitchen, and her daughter had to travel a long way and take a day off to sort out the matter with the post office clerk, who, under pressure, probably said, "Just fill in the form and bring it back". It is a bit much for the Minister to say that it will all come right in the end, and that people will get used to it. It will not. Some people are vulnerable.
It is no good asking Ministers about how many sub-offices and branch offices have closed since the Government were elected. They are closing at a rapid
236
rate. Many so-called "local consultations" about closure are just a sham—I use that word advisedly. I come from Hampstead, where I was a postman for many years and emptied post boxes outside foreign offices. Mansfield Road, South End Green, Finchley Road and Belsize Village are all due for closure.
Do not take my word for it being a sham. Take the response of the local paper, where a Post Office spokesman spoke at a public meeting.
"He told the meeting that the Post Office's only shareholder, the Government, expected him to plug a gaping £200 million hole in the annual budget caused by a decline in business. 'We are not as professional retailers as we ought to be', he told me in a frank admission. He added 'the Government will not allow us to operate at a loss. We have to make changes'"
I draw the Minister's attention to the Early-Day Motion tabled in the other place about the relationship between the Scottish banks and the Post Office. In the United Kingdom generally, there have been agreements to get benefits paid through banks, but the banks in Scotland will not co-operate. I commend Early-Day Motion 397 to him. Perhaps he will let me know his views on it in due course.
On 8 January, this packed public meeting was told the usual line—that there were post offices within a mile. Let me dispel a rumour. In Hampstead, they are not all running about in four-wheel drives, racing around corners. Vulnerable, elderly, sometimes handicapped people, are trying to get their pension from the post office. They are not all in a position to drive that mile. In some cases, that mile can be stretched, as it was in Loudoun Road, on the other side of Finchley Road—but I am getting too parochial. This is not the first time that I have drawn attention to the fact that it is not the fault of the Post Office that these closures are taking place, not just in Hampstead. In almost every community in the country, people are losing their local offices. When I say that the consultations are just a sham, do not take my word for it. Read what other people are saying who have no real connection.
The urban reinvention programme has a wonderful title—it is another one to put in the box, from the Carter committee 40 years ago onwards. Some £210 million has been allocated to this programme, among other moneys. Some £180 million of that money is going on compensation for people who want to give up their post offices. We wonder why they are closing, but it is being made so easy for them. The odd bit of money is going on refurbishment of the offices that remain.
I said that I would like to talk about industrial relations. I share the noble Baroness's view of the damage that has been done over years by industrial relations in the Post Office. In 1971, when we had 47 days of strike, I swore that I would do everything in my power to avoid people having to go on strike again. Sometimes, I was successful—and criticised for it— and, sometimes, I was not. Today, there is an agreement. The agreement is a testament to the success of negotiations after the sad events just before Christmas. Agreements are possible.

237
In the agreement is the key to a lot of the Post Office's problems. It is balloted on at the moment. The ballot closes tomorrow, and I am confident that the agreement will be endorsed. If the House will forgive me for speaking for 30 seconds more, I must say that I believe that the agreement contains the key. It allows for five-day weeks. People who work for the Post Office have had to get up in the early hours of the morning six days a week, year after year. If that change comes about, the agreement will be worth the effort put into it by the chairman of the Post Office, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting a few times. I do not know whether he was added to the list. I was told that the DTI wanted him added to the shortlist. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he was. The rumour is going round that Allan Leighton got the job because his name was put on afterwards. I wish him well, and I hope that, when he leaves the Post Office—I hope that that will not be for a long while—he leaves it in better shape than he left Leeds United.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I too congratulate and thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has brought this important topic before us today. The Post Office has been debated here and in another place on several occasions recently. Like many others, I have persistently asked questions about the Post Office and sub-post offices and about the wider service given by sub-postmasters in their local community. I agree with my noble friend that we should retain and improve postal services, services that are currently taken so much for granted. It is rather like having electricity and thinking that the lights will never go out.
I suggest to the Minister that the course that the Government are taking is putting severe strain on our postal services. The people who are most likely to lose out on all of that are the elderly, the disabled and people with young children, particularly those without transport. That affects us particularly in rural areas.
No doubt, others will talk about urban post offices; I shall feature two particular aspects. One is the way in which benefits are paid to clients. The second is the future of rural sub-post offices. At this stage, I declare that I am a patron of VIRSA, which does a lot of work with the Post Office to sustain post offices and prevent closure.
The Minister will not remember it, but his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville—he is not in his place—would remember how, when we took the Postal Services Bill through the House, I tabled several amendments relating to the way in which welfare benefits would be paid to clients in future. The changes proposed in the ending of the book system caused several heated—perhaps that is not the right word; they were passionate—debates in Committee and at later stages. The concerns that I expressed at that time were wafted away as being over the top. I was told that the new system would be welcomed and that there would be no problem. That is not, in fact, how it is turning out, as other noble Lords have already said today.
238
The apprehensions are real, and I have many examples from CABs around the country highlighting cases like that just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who spoke about an 86 year-old who could not get help. They are coming in thick and fast. I suggest that, if the Minister does not get the CAB's very good bulletin, he should do, as he would realise the difficulties that people have to cope with.
First, I shall speak about benefit payments. Secondly, I will say more on rural sub-post offices. In its excellent briefing, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has reminded us again that, in 2000, two-thirds of benefits in Britain were paid over a post office counter and around 18 million benefit recipients used the post office to get access to their payments. The federation goes on to say:
"Not only are people being forced to change the way in which they collect their benefits, despite the fact that 'there is little evidence that [claimants] have an unmet need for simple, trusted and secure means of accessing their benefit income'; but the Government has"—
as others have said—
"made it difficult for people to choose the post office based product"
The NFSP has serious concerns that the way in which the direct payment programme has developed will continue to undermine the ability of the national post office network to sustain itself. The federation says:
"We have internal memos from the Department for Work and Pensions which prove … staff are instructed to encourage customers to choose a bank account at every opportunity and that they 'should be aiming to get 9 out of 10 new customers paid into bank accounts with a small proportion of these paid through Post Office card accounts"
I encourage the Minister to believe that people applying are being leant on to go through their bank, rather than use the three options that are open to them.
Other noble Lords have referred to the closure of post offices. The figures speak for themselves. Between 1992 and 1997, 1,089 sub-post offices closed; between 1998 and 2003, the total rose to 1,769. So, the Government recognise that there was a problem when they were in opposition, but the problem has become worse. The Minister should apply his mind to the continuing closure of sub-post offices. Perhaps he is not particularly interested in that at this time.
The Government's response to the closures has not been encouraging. In April 2000, when the problem reached a pinnacle, millions of protesters came to London. I was there among them when they handed in to Downing Street a petition against the proposed changes. They were anxious and had reason to be. In response to the mass lobby, Labour introduced a provision in the Postal Services Act 2000 that gave the Government power to pay subsidies to sub-post offices. We believe that sub-postmasters are looking to their long-term future; they do not want hand-outs. They need security. One must remember that it is the sub-postmaster who owns the shop and organises what happens in his post office. If sub-postmasters feel insecure because of the changes, it is not surprising that more sub-post offices are closing.

239
On 17 July, the House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee published its report on the impact of direct payment on post offices, about which the CAB had given oral and written evidence. The Select Committee concluded that, for benefit recipients who preferred to conduct their day-to-day financial affairs through bank accounts, the introduction of direct payment would provide a more convenient means of receiving their benefits. However, the Select Committee also felt that there was a significant group of people for whom payments by order books was the best option and that the needs of those people had not been properly taken into account when those direct payments had been concluded.
I turn to slightly more up-to-date figures and refer the Minister to a House of Commons Written Answer published in Hansard for 21 January 2004 at col. 1338W. The Government had been asked how many clients had opted to use the three schemes. I shall share the figures with your Lordships. The number of those using direct payment into bank or building society accounts was 9,052,037. The figure for direct payments into card accounts at post offices—the thing that we are encouraged to use—was, on the date of the reply, only 175,269. That is a tiny number. The figure for those who were still being paid through the order book was 9,566,221. If you add together the first and second figures, they come to less than the third. We are told by the Government that the new payment systems will have to be up and running by April 2005. How does the Minister think he will achieve that if more than 9,566,000 people are still not choosing to use one of the Government's systems?
I turn very briefly to the rural areas. The distance might be within a mile in urban areas but certainly in rural areas the distance is greater. I still find it extraordinary that the average comes down to one mile away. I suppose that that is as the crow flies—perhaps it is rather a large crow with large wings which covers a mile in different ways. But that is by the way.
Certainly, there is great concern in rural areas about the continuing uncertainty for the future of rural post offices. I hope that I have demonstrated to the Minister that people are still opting to use their post office—9 million are still doing so. There is a long way to go before those rural post offices have any certainty that their future is there and they will be able to continue.
The post offices have tried to diversify and to bring added benefits to help the people using them, whether that means paying car insurance or electricity bills. Trialled in Leicestershire—it appeared in my own post office—was Your Guide. It was a computer by which people could access government information or local information, and the system ran for a year. Why was it suddenly dropped? Has it been reviewed? Was it considered not to be of benefit? It ran and then it died, and we have not heard back about what success it had. If it had possibilities for the future, why has it been allowed to die, because it was another way of bringing additional income to that post office?
240
All I can do is tell the Minister that the fears expressed by Members on all sides of the House—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will follow me and will, I suspect, have his own concerns to express—are very real. There is concern not just within the House—I am sure that many of my colleagues at the other end of the building feel the same. Working with VIRSA I know only too well of the very grave difficulties facing sub-post offices and sub-postmasters, particularly in rural areas.
I hope that the Minister will give us some words of encouragement and that he will answer those questions. The way in which we pay benefits is so crucial to long-term success, whether it be through the post office card account although, as others have said, it is a nightmare to access. I do not know why it is made so difficult. Leaning on the public to use banking facilities when many of them cannot even get access to bank accounts because they do not qualify is a waste of time and not very fair to them.
I have three questions. What will happen on the future of the welfare benefits payments? What will happen to the longer term future of rural post offices? Why was Your Guide suddenly dropped and lost after it was introduced?
I thank again my noble friend for making this afternoon's debate possible.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I declare an interest as a post office pensioner. May I presume, as a former chairman, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on her deep knowledge of these affairs, and the passion and enthusiasm with which she has spoken of personal service?
When I read the last annual report and accounts of the Post Office, I was in some despair. It shows a loss for the year of £600 million. It expressed concern for a possible loss of £1 billion worth of business. It said in the notes to the accounts, which not many people read, that it had had to borrow £1 billion from the banks so that it could do its accounts on a going-concern basis—rather an unusual thing to happen.
When I came to the half-year accounts, I saw, for the first time, signs of welcome progress in remedying the fortunes of the Post Office. I saw, for example, that for the first time in five years, it had managed to break even. In the same six months last year, it lost £500 million. More recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said, there has been a really valuable, important agreement with the Communication Workers Union of a pay deal of 14.5 per cent over 18 months and new working arrangements, which will be paid for by efficiency gains. That is really epoch-making—a transformation. We should acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, in developing a better climate within which negotiations could take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, was talking about the deal with UK Mail. I think we are right in saying that heads of agreement have been reached, and it is the final dotting. I hope that the regulatory body can be

241
kept out of it. I share the concerns of a body that seems to see as its goal and the only relevant criterion competition rather than a good postal service at a fair price, available to us all, which will continue. The objective is not to compete but those three factors. I regret that the Post Office has not seen its role in a fuller way.
I want to concentrate on the Post Office's network, which has been referred to by all speakers. When I was looking at the half-year accounts, and although I had great pleasure in seeing that the Post Office had broken even, on trading, Post Office counters had had a loss of £91 million. It was better than the previous year, but not much. I began to think about the environment within which these counters are trading and, of course, I came straight back to the change in the way in which benefits will be paid.
In the past, there was a choice. People could use their building society or their bank or they could go to the post office with their pension book or benefits card. It seemed to me a simple thing to say, "We're going to change things; you can still go to your bank or your building society, but instead of having a pensions book, you will have a post office bank card. It is very simple—there is no complexity, nothing new. In fact, you will find it easier". But what do I find? Complexity.
The House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee reported last year on the Post Office network, particularly the counters. It referred to the complexity of opening up a card account, and said:
"We do not accept that this requirement … means that the procedure must be more complicated than opening an ordinary bank account. The Government should consider again why a card account cannot be opened at a Post Office using the same basic procedure as employed by the banks".
All I hear is complexity in this.
My local sub-postmaster tells me the same as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said. The whole system seems to be loaded against the pensioner—the beneficiary—changing over to post office card accounts. The pressure is all one way. There is the complexity and the push.
What is happening? We have lost 3,000 post office counters in urban areas. The thing that I find most surprising in the context of this change to new ways of paying benefits is that there was no cost-benefit calculation of the transformation. Those are not just the words of a prejudiced former chairman of the Post Office; I am quoting from that self-same report from the Select Committee in the House of Commons. The committee said:
"In the absence of a proper study of the costs and benefits of Direct Payment, it is difficult for us to comment on the merits of the Government's case that it represents value for money".
We are talking about big money here, however, not the odd million. The package involves £450 million over three years to maintain the rural network, which is £150 million a year. It involves £210 million for the urban network, £180 million to pay for sub-office closures and £30 million for modernisation. One does not spend £600 million without a little thought. The
242
Select Committee said that it could not find that a cost-benefit analysis had been undertaken. I am a touch surprised at that, but perhaps the Minister—although not today—will drop me a line. I like getting letters; it helps my pension. Will he tell me whether it is the case that there was no cost-benefit analysis? If he finds that there was one, he should drop me a line.
Everybody seems to have three wishes. My first wish is that the Government will look into the issue of the complexity of opening one of those Post Office card accounts and see that the Department for Work and Pensions is helping pensioners by enabling and facilitating them to get one of those accounts. Secondly, I refer to the matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, which is also the subject of a debate on an Early-Day Motion tomorrow, signed by 55 MPs. The Motion is to encourage a number of banks—and I say this with the hesitation of an Englishman, but they happen to be Scottish banks— which have not entered into an arrangement with the Post Office, to have some felicitous discussion that may help that process along.
My third wish is a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Yes, money has been put on the table for three years to sustain the rural network— £150 million a year. What happens after the three years? Does the rural network go to the wall? Do the people who run the little businesses need to be kept in suspense as to whether they will be scrapped, or will the Government seek to clarify the position? I know that they will not do that this afternoon, but I hope that they will sense the feeling in this House about the Post Office network, its value to society and its familiarity. It is something that needs to be conserved.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to have an update on this problem. Over many years we have discussed the basic needs of a rural community. A parson is nowadays run off his feet, with too many churches and not enough money. Physicians are all now withdrawn into group practices. Then there are primary school teachers. Rather like my noble friend Lady Byford, both in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire we have succeeded in having some fairly sensible amalgamations so that they have not been withdrawn too far from the local communities.
Pubs have also been affected, and then there are policemen, who have all been withdrawn from rural areas. In fact, all that a policeman is able to do now is, when there is some form of rural crime, to give one a number that allows one to ring up the insurance company so that the police do not have to do anything more about it. The matter is between oneself and the insurance company, which may pay out. However, above all—and by far the most important thing in the rural area—is that we should maintain our post office.
There is no better indication of the duplicity of this Government than the question of rural post offices. They say one thing, and once upon a time some of us believed it, but we now know that they always do the

243
opposite. The Prime Minister said on more than one occasion that he valued the rural network—it was a sort of spin about the countryside. But he has authorised his Government to do the very opposite and to remove as much business from the Post Office as possible.
A person applying for child benefit is told that the only way they can get their money is by having it paid into a bank account. They were not advised about the option of drawing it through a Post Office card account until quite recently. An elderly person now receives a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions which says:
"We are now changing the way your attendance allowance is paid".
Right across the top of this letter, in big print, it now says:
"Direct payment—giving it to you straight".
I am referring to a person in our own village who has no bank account and no transport and wants the benefit paid into the post office.
The Government go out of their way to make it difficult for such a person to have future payments made to the Post Office card account. In the first instance, the Department for Work and Pensions asks the person to ring them up, at no cost to themselves, so that they can be persuaded that their allowance should be paid into their bank account. If they insist that, like many older people, they want to collect their allowance from the post office and want to have it paid into a card account at the post office, they have to fill in an elaborate form. It has to be filled in with a black ballpoint pen, they have to use capital letters, and they have to produce some form of identity to go with the form. That makes it as difficult as possible.
There is only one way in which to keep the rural post office open, and that is by the number of footfalls entering the post offices. Whatever they may say, the Government are doing their best to drive business away. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, over the past two years 80 per cent of all closures have been in rural areas. Despite the social network payment, most of the rural offices cost the postmaster money to maintain. In December 2002, a £450 million package was announced, but it has a run-out date of 2006. The package contains £190 million for the sub-postmasters and money for the new forms of business. Even so, the Post Office is finding it hard to find replacements for sub-postmasters.
One must admire the business that postmasters have built up around the central business of the post office, including newspapers, food, off-licences, cards and sweets. That is all done to support an essential service, which is needed and should be properly funded. The business of the Post Office should stand entirely on its own feet. The Government are driving more business away because of their prejudice against the Post Office card account.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for introducing this
244
extremely timely and relevant debate. It is worthy of note that her Motion calls attention to the Post Office and the postal services. In this debate, only the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has really addressed the postal services aspect. When we have discussed these matters in your Lordships' House on previous occasions the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has endlessly repeated the same mantra; namely, that the Government must take responsibility for postal services. I fear that however often he repeats that, the Minister will still give him the same answer; that is, that most of the issues that he raises are management issues for the board of the Post Office and for Allan Leighton, when he is not occupied saving Leeds United.
However, as I have said to your Lordships on other occasions, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord as there seems to be a tendency for the Government to claim the credit when things have gone well but to say that it has nothing to do with them when things have gone badly. However, I shall pass from that to touch on the issues that other noble Lords have raised which relate to the changing face of the post office network, which is of significant concern to your Lordships and, indeed, to the country at large.
Over the past 30 years the number of post offices and the profitability of the post office network have obviously been in serious decline. As a number of noble Lords indicated, changes to the way in which benefits and pensions are paid will—and already have—significantly reduce post office footfall, to use the retail jargon. It is estimated that paying benefits directly into people's bank accounts will mean that individual sub-postmasters are likely to experience a drop of 40 per cent in their incomes as a direct result of the loss of those transaction payments. I suspect that figure will be generally accepted by the Minister. In response to that the Government introduced a modernisation programme for the post office network.
As well as the proposed introduction of the universal bank, there is to be—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, quite rightly drew our attention to the wonderful phraseology here—the reinvention of the urban network. The policy of Her Majesty's Government is that rural closures are to be avoided wherever possible. However, the direct result of that policy is that the Government have had to make huge financial commitments to guarantee, or attempt to guarantee, an arrest in rural sub-post office closures and establish a massive compensation programme that far exceeds the investment programme in urban areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, indicated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, indicated, £210 million was allocated to the urban reinvention programme by the Government. In an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 17 December 2003, the Minister in another place, stated that the Government were,
"investing very substantial sums in supporting the transformation of the network—some £2 billion in total over the next five years".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/03; col. WA984.]
So the Government clearly have a very significant financial interest in what is happening in both the rural and the urban sub-post office areas. As regards the

245
rural network, even after the £2 billion has been spent, the network will still need to support itself in the future. I believe that Postcomm has recommended that additional funding to deal with the gap in funding for central support costs for the rural network after the loss of the Benefits Agency income—a contractual amount of £400 million—should be negotiated by the Government as shareholder and purchaser of services from Post Office Ltd. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that.
Clearly, after investing all this money in the rural post office network, the Government must encourage development of an alternative income model for post offices if they are to become viable post-2006. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly said that no indication of what this revenue stream might be has been forthcoming from the Government. The noble Baroness rightly drew attention to the fact that the trial of "Your Guide", which I believe cost £35 million and was generally well received, was quashed by the Government without any apparent explanation. I hope that the Minister will expand on the Government's proposals regarding how that alternative income model for post-2006 for rural post offices can be developed.
The Government have received advice from Postcomm that they should provide direct revenue support to sub-postmasters using Post Office Ltd. as the delivery channel. The amount would obviously have to be negotiated between the Government and the Post Office. Postcomm has argued that funding administered independently from the Post Office should stimulate ways of providing post office services that ensure continuing provision of post office services in rural areas during the transitional phase, that maintain or improve the quality of those services and their wider benefits to the local community—a number of noble Lords said that the Post Office is really the only viable commercial enterprise in a village—and that funding should be provided to encourage the post office network to be self-sustaining from 2006 to 2007. I should be interested to hear what the Government have to say about progress in that area.
The policy for the either aptly or inaptly named urban reinvention programme is clearly to compensate sub-postmasters as they close what are regarded as unnecessary urban post offices. However, the intention was that the rationalisation of the urban network was to be a managed process rather than what we have at the moment which is an unmanaged decline and an, up to now, haphazard closure of post offices. The intention was that if one relocated offices into busier stores the Post Office would be able to capture more customers in one place thereby reducing the need for such a large number of outlets in urban areas. The Government, at the request of Post Office Ltd, made the £210 million available over a period of three years. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, drew to our attention, £180 million of that is intended to be spent on compensating sub-postmasters for closing their post offices and only £30 million on the matched funding for improvements to the remaining offices.
246
Those are the figures that I have. Other noble Lords may have more up-to-date figures. However, I believe that under the consultation programme, proposals received by Postwatch for closure aggregated 1,522 urban post offices—the figure may be higher now— and that 759 urban post offices have actually been closed.
One of the problems that a number of noble Lords have touched on is that closure proposals are coming from the local level; that is, the sub-postmasters, rather than as a result of strategic targeting by Post Office Ltd. In other words, closures are almost entirely driven by sub-postmasters who volunteer to close their own businesses. With sub-postmasters fully aware that they face a significant fall in revenue through the move to direct payment and with £180 million set aside for compensation if they were to close their business, is it any wonder that a number of turkeys are voting for Christmas?
In addition, a number of sub-postmaster volunteers identified for closure are required to sign a binding contract, which includes a figure for compensation, before the consultation period begins but which is subject to its outcome. That obviously increases the pressure within the consultation period for that sub-post office to close.
I should like the Minister to respond to a number of points regarding the urban reinvention programme. Does he agree that all of the following suggestions— every one of which I believe has emanated from Postwatch—should apply? First, sub-postmaster preference should not be the sole determinant of post office closures. More emphasis is required regarding the adequacy of what remains post closure.
Secondly, if we are to have a properly rationalised closure programme, does the Minister think it is necessary to identify weak and potentially unviable offices which need to close, but where the sub-postmaster has not volunteered to go in order to ensure adequate coverage? Thirdly, does he agree that area plans ought to contain a genuine mechanism to mix and match those people wanting to leave with offices that need to stay open to achieve proper coverage?
The £180 million compensation fund, funded by the taxpayer, usually far exceeds the commercial value of the offices to be closed. That distorts the market, even though there is a genuine commercial interest in taking over a branch that would otherwise close. Does the Minister agree that that distortion needs to be removed? Does the Minister agree that Post Office Ltd. needs to engage much earlier in open consultation with MPs and local authorities to include local issues, such as regeneration, in area plans for closures? Does he agree that Post Office Ltd. ought to explain fully after consultation its decisions and respond to the issues raised?
Does he agree that the DTI should not release funds to Post Office Ltd. for sub-postmaster compensation until after the public consultation and that no funds should be released for a branch that remains contested after the consultation period until the matter is

247
resolved satisfactorily? The overarching question is whether the Minister will urgently clarify the policy for urban deprived offices.
A number of detailed questions have been asked by myself and other noble Lords. I thank the noble Baroness for raising a worthwhile debate and I look forward to the Minister's answer.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating the debate and for giving us a short insight into the difference that she found in the Post Office when she arrived here from Australia. My noble friend made an excellent speech which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, also enjoyed. I listened with great interest to all the speeches made in the debate. If one looks at the list of speakers, it was not a question of quantity but of quality. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will forgive me for not including him and myself, as we have the privilege of responding from the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Byford has special responsibility for countryside matters. All noble Lords spoke from experience, especially the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
My noble friend mentioned how many times we have debated the subject. Today we have the 69th debate on the crisis affecting the Post Office since Labourcametopowerin 1997. Between 1992 and 1997 it was necessary for our party to debate the subject on only five occasions because at least we knew where we were going. Unfortunately, we are now in a right mess. On the occasion of the 67th debate, which took place in the other place on 13 January, there was, simultaneously, a debate being held in Westminster Hall.
The contempt in which the Government hold the concerns of honourable Members in the other place and their constituents on the steady erosion of post office facilities is starkly illustrated by the fact that the Secretary of State did not attend the debate in the other place. In fact, she gave Mr Stephen O'Brien notice of that only a few minutes before it began. It was replied to by the Minister of State, Mr Stephen Timms, whose portfolio includes energy, which from my experience—I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree—is virtually a subject on its own. It was difficult for him to deal with the matter properly.
The smug complacency with which the Government regard the subject is also illustrated by the amendment put down in the name of the Secretary of State, who did not bother to come to Parliament to support it. No doubt candidates of all opposition parties will remind people of the words contained in that amendment. I expect that the constituents of the 326 honourable Members who voted with the Government will also take note of that fact. The Government's amendment to the resolution in the other place claimed that the Government were committed to keeping post offices,
"easily accessible to all customers".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/04; col. 789.]
248
The amendment went on to claim that 95 per cent of the urban population lived within a mile of a post office. That is a typical piece of government statistical smoke and mirrors. The Government measure that mile as the crow flies. But customers, including pensioners and those on disability benefits, are not crows and cannot fly. Many are disabled, elderly and so forth; and post offices, particularly in rural areas, are not easily accessible. In the country they may have to negotiate country lanes and hills.
It is significant that in what my honourable friend the Member for Eddisbury called a "nauseatingly self-congratulatory amendment", the Government did not deign to mention the plight of rural and semi-urban communities over the relentless loss of their local post offices. My honourable friend, Mr Roger Gale, the Member for North Thanet, a constituency of which I have the privilege of being patron, made nonsense of the Government's accessibility claims when he spoke in that debate.
It has been said many times, both today and in earlier debates—I do not apologise for repeating it, because it is necessary to do that—that the closure of a village post office, which is vital to the life of a community, often and usually means the closure of the only village shop. That results in enormous inconvenience and hardship to local residents, especially those without their own transport. Every noble Lord who has spoken in today's debate mentioned that.
The Post Office has more than 17,000 outlets and is the largest retail network in Europe. Only 600 of those outlets are Crown post offices. The rest are run as private businesses by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who are people who have entered into the business by investing either their redundancy money or hard-earned savings for their retirement. A large number are hard working members of the Asian community—people who really believe in the entrepreneurial spirit. Those businesses depend on Post Office work to subsidise their other trades, which is often as newsagents or convenience stores that supply the needs of those who live in the villages and the local areas.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the 44 million visits a week to a post office. The Government promised to protect rural post offices, but in the past two years 80 per cent of closures have been in rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and other noble Lords mentioned that point. Now Post Office Ltd. is turning its unwelcome attention to the urban branches. It has announced a further programme to close 3,000 out of 9,000 urban branches by December—one-third of the total. That will entail shutting at least 140, possibly 250, offices every month.
On a personal note, my title included the London Borough of Barnet. In my home borough, there are no fewer than nine sub-post offices currently under threat of closure, which will take place after a so-called "consultation period". I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, because all

249
of the areas that he talked about, where the same is happening, adjoin my borough. It means that we are surrounded by the problem wherever we look.
The closure of local offices throughout the country is compounded by the Government's insistence on the introduction of the automatic credit transfer system affecting some 14 million people. Before that, benefit payments accounted for 40 per cent of Post Office business. The loss of that business will reduce revenues across the Post Office network by some £400 million a year. On 2 December 2002 the Government announced a package of £450 million in aid to sub-post offices. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, nodded his head because that agrees with figures that he mentioned. The National Federation of Sub-postmasters has expressed concern that none of the money will go to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, even though many rural post offices are already barely viable. We do not know what funds will be available to sustain them after 2006 when that branch of funding will cease.
My honourable friend Mr O'Brien asked the Minister how the Government intended to sustain the rural post office network in the long term—my noble friend Lady Byford is most interested in that. In his perfunctory nine-minute reply to the debate, Mr Timms did not even condescend to answer that very important question, which was central to the whole discussion in the other place. Perhaps the Minister, who presumably has had a little longer to think about it, will manage to give us some sort of answer today.
Despite the widespread concern that vulnerable pensioners and disabled and blind people will have problems in using the poorly designed PIN pad, the Government are still pressing on with this project. As recently as last Monday, the National Pensioners Convention launched a campaign against forcing pensioners to accept direct payments into their accounts or accepting plastic payment cards on the grounds that,
"they are unpopular; they are unfair; and they are unsustainable".
But possibly that is the reason the Government are pushing on with it.
In his brief reply to the debate in the other place, the Minister smugly claimed that 62 per cent of pensioners are requesting and getting card accounts. That complacent reply disguises the simple mathematical corollary to that statistic; which is that 38 per cent are having nothing to do with them at all. This is not surprising when your Lordships recall that some pensioners are finding it very hard to master the cards. I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes elaborated on that difficulty. It seems to me impossible to expect people to cope with the system— indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and my noble friend Lord Kimball said that they had received letters from people to that effect. Others have difficulty in accessing pay points, sometimes miles away. My noble friend Lady Byford spoke about the difficulty in rural areas. Despite all efforts, the Government have not
250
met with unbounding enthusiasm from the commercial banks to handle what in many cases will be troublesome, uneconomic and petty accounts.
In April 2000, a petition bearing no fewer than 3 million signatures was handed in to Downing Street opposing the rapid escalation rate of the closures. It is clear, however, that the Government's so-called Big Conversation is merely turning into a one-sided dialogue. The local consultation processes are just an exercise in window dressing as a preface to rubber-stamping the decision that has long since been made.
In August 2003, the Post Office proposed the closure of its branch at 69–71 City Way, Rochester. Note the date—August 2003. Two months later, following the mock consultation, the Post Office distributed a leaflet confirming that the branch would close on 23 November. I say "mock consultation" because that leaflet was marked "Printed in March 2003", five months before the proposed closure was even announced.
But the staggering losses suffered by the Post Office at one stage—I understand more than £1 million a day—are not due to the sub-post offices and the Crown post offices. It is regressively due, perhaps, to the mail operation itself. It is with much regret that I mention that the Post Office today is nothing like the Post Office I used to deal with in the 1970s and 1980s when the success of my former mail-order business was entirely dependent upon it.
The union still has the silver salver with which I presented it to mark the delivery of my 5-millionth package. It delivered it on my behalf. When I first came into the House, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, told me that he was responsible for looking after that silver salver for quite some time. As we are on different sides of the House, I am not to describe the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, as "my noble friend", but I wish I could do so. I can say that only outside the Chamber.
In those days, the Post Office was outstandingly helpful and most efficient. It was so anxious to please that when I moved my mailing operation from the south coast to Sunderland the local postmaster telephoned to ask me what had he done to offend me. Nothing. What a contrast today—and I say that because my personal office is right in the heart of the West End along with all the professional people and businesses in the area. We do not receive our mail until 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m. When you are running a business, that is hopeless and it is no wonder people start using other systems.
The recent increases in postal rates has momentarily stemmed the tide to the extent of turning in a profit of £3 million as opposed to the figure we mentioned a few moments ago. But that is only a palliative and is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Opening up the mail's delivery service to outside competition, document exchanges, coupled with the rapid increase of electronic mail and texting, clearly will reduce the number of letters that are posted. Even more dramatic is the fax. In my office, fax is the preferred method of mailing because it is quicker, more reliable and, above all, substantially cheaper both in the costs of the stamp

251
and because of the absence of an envelope and the quality of the stationery that can be used. Repeat that over hundreds of thousands of businesses, and you have some idea of the erosion of the mail service.
My honourable friend the Member for North Thanet, whom I have already quoted, reminded the other place of what the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had said as recently as 11 December 2003:
"A viable post office is important to all honourable members".
Indeed it is. And equally so is the need for an efficient, timely and effective postal collection and delivery service.
However, as my honourable friend the Member for Eddisbury rightly pointed out to the other place,
"the manner in which the Government have discharged their responsibility for the post office network is undermining the future of that vital service".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/04; col. 736.]
The same can be said of the way that the Government, as the sole shareholder, are allowing the postal service, first created in the reign of Charles II, to be eroded.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, mentioned the difficulties that workers sometimes have with management and the lack of consultation. Whether it is that way around, or whether it is the lack of co-operation that managers feel they get from the workers, I say now that that is not the issue that matters most to me. But it must be solved. I want to tell the Minister that because of all the help I received in the past from the Post Office and the postal services, I want to ensure that it survives. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, spoke with as much emotion as I feel on the subject.
The Labour Party, in its 2001 manifesto, said:
"Labour is committed to … a dynamic post office".
In answering everyone's questions, will the Government put that manifesto pledge into practice?
5.57 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing a debate on which there have been a range of extremely constructive, not to say challenging, contributions. Let me assure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that I will seek to establish that the Government not only have faith in the Post Office but have provided resources for it in order that it can fulfil its role in contemporary times.
However, it will not do for us to wade in nostalgia. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken today, I have fond memories of working for the Post Office for a considerable period during the summer months and Christmas time as a student. We always enjoyed that feeling of being Post Office workers and contributing to a common endeavour that is scarcely paralleled elsewhere. That is why I say straightforwardly that the great strength of the Post Office is its dedicated staff. We must build upon that resource and do our best to ensure that the recent industrial relations difficulties are set behind us.
252
Let me make it clear that the Post Office has been changing since the 1960s. To hear the Opposition spokesperson's contribution to the debate you would think that throughout the 1980s and 1990s no post office closure ever occurred. I would hate to go down all 18 years and detail the numbers, but suffice it to say that well over 3,000 post offices were closed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I clearly stated the closure figures when we were in government and also stated those for the past five years. It is not fair to suggest that we were not giving the figures. I declared there were more than 1,000 closures, which was bad, but the problem is that they have continued and got worse.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not the case that they have got worse. The figures reached a high level in the 1980s. I thought that the noble Baroness spoke from the Back Benches. I was referring to the Front Bench spokesperson, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who, I believe, castigated the Government for closures without offering any recognition at all of the programmes which preceded the current one. I believe that my point still holds although I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. At that point I was not pressing the issue with her.
I want to emphasise that the Post Office faces an enormous challenge, and that is why in the past financial year Post Office Ltd., which runs the network, has had to face up to the fact that it lost £194 million before exceptional items. In the previous year it lost £163 million. It has reported a loss of £91 million in the first half of this year. With declining profitability in the network as a whole, the ability of sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses as they did in the past has taken a severe knock. Therefore, decisive action is needed to ensure that we maintain a sustainable countrywide network for the future. That is the action which the Government are taking.
I also point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we were not talking about people in urban areas being within one mile of a post office as the crow flies. We are measuring a mile on the ground because we want to take into account those who often will not have access to an office because they find a journey of one mile a real challenge. That is why that situation is specified as the maximum distance we want between post offices. That requires a very substantial injection of money and development of resources.
My noble friend Lord Clarke pointed out that Postcomm had made various proposals as regards increased competition for the Post Office. I recognise the details he identified, but I do not believe that we should exaggerate the challenge to the services provided by Postcomm. For instance, the study of the letter market suggests that less than 0.25 per cent of traffic is controlled by companies other than the Royal Mail. I recognise the anxieties he expressed.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, would my noble friend tell the House where I exaggerated? My

253
comments about Postcomm concerned stopping the erosion and the acceleration of competition without looking at the possibility of maintaining a universal service.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was reflecting on the point that my noble friend made. I was merely indicating that one should not exaggerate the extent to which competition had made incursions into the service at present. I appreciate my noble friend's anxieties: I am trying to put them into the context of how much they represent problems for the Post Office and a real threat to its obligation to be a universal provider.
As regards the urban reinvention programmes to which a number of noble Lords referred, the Government considered providing funding to compensate adequately sub-postmasters affected by the loss of their business. That is to help movement where that is necessary and to get some rationality into the structure, which is there to serve the public. We recognise that points have been made from all sides of the House on the importance of the Post Office network.
Post Office Ltd. has begun its urban network reinvention programme. I associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in saying that there are more felicitous terms for such a concept. The introduction of that programme has meant that 16,000 post offices have been involved in evaluation. One recognises that the Post Office has had a very dense network indeed. Before the programme started over 1,000 urban sub-post offices had at least 10 other post offices within one mile. There is insufficient business to sustain so dense a network of offices in an urban area. That is not to gainsay the fact that we recognise that a proportion of Post Office customers who are very dependent on it feel aggrieved and have a sense of loss when a post office closes.
The density of the network related to a rather different age from the present. There is simply not the business to sustain such a density of offices. That is why sub-postmasters have been finding it increasingly difficult to earn a reasonable income. They have shut up shop and left of their own accord. We need rationalisation of the process otherwise it would merely reflect the individual decisions by sub-postmasters without us being able to guarantee a proper, structured service to the community at large. That is why we are keen to a have general target in urban areas of post offices being within one mile. That is sustainable.
Under the urban reinvention programme, closure proposals were focused on offices known to be most at risk of closure because of poor viability. It was important that there was some rationalisation of the issue, and that is why an area-wide plan for the post office network brings a clear view of the level of service provision at the end of the programme. Discussion of the plan provides the Post Office with an opportunity
254
to understand the views of Members of Parliament, local authorities and communities about the future shape of the organisation.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that certain aspects of the consultation process are open to criticism. That process is being reassessed. I could go into a lengthy refutation as regards the Rochester post office which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, introduced. There are technical elements concerning the form. The process started in 2003. It is the same form that goes out for all post office closures and did not apply specifically to Rochester. I accept her chiding and her anxieties. The consultation process could be improved and we are looking further into it. The Post Office is examining ways in which the form of consultation would meet the anxieties expressed over past consultations. My noble friend Lord Clarke referred to the process of consultation as a sham. I do not agree with him. There has been genuine consultation in a number of areas. I recognise that he has substantiated a case that the process could be improved, and that is being undertaken at present. I give him that assurance. He has added his voice to those which have been heard elsewhere for more effective consultation prior to a closure.
An additional element of the urban reinvention programme is £30 million that the Government have provided for modernising and adapting those offices which remain in the network. The key to improving standards in these offices will be the increased volume of business to be expected. We expect those post offices which continue to trade to improve their services to the public in a range of ways. The fact is that many post offices are not being used as they were. Customers have changed the ways in which they access services. Rationalisation is the only way to proceed against such a background.
As regards the rural network of post offices, I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and others. The post office in rural areas plays a particularly significant role. There is the additional difficulty that when one closes another may be a great distance away. That is why the Government placed on the Post Office an obligation to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures of rural post offices in the first instance until 2006. We financed that requirement by making available £450 million over the years to April 2006. We are now considering what kind of network will be required in rural communities after 2006 and how the provision of that network can be funded. The work is being informed by Postcomm's advice on the long-term shape of the network beyond 2006.
I can therefore assure noble Lords that we recognise the particular difficulties relating to rural post offices, to which strategic thought needs to be given. The Government are requesting the Post Office to take significant account of those difficulties. Of course, it will be recognised that that will involve a considerable

255
sum of money—£450 million is a significant allocation, which I am sure will be welcomed by both sides of the House.
Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to the "Your Guide" pilot study with regard to electronic kiosks in post offices. That pilot study showed that a publicly-funded national scheme would not represent value for money, and that is why we have not continued with the proposal. It was always billed as a pilot scheme to test the waters and to establish whether new services could be provided.
In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I am unable to place the conclusions of the study in the Library of the House. However, the details were put before the Trade and Industry Select Committee in the other place and are therefore already in the Library. There was a very clear examination of why the pilot study did not produce the positive results that many of us would have welcomed for the Post Office.
The question of direct payment of benefits was raised during the debate. Noble Lords will recognise that the payment of benefits into an account is not a new concept. Before the move last April by the Department for Work and Pensions to migrate benefit recipients towards direct payments, over 43 per cent of benefit recipients already had their cash paid directly into their bank accounts, compared with 26 per cent in 1996. That is a very substantial percentage increase, which reflects the changes to the ways in which people organise their finances. Of course, I recognise the laments that have been expressed that that has a consequential detrimental effect on the Post Office. However, we are the servants of the consuming public, not their masters, and when people express their preferences for such changes, it us for us to ensure that public services are congruent with those changes, despite the fact that they represent a real challenge to post offices.
Under the new arrangements for benefit payments, customers will have three choices of how they are paid: first, a standard bank or building society account, some of which can be accessed at post offices; secondly, a bank or building society basic account, many of which can be accessed at post offices; and, thirdly, a post office card account. Those who have spoken so positively about the Post Office have criticised the post office card account as presenting rather more challenges than are desirable to the ability of people to enrol. I am not sure that we can make too much of that point. It seems as though we may be guilty of being somewhat patronising towards our fellow citizens. Two million people have already said that they want to open postal card accounts, which suggests that customers are fully aware of the availability of such accounts and how to open them. I have listened to the descriptions of what is demanded of individuals with regard to card accounts. However, we all know that, against the background of all the issues concerning security of money and fraud, in financial transactions today greater requirements are placed on those who want to open accounts.
256
The points that have been made forcefully in the House today will be taken on board. It is in the interests of the Post Office to produce a system for enrolling as easily as possible for the postal card account, but there are certain requirements with regard to such significant transactions.
I return to the point that I made at the outset and assure the House that we all value the service provided by the Post Office and the sense of commitment of its workforce, whether postmasters, sub-postmasters or the people involved with the delivery of mail and services. We look forward to improved industrial relations in the Post Office. We recognise that there have been difficulties in recent months, which set back the conspicuous work done by my noble friend Lord Sawyer in seeking to achieve better relations in the industry. However, we look forward to improvements in that respect.
I should like to take this opportunity to deal with the direct challenge that at Question Time on 8 November my noble friend Lord Sainsbury did not express himself with the conspicuous accuracy for which he has a very high reputation. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said that the postal unions had withdrawn from the partnership arrangements with the Royal Mail. However, he would like me on his behalf to emphasise to my noble friend Lord Hoyle that only the Communication Workers Union had withdrawn from those arrangements, which had been set up after my noble friend Lord Sawyer's efforts to improve industrial relations. I hope that my noble friend will accept that correction in response to his very important question.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government are committed to the postal services in a period of very significant change. We all recognise that consumer patterns with regard to financial arrangements have changed quite significantly. The nature of post offices and their roles as corner shops is also subject to enormous change in the market, and we therefore expect to see adjustments made to reflect the changes in consumer demand. Of course, all the issues that have been raised today will be studied very carefully by all those responsible for the services that we want to provide. I thank the noble Baroness once again for introducing such a stimulating debate.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I am disappointed that, in his delightfully disarming manner, he has totally ignored my request that he should confirm that the Government will not put VAT on stamps. That is a very important matter.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as noble Lords will recognise, I am in no position to prejudge any Budget. I have never heard of a proposal to introduce VAT on postage stamps. Therefore, I merely give the

257
assurance that nothing that I have in my possession would give any substance to the point that the noble Baroness makes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister does not feel that he can give a commitment. He says that he has not heard anything about that matter, but I suggest that he reads the points that Postcomm made in the consultation document. It is all there in the text. Postcomm comes out very strongly in favour of removing the exemption from VAT which the Post Office now has. It is very important that this issue is resolved.
I do not believe that the Minister answered satisfactorily the questions about the post office card account. People are being pushed into using bank accounts rather than the post office card account. I cannot agree with the suggestion that it might be patronising. Surely we are all looking for plain English awards in government documents. We certainly do not have one in this respect.
I shall not go on at length, although there are many points that I should like to take up following the many valuable comments that were made. I thank all those who took part in the debate. I am sure that I could come forward with several suggestions for nice, profitable lines for Post Office Counters Limited, but all that is for the future. Again, I thank everyone for their contributions, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Zimbabwe
6.21 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever rose to call attention to the situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I open this debate in place of my noble friend Lord Blaker, who has unfortunately been taken ill. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing him a very speedy recovery.
I am grateful to my noble friend for securing this important debate and pay tribute to him for consistently keeping the tragic events in Zimbabwe before your Lordships' House. I am baffled as to why, with the crisis in Zimbabwe having loomed large on the radar screen of both the foreign policy and international development agendas, Her Majesty's Government have not found time for a full debate in government time either here or in another place.
I know that my noble friend Lord Blaker shares my concern that Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth should not mean Zimbabwe off the radar screen. I am encouraged that the chairman, President Obasanjo of Nigeria and the Secretary-General have given assurances that, despite Zimbabwe's withdrawal, the Commonwealth will remain engaged in the search for a solution to the crisis.
Sadly, as the Foreign Secretary admitted in his letter to the England and Wales Cricket Board last week:
"The situation in Zimbabwe is bleak, and is deteriorating".
I am disappointed that, in his conclusion to that letter, he failed to follow the precedent set by James Callaghan in 1970 when, as Home Secretary, he "formally requested" the International Cricket Council to call off South Africa's tour. I hope that the Foreign Secretary might be prevailed upon to show the leadership that his office demands rather than passing the buck to the ECB—especially in view of the threat from the ICC of heavy financial penalties.
The Foreign Secretary's letter pointed out that:
"The UK is the biggest cash donor to the humanitarian emergency in Zimbabwe, having donated over £62 million since September 2001".
That massive contribution towards feeding 6 million people—half the country's population—is necessary, not because of a natural disaster but as a result of corruption in high places, economic ineptitude and political design.
Therefore, it is worrying, although not surprising, to read recent reports that the Grain Marketing Board, controlled by the Government of Zimbabwe, is deliberately withholding supplies from the commercial market, apparently so that the grain can be used as an electoral bribe in forthcoming elections.
The director of the UN's World Food Programme in Zimbabwe, Kevin Farrell, has asked for that stockpile to be released. To those of us with a suspicious mind, there is more than one way of interpreting the response from Colonel Samuel Muvhuti, the GMB's chairman. He said:
"As soon as we feel there are areas where we need to pay urgent attention, we distribute".
I hope that the Minister will tell the House what the Government are doing in response to those reports. At the very least, we need to know what impact this action by the GMB is having on the commercial food market in Zimbabwe and on food security for the population.
Together with the thousands of acres of arable land in Zimbabwe lying uncultivated because of the corrupt and chaotic land reform programme, such stockpiling appears to be politicisation of food on a grand scale. It is an international scandal, with implications for the entire region. The ZANU-PF leadership is heavily implicated in many of the scams and corruption connected with the Grain Marketing Board monopoly. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have been energetic in following up on the Prime Minister's undertaking, given in December after his return from CHOGM. Referring to the measures that we have taken with our EU partners, he said:
"We keep under review the number of people whom we can extend the sanctions to and it is certainly worth considering business people and others".
In the light of that, how many new names have been added to the travel-ban and asset-freeze list over the past 12 months? This week, the MDC delegation in

259
Brussels called for the names of businessmen and the upper echelons of the military and police to be included.
It is important that the ZANU-PF does not feel that it is winning by using one of its favourite tactics of simply fatiguing its opponents. Unless the use of targeted sanctions is seen to be a dynamic process, its impact will be dulled. I believe we can easily underestimate the effect that these measures can have on the listed individuals. I personally have heard, as have a number of other noble Lords, Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo and Professor Welshman Ncube, general secretary of the MDC—both outspoken opponents of the Mugabe regime—say that targeted sanctions are an important tool in isolating and embarrassing the ZANU-PF leadership.
The regime is kept in place through a system of patronage and corruption that, with the economy in chaos, has been gasping for the oxygen of hard currency. The banking system is teetering on the brink of collapse, with possible grave consequences for the stability of the financial system of the entire region. In this, as in so many other ways, the crisis in Zimbabwe is more than simply an internal crisis. I hope that the FCO and the Bank of England are in serious dialogue with the British banks that have a presence in Zimbabwe to ensure that they are fastidious in declining any connection with the tangled web of ZANU-PF-linked businesses and financial institutions.
In the past, Mugabe has found an ally in President Gaddafi, who has provided Zimbabwe with oil. There have been frequent reports that some of Zimbabwe's most lucrative assets have been handed over or mortgaged to him in return for that lifeline. I hope that the thaw in relations between the US/UK and Libya will mean that pressure can be applied on President Gaddafi to distance himself from the Zimbabwe regime. We must ask Libya to withdraw any continuing financial support and its moral support at assemblies, such as the African Commission on Human and People's Rights and the UN Commission on Human Rights.
I am enough of a cynic to suspect that the recent statements from President Mbeki of South Africa concerning a breakthrough on inter-party talks were not much more than part of a window-dressing exercise to persuade our European partners to oppose the renewal of sanctions at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council. President Mbeki appears to be playing a double game—promising to bring about talks and a settlement to the crisis when, in fact, he is simply buying Mugabe time and rallying support for him in the international arena.
During his visit to London last week, President Obasanjo echoed the message about a breakthrough on talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC. Senior figures in both parties have dismissed that claim and deny that any progress has been made towards talks. I remind the House that inter-party talks can only be the beginning of the process, not the end. Talks must only
260
be seen as the first stepping stone towards the free and fair elections that Zimbabweans have been denied for too long and which Mugabe knows he would lose.
President Mbeki has been promising a settlement of the Zimbabwe issue for a long time. It is now nearly four years since he promised to achieve a solution through quiet diplomacy at the Victoria Falls meeting. More recently he promised a solution by September of last year. Now he promises one by June of this year. The ever-receding horizon prolongs the agony of the people of Zimbabwe, and makes the journey back to economic viability longer, more painful and vastly more expensive to us and other members of the international donor community.
It is now apparent that the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take a firm line at the beginning of this crisis sent all the wrong signals to Mugabe. If the reaction to his increasing oppression and disregard for democracy had been unequivocal, he might have been restrained.
When there was widespread disquiet about the conduct of elections in 2000 the international community, the EU and the US expected Britain to take the lead, but none was forthcoming. If Britain, with her historical ties and close links with people of all races in Zimbabwe, was not prepared to take the lead, who else could be expected to do so?
We heard brave words from the Prime Minister at the Labour Party conference in 2001, but there was a loss of nerve. The rest of the world waited for Britain to seize the initiative, only to find a vacuum. Expressions of concern—or even of grave concern— were of little more irritation to Mugabe than a fly whisk.
When a delegation of the MDC leadership addressed some Members of this House last November, they repeated several times their call for Britain to take a lead in rallying international condemnation of the regime. They recognised that a policy of tip-toeing around for fear of upsetting Mugabe's supposed sensitivities had simply allowed him to set the agenda. When the Anglican Bishop of Manicaland visited London, he pointed out that things could hardly get worse in Zimbabwe, and that pressure should be put on its Government from whatever quarter.
Kofi Annan made an important statement when addressing the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1999, which he repeated when addressing the Commission again in 2002. He said:
"No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples".
Leaders of African nations need to be left in no doubt that we regard their support of the Mugabe regime with horror.
Together with our partners in the G8, we must make it clear that the developed world will lose confidence in Africa if its leaders are seen to shield tyrants from censure and sanctions. NePAD, with its much-trumpeted peer review mechanism, lies utterly

261
discredited by the failure of its architects to address the blatant violation of all standards of good governance by the ZANU-PF regime.
The fact that President Mbeki failed to carry with him the majority of the heads of government from the African region at CHOGM is an encouraging sign. I hope that the noble Baroness will persuade her ministerial colleagues that the received view that African nations will always act en bloc, and in support of Mugabe, has now been proved to be wrong. That opens up the possibility of moving forward in the UN and securing resolutions calling for the respect of human rights and democratic freedoms in Zimbabwe. Surely the time has now come to seek constructive engagement with African, Caribbean and Pacific nations.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give a clear commitment to helping Zimbabwe plan for free and fair elections as soon as possible. A vital part of that process is persuading the people of Zimbabwe that the international community really is committed to guaranteeing the implementation of the outcome for which they vote. We should already be putting in place detailed plans for substantial financial and technical assistance to support the democratic process before, during and after elections.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I begin by offering my sincere good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who is ill. We have been sparring partners over Zimbabwe and other issues for perhaps too long, but we agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is extremely serious; it is very dangerous and is getting worse. We agree entirely that the Government of Zimbabwe are engaged in intimidation. They misuse food aid and UK Government-funded programmes to favour ZANU-PF, and act against the MDC and the people of Zimbabwe. Any differences between us are not about the substance of the issue, but about how best to proceed—how to make a difference for the future.
I say immediately that pressure on the Government in Zimbabwe must be kept up, enforced and pursued with all vigour. I have no quarrel with that. I also believe that the proposed cricket tour should not go ahead. I would give every support to the Government, the England and Wales Cricket Board, or whoever is responsible, to ensure that that tour does not happen.
It is a strange position. When we used to argue for sanctions in the old anti-apartheid days, we were told, "They do not work. They only hurt the people you want to help". We were told that sporting sanctions were no good because the white population in South Africa would simply dig in its heels. Now it seems that the need for sanctions in Zimbabwe is the received wisdom in every quarter. I have no quarrel with that, and I make no accusation that those who have
262
changed their minds over the years do so from money-based motives. I believe that they have changed their minds because it has now been recognised that we were right to call for sanctions.
The sanctions imposed on South Africa were not so hugely damaging that they brought the economy down, but they made a serious dent in its economy. There is no doubt that the sporting sanctions had an effect, and concentrated people's minds.
It is mindless to impose sanctions without an end to them. We must have some idea of what we want to achieve. It is true that different signals are coming out of Zimbabwe. The MDC has said that if there have been talks, no one has told it anything about them. There are suggestions, which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, has amply demonstrated this evening, that President Mbeki is playing a funny old game and is not serious. However, I draw the attention of the House to the statement issued by Paul Themba Nyathi, the MDC secretary for information and publicity, which was issued on 22 January this year, headed:
"Mugabe Needs to Add Substance to Mbeki's Encouraging Announcement".
It states:
"Today's comments by President Thabo Mbeki, suggesting that President Mugabe has agreed to enter formal talks with the MDC, are deeply encouraging. Similarly, we were encouraged when Mbeki made the same announcement after his visit to Harare back in December.
"Following Mbeki's comments back in December our initial sense of encouragement has been replaced by a degree of scepticism as to the nature of Mugabe's commitment to a process of dialogue".
We would agree with that. The statement continues:
"To date, Mugabe and Zanu PF have taken no steps that would indicate a commitment to enter into a process of formal dialogue to end the country's multi-faceted crisis. There have been no approaches to the MDC whatsoever. In fact it has been business as usual with court orders being ignored and political violence carrying on relentlessly.
"If Mugabe has given President Mbeki renewed undertakings that he is prepared to begin negotiations then Mugabe himself needs to formally announce, to the people of Zimbabwe, that dialogue is to take place. Mugabe and Zanu PF need to demonstrate a tangible commitment to dialogue. The MDC is ready for dialogue, as we unequivocally stated in December, but while we wait for Zanu PF the people's suffering continues".
I have read that in full because I believe that it spells out exactly the difficulties for the MDC. I would certainly ask President Mugabe, immediately and publicly, to welcome the progress made by President Mbeki and publicly and unequivocally to throw his weight behind discussion.
The question that I ask—I believe it is relevant—is: what are the discussions to be about? There are perhaps two schools of thought; there are different ideas. I know that not every noble Lord in the Chamber will agree with what I am saying but I have taken this view and if they dislike it they are perfectly free to challenge it. It is over-simplistic to take the view that all that is necessary is to get rid of Mugabe and that once he has gone everything will settle down into sweetness and light. Unfortunately that is not true, the fact is that there are serious and more dangerous issues. Intimidation runs from the top to the bottom of

263
ZANU-PF and that intimidation—that attempt to use violence to impose ZANU-PF's will—has gone on for 20 or 30 years or even longer. It was said at the time of the unilateral declaration of independence that the two armies of ZANU and ZAPU spent more time fighting one another than they did fighting Smith. At times some critical comments have been made about the attempt to form a patriotic front in which the two sides could come together.
There are two schools of thought. One is that the discussions should attempt to set aside the result of the previous election. I accept entirely—I believe that it is universally agreed and accepted—that the previous election was rigged beyond belief. There is no doubt about that. But I do not believe that it is realistic to approach a dialogue in the present circumstances on the basis that the results of the previous election be set aside. Elections are due next year. We should look to the future without in any way accepting the validity of past elections or saying that, "It was all right so we do not need to worry about it". That is not the case at all.
Some say that a government of national unity should be set up. There are some attractions to that and there are some dangers in it. Some would say that if that were to happen, ZANU-PF would be let off the hook and that change would not take place. The participation of the MDC in a government of national unity would lead to the MDC being compromised and contaminated. If the general public of Zimbabwe, who are anti ZANU-PF, were to become disillusioned with the MDC, what would happen? What then would be the prospect? That is far too serious to contemplate or to voice.
Nevertheless, it is wrong to reject entirely a government of national unity. Provided the objectives of a government of national unity are clear cut, specific and time limited, it may provide a way to the future. The first objective of a government of national unity must be to prepare the ground for free and fair elections. We want to see the next elections being free and fair. The elections are not far away. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, four years ago there were talks with the Government but nothing has happened and, therefore, we need urgent and speedy action. I do not expect speedy action; I do not believe that once the government talks begin they will resolve the issue very quickly, but they have to be held and considered.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that there is a possibility that next year's elections may have to be postponed to achieve free and fair elections. I understand that that will be looked at with horror because there are huge dangers in saying that if the time is too short the elections will have to be postponed. The acceptance of such a proposition may simply lead ZANU-PF to come to the conclusion that we would be quite happy to allow matters to drift on with no change. The last sentence of the MDC press release states:
"while we wait for Zanu PF the people's suffering continues".
We must bear that in mind as well. There is no doubt that such discussions must take place.
264
It is worth casting our minds back in history as sometimes we can learn from it. It may seem unlikely now, but when Nelson Mandela began his dialogue with the South African government and the South African National Party there were some who questioned the wisdom of that; some said that that was the wrong way to go about it and yet it worked. When I first had the privilege to meet Nelson Mandela at the Namibian independence celebrations he said to me that I must not expect that the discussions that they were having would lead to instantaneous results; that the discussions between the ANC and the government would continue; and that there would be periods when we thought there was great progress, periods when we thought that the whole situation would be reversed and periods when we thought that the whole exercise would fail. He said that we must have faith in the discussions and negotiations as being the only way forward.
Of course, I accept that there is no one on the scene in Zimbabwe like President Mandela and I accept that there was no one in Zimbabwe like President de Klerk. Those are two characters of immense vision who decided that they had to resolve the situation and they talked. Nevertheless, I believe that discussion is the only possible way forward. While we continue our pressure on the Zimbabwean Government and while we continue to insist that what the Government are doing is wrong—we make the right noises at the right times—we must also encourage the process of dialogue.
I know a considerable number of people in ZANU-PF. I am horrified by what some of them are doing and I can hardly believe what some of them are saying. However, there are also sufficient numbers of people in ZANU-PF to bring about a change. Although I said that the removal of President Mugabe would not bring instant results and make everything fine, the fact is that he cannot go on for ever. I believe that there is sufficient questioning within ZANU-PF to help that situation, but above all we must realise that if we do not solve the situation in Zimbabwe—it is important in its own right that it is resolved—the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe must be foremost in our minds. If we do not get the matter right, the peace and stability of the whole of southern Africa is in danger and the prospect of that is hugely frightening for us all.
When I speak and think about Zimbabwe and when I discuss it with my friends I have great mood changes. I swing from a mood of some optimism—rarely extreme optimism—to one of great pessimism. We must persevere. While it is right that the Opposition should press for change, I believe that this is an issue on which there should be a bipartisan approach between us and that we should all work together for the common good of the people of Zimbabwe.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I too should like to send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on introducing the debate with such an interesting speech.

265
Taking up his point on cricket, I would adapt the old slogan, "Don't play games with apartheid" to a new slogan, "Don't play games with ZANU-PF".
The thought of anti-apartheid makes me say how honoured I am to follow my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, who had such a distinguished record in fighting apartheid, and who made such a thoughtful speech this evening.
South Africa and Britain appear to diverge in their goals for the political future of Zimbabwe. President Mbeki has continually stressed his desire for a government of national unity, but he is silent about the need for democratic elections. The Foreign Secretary spelled out Britain's policy last July in his response to the report on Zimbabwe by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He said:
"We stand ready to work with any new administration in Zimbabwe which has been democratically elected by the Zimbabwean people in a process that is transparent and demonstrably free and fair and which is committed to respecting human rights and the rule of law".
The Government are in close touch with South Africa. Surely they must strive to persuade President Mbeki that the rebirth of Zimbabwe should be the joint goal of the two countries, and that the way to achieve that is by free and fair elections. Starting afresh must be the aim; not a formula lacking the approval of the Zimbabwean people. Mr Mbeki's government of national unity would probably comprise a ZANU-PF core with some MDC ministers grafted on to it. In 1988 ZANU-PF gobbled up the last serious opposition party—ZAPU. Any MDC Minister who joined a ZANU-PF government would have to tread very, very carefully.
I say this with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, who I know will speak about national governments: some temporary transitional political authority would be required to bring the country to elections. Lesotho had such an authority in 1998. Zimbabwe could learn valuable lessons from that example.
Land has been a huge issue in Zimbabwe since the 1890s. An incoming democratic government will need a proper land-use plan to consult. Such a plan would assess how much of the land should be for peasant farming, how much for small-scale farming and how much for commercial farming.
Land tenure for farming is vital. Two of my nephews, who had their farms in Zimbabwe confiscated, have been welcomed for their expertise in Zambia, which I know will please the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen. There they have bought farms from the government on 99-year leases. Might long leases be the way forward for land tenure in Zimbabwe? Government ownership might soothe political sensitivities, while the length of the lease might give sufficient tenure to farmers. When I speak of the farmers, I speak of farmers at all levels, not just the commercial farmers; I mean the commercial, the small-scale and the peasant farmers.
266
For decades, tobacco has been the great Zimbabwean cash crop and foreign exchange earner. With the world tobacco market likely to shrink, finding alternative foreign exchange earning crops will be all important. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the obvious body to draw up a land plan for the use of a democratic Zimbabwean government. The UNDP was charged under the Abuja Agreement on land reform of 2001 to work with ZANU-PF and others on a land reform programme. But that agreement was aborted. Now the UNDP should be galvanised into producing an up-to-date land plan, including the aspects that I have mentioned.
With the destruction of commercial farming by ZANU-PF, as well as erratic rains last season, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) will be feeding 4.5 million of the 5.5 million vulnerable people who by March will be dependent on gifts of food to stay alive. That is nearly half the total population of 11.6 million. An examination of those vulnerable people reveals much about today's Zimbabwe. One must start with the orphans. There are more than 1 million orphans under the age of 14—nearly 10 per cent of the population. Of those orphans, 782,000 are the children of parents who have died of AIDS.
One-third of the population aged 15 to 49—some 1.8 million people—the majority of them women, have HIV or AIDS. Unless properly fed, the chance of those with HIV getting AIDS increases. As 3,200 people are dying of AIDS each week, there will be many more AIDS orphans.
Then there are 300,000 former commercial farm workers, each averaging five dependants—a total of 1.8 million people. Most are unemployed, while those employed on newly-settled commercial farms are not paid enough to buy sufficient food. Nearly all those people need feeding from outside sources.
Moreover, the patchy rains have produced patchy crops for peasant farmers, some of whom have not grown sufficient mealies to feed themselves. I think that we have all talked about Zimbabwe so often that I am allowed to say "mealies" without explaining that it means maize. In Matabeleland many cattle raisers have had to slaughter their stock to pay for food and are now dependent on the WFP.
Finally, mention must be made of the hordes of urban people without jobs. Unemployment nationally is between 70 and 80 per cent.
Zimbabweans owe a huge debt of gratitude to the WFP. I, as a former Zimbabwean, should like to single out and record my gratitude to Britain for the huge amount of aid it has given. But I think I will be saying thank you to Britain again and again. For even when a democratically elected government comes to power, the task of reconstruction will be colossal, and the equivalent of Marshall Aid required for Zimbabwe will be vast.

267
The Foreign Secretary, in his response to the Select Committee, said:
"With the rest of the international community including International Financial Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, we will help a democratically accountable Zimbabwe with a reconstruction package aimed at turning its economy around".
Those words "democratically accountable" bring us full circle. President Mbeki's government of national unity would not be "democratically accountable", and under his plan Zimbabwe would in all probability continue to spiral ever downwards. Britain and its allies must press the South African president to seek proper democratic elections and thus, at last, bring hope for the future of Zimbabwe.
6.58 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, a speedy recovery. I am pleased that your Lordships' House has never allowed the situation in Zimbabwe to slip off the agenda. I am grateful to, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who very ably introduced the debate, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for keeping the subject under review during the past few years.
Throughout this period I have shared the general sense of alarm and consternation at the escalation of violence and abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe, the deteriorating, social, economic and of course political situation—and its repeated deterioration, as we hear from these reports on a weekly basis.
However, I confess that, in consistently advocating an African solution to an African problem, in believing that megaphone diplomacy from afar will be counter-productive, I have sometimes felt a little like the black sheep of the family. Having the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, speaking after me, I expect a little bit of flak after what I have to say today.
Despite the severe reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, of the broken promises and, in his words, "the window dressing" of President Thabo Mbeki, I believe that the quiet diplomacy of various African leaders—I refer not just to President Mbeki and President Obasanjo but also to many other African leaders who of late have had meetings with President Mbeki—has been paying dividends. Obviously, President Mbeki has been at the forefront of and the front man for the negotiations.
There have been some positive developments. I really believe that the undertakings given by President Mbeki to our Prime Minister last year, as well as to President Bush, that there would be a change to the Zimbabwe constitution leading to the reintroduction of the position of Prime Minister, thereby laying the foundations for a government of national unity in that country, will be fulfilled. Moreover, President Mugabe will stay on as president but will be stripped of his executive powers and retain merely his ceremonial powers.
The big question is: when? The efforts to cajole Mugabe to accept change should be supported because they involve the only real prospect of relatively
268
peaceful transition from cruel dictatorship to genuine democracy. I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that all the delays are causing the country more and more harm.
The process has not been easy, not least at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last year, when the issue of whether to continue Zimbabwe's suspension from the organisation— essentially, whether to present the stick or the carrot to Mugabe—proved extremely divisive among African leaders. In my opinion, the ultimate decision to uphold the suspension—to keep wielding the stick—was correct, even if Mugabe then attempted to save face in his country by withdrawing from the Commonwealth. I believe that the Commonwealth continues to play an important role, despite the suspension, and that, in his heart, Mugabe wants to rejoin it.
Although, as I said, I support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for effective, targeted sanctions against ZANU-PF leaders, an important element of the diplomatic process has been to maintain a balance between the stick and the carrot. It was significant that two of the three Commonwealth leaders designated to engage Mugabe—President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard—felt that there had simply not been sufficient developments in Zimbabwe to merit lifting the suspension.
I say that given that there had been a perception that President Obasanjo and President Mbeki were always of one voice. I had the good fortune to meet and have a lengthy conversation with President Obasanjo last week. He was firmly committed to his decision to suspend Zimbabwe and was definitely at odds with President Mbeki. In that context, President Obasanjo is emerging as a key player in the process, not least because he remains in regular contact with President Mugabe—he calls him Bob. Well informed sources suggest that his persistent approach—that Mugabe should transform himself from the problem to the solution by relinquishing executive power—will succeed.
I am aware that President Obasanjo met the Prime Minister in Teeside last Thursday and subsequently met various Commonwealth colleagues last Friday. Can the Minister give us an update on those discussions?
President Mbeki's reported statement last Thursday that a deal had finally been struck to ensure progress by June has prompted genuine hope. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, cited a statement from the MDC. I shall cite a few lines from zimbabwenews.com of last Friday. It reads:
"President Mbeki of South Africa yesterday claimed to have made an agreement with President Mugabe that the Zimbabwean leader would negotiate with the Opposition to end his country's devastating political and economic crisis. Speaking at a press conference in Pretoria with Gerhard Schroder, the German Chancellor, Mr Mbeki said that he had mediated a deal lasi month that had been delayed only because of the Christmas holidays. 'I'm happy to say that they … will go into formal negotiations,' the South African leader said".

269
It continues:
'"Our position is that we have heard it all before,' Welshman Ncube, the MDC secretary-general, said. 'We will believe it when it happens. It is better for Mugabe to speak for himself and say he is willing to talk unconditionally'".
I believe that we are in the end-game, although I appreciate that many observers fear that this may be just another in the line of false dawns.
President Mbeki has announced one more positive development. He recently enlisted the help of a number of prominent black business leaders in South Africa to approach President Mugabe to make him aware of the region's blunt economic realities: in essence, that Zimbabwe's instability is contagious and that time is running out to secure a solution. That powerful business delegation, which will include Tokyo Sexwale and, possibly, Cyril Ramaphosa, is preparing to visit Zimbabwe in the next couple of weeks.
That new business initiative is significant because it addresses what many in southern Africa believe has been an underlying factor in President Mbeki's apparent reluctance to confront Mugabe. A theory in South Africa has been that it is not just that he is his old freedom colleague and comrade; it has been a fear of advancing trade union power in the region. It is held—I say this from President Mbeki's point of view—that the strongest potential source of real opposition to the ANC Government lies in the union movement. The theory runs that an example of union power within the MDC in Zimbabwe would not serve the general interests of the ANC Government in South Africa. Those specific fears would appear to be allayed by the installation of a government of national unity promoted and supported by business.
One outstanding issue is whether the deal should agree to requests for amnesty from several leading members of the Mugabe regime. It is beyond question that there have been many appalling abuses of human rights in that country, but many people believe that nothing—not even that—can be allowed to get in the way of a lasting settlement and restoration of a just democracy.
That appears to be the tone and direction of the ongoing African diplomatic process. That is cause for optimism. There is real hope that the Zimbabwe crisis will soon be relieved and that that will give new momentum to NePAD and real hope that the vision of an African renaissance will materialise. In recent months, positive developments in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes district have tended to be overshadowed by the escalating situation in Zimbabwe, but the underlying trend in Africa is bold and encouraging.
Moreover, the Government deserve credit for the quiet and necessarily understated role that they continue to play in those developments. The facts of history mean that Britain must always be wary of exposing itself to accusations of arrogant, heavy-handed colonialism, but the Government have recently shown an understanding of the issues and emerged as a constructive influence.
270
My only suggestion is that the Government do more to consolidate their standing in the minds of important African leaders and might gain from an intensive public relations offensive about what they have done. I say that because, when the Government are accused of reneging on the Lancaster House agreement, rather than shrug our shoulders, there would be no harm in laying out the facts and proving that we have not reneged on it.
Similarly, as the noble Lord, Lord Acton, mentioned, every African leader should be aware that Britain is, and has been, one of the major aid donors in Africa and is heavily committed to the fight against HIV/AIDS and the relief of famine in Zimbabwe. Sometimes perhaps our natural reserve allows us to become an easy target and we should be more pro-active in announcing our record.
In conclusion, while I support the calls of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for effective targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe, I believe that Britain should continue to play a quiet and constructive role in supporting the bold diplomatic initiatives to resolve the situation in that country. We have been patient for many months. I believe that our patience will soon be rewarded.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the measured and helpful way in which my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever introduced the debate and set the tone for this interesting discussion. I also thank him for taking over the debate which was in the name of my noble friend Lord Blaker. I join other noble Lords in sending my best wishes to him for a speedy recovery.
The crisis in and collapse of Zimbabwe continues and is not improving. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that we are in the end game for ZANU-PF. But in any conflict of this nature, we need to be thinking about the end game now, not when it occurs. On that aspect, Britain has a lead role to play in the world. I also agree with other noble Lords that Britain has nothing to be ashamed of in the way that it has behaved towards Zimbabwe since the Lancaster House agreement; and that needs to be stressed.
One of the most significant social consequences of the economic and social collapse of Zimbabwe since 1997 is in the field of human flight. It is now estimated that up to 4.5 million Zimbabweans have left the country since 1997. This represents 30 per cent of the total population and close to half the adult population. About 2 million Zimbabweans have moved to South Africa, of whom 1.3 million are illegal immigrants. Up to half the populations in squatter camps are now estimated to be Zimbabweans by origin. Mozambique and Botswana bear a similar burden. Although the embassies are engaged in a desperate effort to halt the flow by imposing restrictions on visas, it is not slowing the tide. There are about 1 million Zimbabweans elsewhere overseas.
Then there are the missing 1.4 million people who should be alive and living in Zimbabwe and who are not in the diaspora. Where are they? Here there are

271
some really shocking figures. About 2 million are HIV positive. Two-thirds, nearly 1.3 million, are women and girls. Sixteen per cent of all women who give birth die in childbirth: that is one woman in every six who bears a child. Infant mortality has doubled in the past three years, driven in part by the HIV crisis. They have 600,000 full blown AIDS cases with barely a few hundred on any sort of treatment regime.
Historically, Zimbabwe has a population that has grown at a rate of about 3 per cent per annum, births outstripping deaths by three to one. Now the ratio is tipped in the opposite direction. By my calculations, with human flight plus deaths, the population is now declining at a rate of nearly 2 per cent per annum. But worse than that, the majority of this decline is among the young people—their best educated and most experienced people, people on whom the future depends. Zimbabwe has lost 20,000 trained and experienced teachers in the past three years, with similar numbers of nurses and doctors. As a consequence their social institutions on whom their human welfare depends are now almost at the point of collapse.
There are epidemics of tuberculosis and malaria— diseases they believed they had defeated years ago. The average life expectancy has dropped from 59 years in 1990 to 33 years in 2003. There are nearly 1 million orphans in their education system. Recently the head of a major high school in Harare said that half of her first year intake this year were full orphans, both parents dead. If we take into account the numbers with one parent—the other either dead or absent—the numbers rise to a clear majority. The social implications, let alone the economic implications of this massive dislocation of normal family life, are impossible to calculate. The burden on the remaining breadwinners who must try to support this enormous burden within the extended family system is now impossible.
School enrolment, once estimated to be close to 95 per cent in primary schools, has fallen and less than one-third of all girls of school-going age are now in school. Literacy and numeracy, once the highest in the sub-region, are declining. What a tragic waste of all the money already pumped into the Zimbabwean economy by other countries.
The situation is not improving. Human rights are still being abused. Political violence continues. The latest by-election showed that the whole electoral process is still being abused and distorted in favour of the ruling party. In addition, the police and the courts are still playing the game the way the ruling party dictates with some notable exceptions—such as the support for the Daily News, on the streets on 22 January for the first time in five months.
There has been about one political killing per week so far this year. Other forms of political violence also continue. The dispossession of farm assets continues unabated. Economic collapse is accelerating. Food production this summer is expected to supply only about 35 per cent of all their food needs. Last year it was about 50 per cent. This is due to the continued
272
collapse of commercial agriculture and the decline in traditional forms of agriculture due to the decline in support services, previously based on commercial farming activity and extended to peasant agriculture. Shortages of seed and fertiliser have been serious. Industrial output is also in steep decline. Tourism shows no sign of recovery. The economy is expected to shrink another 10 per cent this year, the seventh year in a row.
The international community should be considering two issues. First, how to prevent widespread deaths from starvation and poverty in Zimbabwe without supporting the ZANU-PF claim that, "If you do not vote for us you will starve". Secondly, there are the talks which all noble Lords have mentioned.
There is an old adage in Zimbabwe. As leaders, the great difference between Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe was that when one reached an agreement with Joshua one shook hands on it and had a deal. When one shook hands with Robert, one had only his hand in yours: no deal was guaranteed at all. In December last year, President Mbeki went to Harare and held two meetings with President Mugabe and one with Morgan Tsvangirai. At the end of the discussions., the two leaders shook hands on the deal. A few hours later, President Mbeki went back to Pretoria. He thought he had got President Mugabe to agree to talks initiating a process which would eventually bring Zimbabwe back into the community of nations. But, if I am right, President Mbeki had simply had a chance to shake hands with President Mugabe, something he has done many times before. No agreement was really established in truth.
On 22 January, the quiet diplomat in Pretoria signalled that he was willing to "up the anti". He stated publicly in Pretoria that in December President Mugabe had agreed to start formal talks with the MDC in January 2004. As we have heard, the MDC immediately issued a statement saying that no talks were under way and there was no sign that ZANU-PF was prepared to enter into such a dialogue. The statement from the ZANU-PF secretary for administration, Mutasa, that talks were not contemplated, reinforced this stand. Once again, President Mbeki was wrong-footed by President Mugabe. Will ZANU-PF talk? Not unless it is forced to, just as it was in 1979, when the world community conspired together to end the political life of the Rhodesian Front and Abel Muzorewa.
If the talks start, are serious, and are on a formal basis, this is the end, and ZANU-PF has capitulated. That is what formal talks with the MDC must mean. They mean that ZANU-PF has accepted that it is in power illegally, that it no longer has a mandate to govern and that the road block into the community of nations involves facing a final electoral test under the new rules that will, almost certainly, result in a loss of power.
For some in ZANU-PF, such a development spells the end of the world. For President Mugabe and his cohorts, Msika, Moyo, Shiri, Chihuri, there can be no deals. For them, negotiations mean political, social,

273
and economic oblivion, perhaps even prison. They have their backs to the wall and are fighting back with all the skill and resources at their disposal. What is the Government's view of these people, who are criminals by any reasonable standards? Are they to be tried in due course, or are they, as African leaders, to be treated differently from Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic?
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, on one technical point. He said, "an African solution for an African problem". Yes, but not in this case. We must have an even-handed world policy when it comes to ministerial criminals behaving in this way, no matter where it is in the world. If we treat African leaders differently from the way that other leaders are treated, Africa will only lose more credibility, and that is not what any of us would want.
For others, the status quo means huge losses as business empires fold and collapse. Some of the ZANU-PF hierarchy are now multi-millionaires in real money terms. They have created empires, and they think that they can survive a transition. This group is led by powerful elements such as Mujuru and Mnangagwa, and it is in favour of a change of leadership of ZANU-PF and negotiations leading to a restoration of international standing. ZANU-PF is now hopelessly split between these two factions, with President Mugabe mounting a full-scale attack on the reformists in recent weeks. Can the MDC govern on its own, which is what the electorate will probably want, or is the situation just too much of a mess? We have heard differing views tonight, from the noble Lord, Lord Acton, and others.
I wonder whether a government of reconciliation and national unity, as advocated by President Mbeki and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, would not be better in the longer term. As we have seen in other African countries, it would not be a long-term solution, but one must practically help the Zimbabweans to move out of the rut that they are now in.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl will expand on that point. He said earlier that he thought that Joseph Msika and such people should have something terrible happen to them. Now, he wants them in a government of national unity. Is it both?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, the noble Lord has got me wrong. I was separating the two parts of ZANU-PF. There are those for whom negotiations spell the end of their world; and those—as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, reminded us—who want to see a change of leadership and see Zimbabwe continue. My underlying concern is that we have a horrible split in Zimbabwe between ZANU-PF and MDC. If there are elections and the MDC get in, are we still going to have that split that will prevent Zimbabwe from moving forward? That was my reason for suggesting, as the noble Lord said, a temporary way forward, to get that stability that Zimbabwe surely needs.
274
I hope that Britain will take a lead role. We have nothing to be ashamed of. If President Mbeki is the point man for the south African nations with regard to Zimbabwe, surely our Prime Minister, Mr Blair, is the point man for the rest of the world. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. I am not so sure that President Mbeki is still the right point man. He and President Mugabe are old friends, and they are stuck in the time warp of continually wanting to blame the old colonialists and colonial attitudes. That is outdated; it is long gone. There are new, young leaders in Africa who see past that and realise that something more must be done. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us that there is a great deal of discussion, not just in the Commonwealth but in the UN, about a concerted approach to solving a very real problem for millions of people.
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this House has certainly not shirked its duty to keep Zimbabwe on the political agenda. Just because there is no one obvious solution that is being urged on Ministers, that should not mean that Back-Benchers from all sides of the House should not continue to press the Government to explain what pressure they are applying on various African leaders, on Mr Mugabe himself, on our European partners, and on colleagues around the world to try to bring a solution to this terrible situation.
It was extremely clear from the debate in the House this evening that no one thinks that we should look the other way. This is far too important to let slip from the international agenda. The debates in your Lordships' House are heard in Zimbabwe or at least are seen on paper. People listen to short wave broadcasts and reports on the Internet. It is encouraging for people in Zimbabwe to feel that their country has not been forgotten.
Archbishop Tutu was right to say that we should not have two standards for human rights, those for Africa and those for the rest of the world. My noble friend Lord Caithness made this point extremely forcefully. That is exactly what some leaders in Africa have implied when they seek to portray this situation in the old terminology of black versus white, haves versus have nots or colonialists versus nationalists. We are seeing the deliberate destruction of a once-prosperous country for the political and financial advantage of a small ruling elite.
We have heard some horror stories from all sides of the House about what is going on in Zimbabwe. I have received recent and personal briefings. We have heard about inflation touching 1,000 per cent. We have heard about banks with no money unable to honour cheques written in their name and about the destruction of 90 per cent of the farming infrastructure and of the national beef herd—an extremely serious development that will take time to put right. The confiscation of land is well rehearsed. There are terrible food shortages; the population is starving in some areas. Food aid is being used as a political weapon. Murder, rape and intimidation are organised by the state to

275
suppress the populace. If this is deemed acceptable to anyone in Africa, Heaven help that great continent. We all fear the implications for South Africa and other countries in the region.
Strong leadership must be taken up by other African leaders. One thinks of NePAD. This is exactly the sort of situation for which this organisation was set up. If the nettle is not grasped by Mugabe's peer group, NePAD will have failed. There are serious implications for the political and financial credibility of countries in the region. We have a duty to be frank, not to couch our words and be overly diplomatic about this. If countries support Zimbabwe—even tacitly— their own economy, political situation, credibility and creditworthiness come into question.
The real tragedy is that the situation is entirely man-made. It is unnecessary, and it is the ultimate betrayal of a great country, undertaken by a weak, tottering regime. I might differ from some speakers in that I believe that there could be a rapid transition. We saw regimes in eastern Europe, for example, that looked invincible one moment but, the next moment, there is a crash, followed by sudden collapse. I support the point of view that, once the army, the police and the other institutions see which way the wind is blowing and sense weakness from Mugabe, the transition could be quicker than some of us believe.
We must consider what action has been taken by the West. On 14 January, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, said that the UK was maintaining dialogue with countries in southern Africa, the Commonwealth, our EU partners and the US, as well as making a substantial emergency food aid contribution. Those are important developments, but I wonder about the sense of urgency. If I were to leave the Minister with one question tonight, it would be to ask how much time she feels Zimbabwe has. We have heard some say that the situation there is so bad that it cannot get worse. I think that it could get much worse. It could become very bloody, very quickly. That would be a desperate situation that we would should all do whatever we can to prevent.
We must examine the concept of quiet diplomacy in that context. It is all very well being quietly diplomatic, but, if things do not happen in time and there is no political change or any sign of such change, there could be significant civil unrest with severe consequences for the people of Zimbabwe.
There is no one in the Chamber this evening who doubts that South Africa holds if not the key then, at least, one of the keys to the situation. South Africa could certainly turn the lights out in Zimbabwe overnight—literally, as it holds the key to its power. Having at least some tacit support in the region is important to Robert Mugabe. We should listen carefully to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. He has good intelligence from the region and good contacts with South Africa. I listened carefully to what he said about the views of President Obasanjo. We need to know whether that is just talk or whether there really is a prospect of talks. I would like to hear the Government's view. The Minister should tell us as
276
frankly as possible whether she feels that there are real developments. Conflicting reports have been quoted to us.
We have heard much discussion about the relative merits of a government of national unity. The most important thing is to see some progress towards change and some progress towards a better political situation. At that point, we could judge whether it would be sustainable, but I would rely heavily on the views of the MDC leadership at that time.
I sympathise with the Minister in some ways. There is little that she could announce this evening that would satisfy all of us. We need to hear that Her Majesty's Government are playing the role of leadership that they can play. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness and others that we should not be shy or worried about being seen as the former colonial masters. That was a long time ago. We have proved that our money is where our mouth is. We pump huge quantities of aid money into the country, and we have taken a political lead, to some extent. There is more that we could do, but the Government are in a good position to exercise their high level of political influence on the international scene to bring about a solution as soon as possible.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I begin by joining in the good wishes that have been sent to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for a quick recovery from his illness. We are sorry that he is not here this evening, and we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on his excellent speech introducing the debate. We thank him also for all the work that he has done on Zimbabwe. It is not the case that Zimbabwe has fallen off the radar screen, as the noble Lord feared. As long as there are people such as himself and the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who are willing constantly to draw attention to the problems in Zimbabwe, there is no danger of that happening. We have heard people from all parts of the House with enormous knowledge of the situation in Zimbabwe. All are enthusiastic about trying to reach some kind of solution, even though there are minor differences about the right approach, which I shall come to.
There is always the danger that, if Mr Mugabe is conscious of the debates in the House, he would see them as supporting evidence for his propaganda that Britain is unnaturally interested in Zimbabwe—as opposed to letting it drop off the radar screen— particularly as compared with the rest of Africa because of the concern that, he believes, we have with the white farmers. That is not true, of course, and your Lordships have frequently debated many other problems in Africa, as the Minister will confirm. She has been present at debates on the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Angola, NePAD and general questions of development in Africa.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said that there was a danger of the situation slipping further towards civil unrest. I agree with him. I draw your Lordships' attention to what the Irish Defence Minister said,

277
speaking from Liberia on last Sunday's "Focus on Africa" on the BBC. He said that the Irish presidency of the European Union would put Africa higher on the agenda and hoped, in particular, to see that action was taken to prevent conflicts, rather than to pick up the pieces afterwards. I paraphrase the Minister, but that is the sense of what he said. He might well have had in mind the threat that Zimbabwe would deteriorate even further into a situation such as he saw in Liberia, where many Irish troops are engaged. We thank them for the contribution that they have always made to peacekeeping.
How can the international community do anything before such a state goes over the precipice into total failure, when the principle of non-intervention is firmly enshrined in the United Nations charter? I remind your Lordships that, in the case of Kosovo, we appealed to a new concept of international law and claimed that intervention was justifiable when it was necessary to prevent an overwhelming human catastrophe. We obtained the tacit consent of the international community after the event for what we did in Kosovo, and there is no disposition nowadays to contest the legality of that action. What is the difference between Kosovo and Zimbabwe? Presumably, it is only the political inexpediency of a humanitarian rescue operation designed to remove the dictator and restore democracy through free and fair elections. There is also, perhaps, the strong feeling among other African states that, however awful the suffering of ordinary people in Zimbabwe, it is better to cajole the ailing tyrant into handing over power voluntarily than to use coercion of any kind. That was the sense of the speech that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside.
Other African nations are not willing to take a firmer line. South Africa, for instance, will not refuse to admit Mugabe when he goes there, as he has just done, allegedly to undergo private medical treatment in an expensive clinic in Pretoria, a privilege that is not available to members of the opposition such as, for example, David Mpala MP, who was kidnapped and stabbed in the abdomen by so-called war veterans. In fact, as we have heard, the health service in Zimbabwe has collapsed. Nobody gets treatment, unless they can afford to spend 2 million Zimbabwean dollars a night to stay in a private hospital. We heard a catalogue of disasters concerning the state of health services in Zimbabwe. It is aggravated by the fact that last year 2,000 nurses left Zimbabwe for South Africa, Namibia and Britain and that in Harare's main hospital, only two out of six wards are open. Tuberculosis, dysentery and AIDS are being left untreated, as we have heard. Mr Mugabe is indeed lucky that he does not have to rely on his own health service. If he did, it might concentrate his mind rather more effectively than President Mbeki's powers of persuasion.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who referred to the health statistics, also said that large numbers of people were fleeing into neighbouring countries. He gave some statistics—more than 2 million have gone to South Africa, large numbers have gone to Botswana
278
and Mozambique—although we do not know the exact figures—with 1 million going elsewhere in southern Africa. We should take this rather seriously. Those people are not necessarily welcome in the countries to which they have gone temporarily. It may be that in some of those states, they are making up for the deficiencies of the working population through the losses suffered from AIDS. That may be true of Botswana, for example. But in South Africa, those people are not altogether welcome. There is a special camp where they are shovelling them back across the border at a rate of 40,000 a year, according to a recent article by Andrew Meldrum.
How long will it be before many of those people, not receiving a warm welcome in those countries, wish to come here? It would be the logical place for them to end up. As your Lordships know, 7,000 Zimbabwean asylum-seekers applied to this country last year. The only reason the figure has fallen substantially is because we imposed a visa regime which makes it almost impossible for them to come here directly. They have to travel via South Africa where many of them obtain false South African passports. We are now seeing people being sent back to South Africa because they claim to be South African to get passports when in fact they are Zimbabwean citizens. I suggest that the Government think carefully about this. With these several millions having gone to Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries, it will not be long before they start looking towards Europe as a safer haven than they have there.
Last week, President Mbeki said that when Mugabe returns to work next month from his supposed holiday in South Africa—whether he is in this posh clinic or whether he is helping his wife Grace to buy a block of houses, which is the alternative explanation, as they might be looking for a bolt-hole for when the crash comes—he will be graciously pleased to reopen the negotiations with the MDC that were suspended in May 2002. As noble Lords have pointed out, that has not been announced officially in Harare, but if it does happen, it would be a totally inadequate response to the crisis. If the ZANU-PF Government want to return to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, they have the power to do it themselves. They could ensure that the elections that are held are free and fair, such as the Gutu North by-election, held on 2 February. We will be watching that with great interest.
The ZANU-PF Government could repeal the laws cramping freedom of expression. In particular, they could stop the continuing attempts to silence the Daily News. I am not sure what happened today, but the case has been continuing before the Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku, who fast-tracked an application by the state's media watchdog for the Daily News to be shut down—a most exceptional procedure, which is in conformity with that judge's conduct in other cases. He has been sitting on appeals against the MDC's victories in parliamentary elections in 2000, while failing to hear constitutional cases, including appeals against the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the state's new press-gag laws. So we do not have free courts in Zimbabwe; the Zimbabwean

279
Government could put that right without waiting for the dialogue between the government and the opposition, which may or may not take place.
I suspect that Mugabe's half-undertaking to negotiate is just a desperate ploy to gain further time. That is demonstrated by the treatment of journalists on the Independent newspaper who reported on his holiday excursion to south-east Asia on a wide-bodied jet commandeered from Air Zimbabwe. He ordered the jet to fly to Kuala Lumpur, to carry him and his family from there to Jakarta, then to Singapore, and back home. Passengers were bounced off flights which they had booked on the aircraft to come to London during the five days that the plane was away. That was said to have lost the national airline 3 billion Zimbabwean dollars, at a time when, as noble Lords have said, the economy is in chaos.
That was not the first time Mugabe had used national assets as if they were his personal property. However, if he was genuinely preparing to give way to democracy, as has been suggested, that is not exactly the way to signal the intention. To arrest journalists, to have the chief reporter of the Zimbabwe Independent savagely beaten up, to continue with this relentless campaign to shut down the Daily News, to hound the leader of the opposition through the courts on false charges and to continue with the human rights atrocities described in so many accounts—that is not the way to reconciliation and reform. It is not a preliminary to the kind of discussion that will be held on a level playing field between the government and the opposition which would be designed to lead to transitional administration.
Frankly, I do not believe in the optimistic noises made by Don McKinnon and by Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki. I do not think they are warranted by any developments within Zimbabwe. If Mugabe is about to announce officially that he is prepared to enter into negotiations with the opposition, as has been leaked via these messengers, why cannot the regime demonstrate by practical means that it is ready to change? If I was in Mr Tsvangirai's shoes, I would remember the proverb that if you want to sup with the devil, you take a long spoon.
The MDC should not allow itself to be cajoled into entering a process that is no doubt intended to relieve the pressure, for example, by the EU when it considers the renewal and possible intensification of sanctions next month, rather than as a genuine move towards the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
In conclusion. I ask the noble Baroness, when she replies, to say something about what the EU's attitude will be when the sanctions come up for renewal on 18 October. I hope that it will be tough in its approach and will not simply renew the sanctions as they stand. It is universally agreed that the situation has deteriorated seriously since the last time the EU considered the matter, so it would be totally inadequate if it merely renewed the sanctions as they stand. It has plenty of reports about the situation from the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum,
280
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the US State Department. By the way, the US State Department has just issued a new travel warning, telling US citizens not to go to Zimbabwe, and if they are there, to come away. That is an indication of how the Americans view the deterioration of the situation.
I hope that the European Union will be strict in its application of the sanctions. I suggest that it examines the report just issued by the Redress Trust, which talks about 60 Zimbabwean police officers, who are being employed in the Kosovo Administration, including one gentleman who was accused of serious offences of torture in Zimbabwe. It seems shocking that an international body, such as the Administration UNMIK in Kosovo, should be a harbour, a refuge, for people who have committed atrocities in Zimbabwe. I suggest that when the EU renews the sanctions, it should extend them to any former serving police officer in Zimbabwe. As the Redress Trust points out, people are not going to be nominated to that position by the ZANU-PF administration unless they were loyal servants of the regime.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this has been a debate of highly informed speeches. I fully share the gratitude that your Lordships have expressed to my noble friend Lord Blaker for being the original instigator of the debate and for his tireless questioning on the subject, and to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for stepping in and making such an excellent opening speech, which raised many issues that have run as themes through the debate this evening.
Zimbabwe is sadly today a stain on the African dream; it is a burden on southern Africa and a threat to development, which threatens and sours the whole high hopes for NePAD and all our hopes for achieving a better region of the world in southern Africa. Some of your Lordships have expressed their understanding of our own Government's difficulties in grappling with the issue. There is a problem about merely waving a hand and suggesting, even in this age of intervention, that there should be outright intervention by force. That is not on the table at all, or even possible. However, we have always maintained on this side, and we maintain again tonight, that we in Britain could do more. We have set out list after list of proposals of what can be done realistically here in London and with our allies and colleagues round the world to accelerate the move towards a better situation.
The MDC has repeatedly called from inside Zimbabwe for Britain to take a more positive lead, as my noble friend Lord Astor reminded us. Again and again it has been suggested that we should be more decisive, especially against those who are bankrolling Mugabe and his regime—and we know the names of many of them—those who have been coining money out of the DRC, and a whole network of undesirable operations and individuals who have supported the Mugabe system. Above all, we have urged again and again that we should seek to take the matter lo the United Nations Security Council. I know that each

281
time we suggest it we are told that it is not the right time, that it would be counter-productive and that this or that would happen. However, I believe that we should try, try and try again and be at it all the time, in seeking to present to sympathetic ears at the UN the need for a much firmer stand—indeed, for a resolution at the United Nations.
The MDC has pleaded with us, as many others do, to really in practice use our policy of targeted sanctions to prevent Zimbabwe leaders from swanning around Europe and the world, as they appear still to be doing. We are left with the feeling, as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, that our American friends are somehow more outspoken and determined. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just given an example of that. Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State, has spoken with great vigour—there has been no hanging back on his part—as has the whole of the US Congress, members of which have spoken out and raised their voices—and, indeed, used measures—in a way that does not seem to be matched all the time on this side of the Atlantic or here in London.
Why is that? One is always left mystified as to why we cannot move as boldly and strongly as our friend. Is the colonial guilt syndrome hanging in there? As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, we should not hang on to that and be shy. That is yesterday's pattern of thinking and simply does not apply to the global situation in the 21st century. Is it because we are dominated by the theory that it should all be left to Mr Mbeki, as the nearby influential next door neighbour? I find that a rather sad and, so far, very disappointing line of thought, and I believe that it is a basic misreading of Mr Mbeki. He was always going to bow to Robert Mugabe and always regarded him as his senior. He was even a little nervous and in awe of him, so the chances of any heavy pressure from that side were never very good, and I do not believe that they are now.
It may be that the effects of this tragedy will spread into South Africa and we shall begin to see starvation and maybe civil disturbance on a bigger scale in South Africa. The starvation is already there; the dangers of the lack of food is a knock-on effect of the situation in Zimbabwe in many ways. Of course, there are other causes, such as the drought, but it is partly a knock-on effect from Zimbabwe. As those things begin to shake up the scene in South Africa, minds may change, but I do not see that. At the moment, the report is that Mr Mugabe is in or has just visited South Africa for a medical check up and that he is looking for a plush estate for his retirement, which we obviously all hope will be soon. However, it does not sound as though pressure on Mr Mugabe is yet at a serious level where it is likely to lead to a radical change of course.
What is the position now? In the great country of Zimbabwe there is a downward spiral of economic performance, with 80 per cent unemployed and inflation rising towards 700 per cent, and a downward spiral of disease and HIV/AIDS, as my noble friend Lord Caithness so graphically and authoritatively described. There is also a downward spiral of food
282
supplies, with shortages growing, as the noble Lord, Lord Acton, so graphically described. There have been some sort of informal talks but, meanwhile, the leader of the opposition is on trial, free speech is being suppressed and human rights abuses are abounding, including torture and arrest without trial.
That is a sickening situation and one in which the Government this time should stop dithering, although I can see that there are two sides to the argument on cricket and sport. They should come right out and not only tell the ECB to consider its position but tell it that the tour is off. I realise the difficulties and that a promise was made, but the situation is so bad and the dangers of strengthening and endorsing the direction and policy of Mugabe are so strong that I believe that the Government should take a tougher line than they have.
As for the hopeful talks, are they the way forward? I listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who speaks with great expertise on these matters. Of course, President Obasanjo has been in London suggesting that there are talks and that they could move to a more formal level. I do not know whether that is possible without the MDC becoming entangled in a ZANU-PF gameplan merely to prolong its power.
There are four important blocks—stumbling blocks or, as they should be, absolute conditions. One is restoring press freedom. The second is that the ZANU-PF fascistic militias should be disbanded. A third is that the constitution should be sensibly amended, which is a very complex issue. The fourth is that there should be free and fair elections—maybe at a specific time and not immediately. Those must be the conditions and I hope that the MDC stand firm on them, although none of them at the moment is within miles of being acknowledged or agreed to by the ZANU-PF people.
What can we do? We can have these debates, which do help, and keep the matter firmly in the frame. We can speak more boldly, too—we really can. The softly, softly approach in terms of our rhetoric has not worked, and I do not believe that we should be constrained by the complexes and parameters of past ideologies and 20th-century ideas, which no longer apply today.
The sanctions need toughening further to weaken Mugabe. I believe that they can be toughened. We need to work very closely with the Americans and obviously ensure that our EU colleagues move along the same line. When I say "we", I do not just refer to the British Government—they cannot carry all the burden—but to everyone who is concerned in the United Kingdom. I refer to the media. I should like to see the media be more active in defending media freedom which is being suppressed and destroyed in Harare. I refer to the trade unions who should be more active—perhaps they are already but I do not hear very much of it—in supporting their brothers and sisters in the suppressed and harassed unions of Zimbabwe.
I have raised my next point already. I think that it is our duty to try the UN route again. I pray that we are not given the line that it is not quite ready or would be

283
counter-productive and so on. Our diplomats, who are vastly able people and very experienced, ought to be able to find a way forward in that regard. We must go against the bank rollers, as I have said. As one of my noble friends suggested—I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Caithness—we should identify the human rights abusers and the potential war criminals, as I suppose they would be called in another context, to show that these people will not get away with the horrors that they have inflicted on their fellow human beings.
There is the question of the asylum seekers. I know that now there is no forcible repatriation. Those who are refused asylum are not required to go back, although they are not given much support either. But are the criteria for deciding on asylum seekers from Zimbabwe the correct ones? There is a feeling that the Home Office still regards going back to Zimbabwe or South Africa as safe. All I say is that those I have met who are given that kind of judgment and that kind of direction do not regard going back to Zimbabwe or even to South Africa as safe at all. In their eyes they are not safe places.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to put on the record that of the 7,000 people from Zimbabwe who applied for asylum in 2002, only 45 returned voluntarily at the expense of the IOM in 2003. The vast majority of them, in spite of the fact that they are left destitute at the end of the asylum process, prefer that to going back to Zimbabwe.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, that indicates the strength of their feeling and their fears but of course it is a shocking situation. It is one that the Government should look at again very carefully indeed.
Some say that we can do nothing. That has not been the view of your Lordships tonight at all but that view exists. I argue that the constraints on action that were believed to exist a few years back do not exist in the 21st century. It is a different place where everyone is demanding different standards of behaviour, different moral standards, different standards of observance of human rights, and that is a good thing. This is part of the global network. It is not just a remote country we can quietly ignore while we get into the big action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Zimbabwe is part of the global network. When one part gets infected, the virus affects us all. I believe that we should stand with our Commonwealth colleagues and with our brothers and sisters in Africa, Asia and Europe in condemning the cruel inhumanity that is being perpetrated in Zimbabwe and work night and day to see that the Zimbabwean people cease to have to cry for their beloved country and can rise and live again.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I join everyone who has congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on having introduced this very important debate and on the way in which he did so. He should be congratulated also on the range and quality of the
284
speeches that he has encouraged tonight. I send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who would have added his experienced voice to our debate tonight had he not been indisposed.
I hope that I shall be able to respond to many of the questions put by noble Lords in the body of my contribution. If, however, I do not respond in my allotted time to any outstanding questions, I shall, of course, write to noble Lords.
I should like to begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that the Government's attention remains closely focused on Zimbabwe. The debate to which he referred in his opening remarks is for the usual channels to take up. Our main aim is clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said on 14 January, in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the Government's objective,
"remains a return to democratic governance, prosperity and the rule of law in Zimbabwe".—[Official Report, 14/1/04; col. 553.]
That is not the view of a government who are not completely engaged in seeking a solution to this crisis.
If I may, I shall begin with a short overview of the situation in Zimbabwe as the Government see it. As several noble Lords have emphasised, the situation in Zimbabwe remains grim—a stain on the African dream, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, so eloquently put it. The World Food Programme's estimate that around 6 million people will need food aid during the January to April pre-harvest period— and this figure could rise further as new assessments are made—is a disgrace to the entire international community. I shall address, in due course, the measures that we are taking to help the people of Zimbabwe and to try to persuade the Government of Zimbabwe to change their disastrous policies.
The economy was referred to by many noble Lords. It remains in a dire state. Official inflation remains at some 600 per cent. Unemployment is 70 to 80 per cent. A much publicised anti-corruption drive has begun. The most high profile arrest has been ZANU-PF MP Philip Chiyangwa after he allegedly interfered with a Reserve Bank investigation into corruption in an asset management firm in which he allegedly has substantial interests. If the Zimbabwean authorities are genuinely moving against corruption, that would be most welcome. But it will take more than one or two arrests to convince the watching world that anything substantial has changed.
Political violence and oppression continue. One person was killed in a ZANU-PF attack on Movement for Democratic Change supporters in Mashonaland this month. The Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum has reported that during the January to November 2003 period, there were nine cases of murder, almost 500 cases of torture and over 500 cases of unlawful arrest. The figures speak for themselves.
Noble Lords may also have read of the horrific murder of the financial director of a tea plantation and there has recently been the first murder of a commercial farmer in 18 months. Those particular attacks do not appear to be politically motivated; rather, they are a tragic consequence of the crisis in

285
Zimbabwe. While crime against whites in Zimbabwe tends to receive international attention, we should never forget that the great majority of the victims of ZANU-PF rule are black Zimbabweans, whose cases never hit the headlines. We are of course keeping our travel advice under constant review.
The MDC has been the subject of numerous threats and attacks. The treason trial of the leader of the MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai, has recommenced. It would be wrong for me to comment on the details while the trial is in progress, but I do not believe that it helps reconciliation in Zimbabwe. Neither does the state's decision to go ahead with those charges suggest that Mr Mugabe is seeking to create a climate in which dialogue can go ahead.
Regarding talks between the two parties, we understand that Robert Mugabe told President Mbeki, when he visited in December, that his party was committed to carrying forward the process of dialogue with the MDC. However, there appears to have been no progress since that discussion and police raided MDC headquarters on Friday 23 January. If there was a genuine desire on the part of Mugabe for talks, that would of course be welcome, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said. We have yet to see real evidence of that commitment. We need to see it.
Press harassment has been mentioned by many noble Lords. Harassment continues—the Daily News, the country's only independent daily newspaper, has been off the streets for several months. It finally managed to bring out an edition in Zimbabwe on 22 January, after winning five court orders saying it could publish. The Government returned to the High Court on 23 January in a fresh attempt to stop publication.
Regarding the vital subject of humanitarian aid, referred to so movingly by my noble friend Lord Acton, Robert Mugabe's policies have proved a disaster for the people of Zimbabwe—a matter also raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others. We are trying to help pick up the pieces. Since September 2001 we have spent £62 million on humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe, £20 million of which has been spent during the present financial year. We are grateful for the appreciation of noble Lords on our humanitarian efforts. We will be providing further funds for emergency feeding and HIV/AIDS programmes in the coming weeks. DfID is working with the World Food Programme and other UN agencies to ensure that resources are targeted on the most vulnerable. Our highest priorities are households with chronically ill adults, those headed by children or the disabled and those without access to land. In addition to UK contributions to UN feeding programmes, DfID's own supplementary feeding programmes are providing food to over 1 million people every month.
The Government are aware of concerns that food aid could be used for political purposes—a matter that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and others. However, I assure the House that distribution of international food aid, including all the food contributed by the UK, is closely monitored and
286
the World Food Programme has agreed satisfactory distribution arrangements in a memorandum of understanding with the Zimbabwean Government. In recent months there have been no significant cases of political interference with food deliveries.
The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe gives enormous cause for concern, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, powerfully set out. A quarter of Zimbabweans aged 15 to 49 are infected with HIV/AIDS. We are spending £26 million on HIV/AIDS prevention programmes over five years to help tackle that crisis. It will be delivered through para-statal organisations and rural health clinics.
UN sanctions—binding on all member states—are the most effective option when considering targeted measures, but would require consensus in the Security Council. I am sorry, but despite the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and his commitment to the issue, that is not an option at this stage. The UN Security Council's focus is on other international peace and security issues, despite the impact that we know the crisis is having on the wider African region. It remains the case that Zimbabwe's neighbours are not calling in the UN for wider UN intervention.
As noble Lords are aware, the EU has for the past two years tabled a resolution on Zimbabwe at the UN Commission on Human Rights. On both occasions, the resolutions fell to a no-action motion supported by, among others, all the members of the African group. However, if there is no improvement in the human rights situation in Zimbabwe by the time the UN Commission on Human Rights meets this year, I hope to see another resolution tabled. As we know, the commission meets in March and April.
We would gladly move a UN Security Council resolution on Zimbabwe if we thought it would succeed, but doing that and failing would provide succour to Mugabe and his supporters and we are not in the business of doing that. Five members of the Security Council voted for the 2003 no-action motion at the UNHCR and it is difficult to see them voting for a Security Council resolution on Zimbabwe after that action in the UNHCR.
I will now move on to what we are trying to do to persuade the Zimbabwean Government to change their disastrous policy and what our action is at European level. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a pertinent point about the danger of this being seen as only a bilateral issue and therefore playing into Mugabe's propaganda hands. We must always be on our guard in that respect. However, the EU has imposed targeted measures against Mugabe and 78 leading members of ZANU-PF. These include a travel ban and an asset freeze. There is also an arms embargo. The Americans and others have introduced similar measures, as noble Lords are aware.
The EU measures are due for renewal next month and we are looking for ways to strengthen them. We are seriously looking with our EU partners at ways of maintaining their effectiveness and relevance, while not hurting the people of Zimbabwe. But one thing we will not argue for is general trade sanctions. That

287
would be a propaganda gift to the Zimbabwe Government's claim that we are trying to undermine their country. No trade measures we could undertake would have the same impact on Zimbabwe's economy as ZANU-PF's own disastrous policies.
Implications for the withdrawal from the Commonwealth have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, shared with us his interesting and experienced observations on the role of African leaders post-CHOGM. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister argued at CHOGM that it was inconceivable that Zimbabwe could be readmitted to the Councils of the Commonwealth until we had seen concrete evidence of a return to democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law—the very principles on which the Commonwealth was founded. I am glad to say that the heads of government agreed by consensus to continue indefinitely Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth at CHOGM in December.
They also agreed to the issue of a statement on Zimbabwe, giving the lie to Mugabe's claim that suspension was a UK-led white conspiracy against black Africa. Mugabe has now increased his country's isolation by withdrawing from the Commonwealth. The ties of affection between the people of Zimbabwe and the rest of the Commonwealth remain and I look forward to the day, as I am sure do all noble Lords, when a democratic Zimbabwe is welcomed back. In the mean time, we will continue to work with our international partners to bring about the restoration of good governance and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
The subject of cricket was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Howell of Guildford, and my noble friends Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lord Acton. Whether or not to tour Zimbabwe is a matter for the England and Wales Cricket Board. However, noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has written to the board clearly pointing out the situation in Zimbabwe and suggesting that it may wish to consider whether a high-profile tour at this time is compatible with the international community's isolation of Zimbabwe. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
Noble Lords may have picked up on the discussion in another place this week when my honourable friend Mr Mullin, the Minister for Africa, said that the Government would prefer that the England cricket team did not go to Zimbabwe. But at the end of the day, it is up to the ECB. I understand that it is meeting later this week and we await the outcome of its deliberations with interest.
Many noble Lords have asked me questions and I shall get through them as quickly as I can. I shall make sure that noble Lords whose questions are not reached receive a written reply. Many noble Lords have asked whether we are doing enough; could not Britain do more; could we not try, try and try again; and could we not put more urgency into the problem? I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, spoke about quiet diplomacy and it being a little louder.
288
I refute the charge that the Government have been dragging their feet on the crisis in Zimbabwe. We continue to work closely and robustly with our EU and Commonwealth partners to bring about a return to democratic government in Zimbabwe as regards human rights and the rule of law. The Commonwealth has stood firm. When its leaders met in Nigeria last month, and they included our Prime Minister, they agreed to the indefinite suspension of Zimbabwe following its failure to meet basic Commonwealth standards of good governance.
The EU is also engaged. It has issued a number of statements condemning the Mugabe regime for its repeated attacks on trades union and civil society leaders and on the independent media. The EU has continued to enforce its target of measures against the ZANU-PF leadership and to look at ways of making these measures as effective and robust as possible. At the same time the UK has provided a sizeable programme of humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe.
We are the largest cash donor and, after the United States, the largest bilateral aid donor to Zimbabwe. Since September 2001 when the current crisis began, the UK has provided £62 million in humanitarian assistance, as I said earlier.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked me about the end game. That was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. We stand ready to work with any new administration in Zimbabwe which has been freely and democratically elected by the Zimbabwean people. With partners, we are already planning for a time when we will be able to re-engage with Zimbabwe and assist with its reconstruction. It is premature to speculate on the scale of future UK support, but we would be certain to play a leading role in helping to rebuild Zimbabwe when the rule of law and representative government are restored. Our record of providing over £500 million in development assistance to Zimbabwe since independence shows that our commitment to Zimbabwe is for the long haul.
I was asked by noble Lords about President Mbeki and his role and what the Government feel about it. Following his visit to Harare on 18 December he has stated that he met both Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai and that a formal process of dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition is now imminent. We hope that that is the case. We have made it clear for some time now that we see such a process of dialogue as the vital first step towards restoring democratic governance in Zimbabwe. But we have seen no evidence that the parties are moving in that direction. We hope that both President Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo will continue in their efforts to get the parties re-engaged and that we soon see concrete evidence of that progress.
Noble Lords asked me about extending the EU sanctions to business people. We note that the Movement for Democratic Change visiting the European Parliament this week called for EU sanctions to be extended also to business people. We

289
remain open to the argument that any individual who is demonstrably responsible for the suppression of human rights might at some stage be added to the list.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked me about the Grain Marketing Board stockpiling and withholding food. It is very worrying if the Zimbabwean Government are using food in this way. But that government signed the memorandum of understanding with the World Food Programme last year agreeing to its principles on distribution. Ultimately, of course, we have no control over the food that Mr Mugabe's regime buys in.
I have come the end of my time and will answer noble Lords' further questions in writing.
The Government's desire is to see a democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe. To that end, we are working robustly with our international partners. We may not yet have achieved that aim, but we have helped to provide humanitarian aid to half the population of Zimbabwe, in which this country can take great pride. We continue to keep the pressure on ZANU-PF and engage with all those working for change in Zimbabwe. It will come, and Britain intends to help Zimbabweans build their lives again.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I am sure that it will cheer up my noble friend Lord Blaker when he reads it. I hope that it will also give some comfort to those suffering in Zimbabwe, who, as my noble friend Lord Goschen said, will be closely following this debate.
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. Each speaker has a long record of not letting Zimbabwe slip off the agenda, and it is to be hoped that all will continue to speak out. All speakers would agree with the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the situation is very dangerous and getting worse. There were differences about how to help resolve that situation, but all suggestions were constructive and thoughtful. Finally, I thank the Minister for constructively and resolutely addressing the various questions that have been fired at her. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Iraq
8.27 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the total costs to date in economic and human terms of the recent conflict in Iraq and the likely future costs of the occupation, reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell has chosen this short debate in which to make his maiden speech.
290
My noble friend Lady Symons knows that I have been asking questions about Iraq ever since she has been in the House. This debate is another instalment in that series, and I am sure that there will be others.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for kindly publishing his report today, since this short debate will focus on the events that followed the faulty, but apparently not sexed-up, intelligence that the Government received about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As we all know, the handling and quality of that intelligence is the real question behind the Hutton Inquiry rather than the sad death of a government scientist.
Dr David Kay has now reported that weapons of mass destruction have probably not been a serious threat since 1991. Scott Ritter, the American former UNSCOM chief inspector, told us that clearly in 1999. He was a main player, successfully detecting several Iraqi attempts to conceal prohibited weapons. However, his government chose not to believe him and used character assassination tactics against him.
Full and accurate figures for the human cost of the war, particularly for Iraqi casualties, are not available. I hope that my noble friend has had access to more comprehensive information than I have.
First, let us consider the economic cost. The financial cost to the United States was covered in two supplemental budget requests last year, together amounting to 150 billion dollars, equivalent to 4.4 per cent of the already grossly overspent federal budget. Of that, military costs in Iraq amount to some 118 billion dollars, over twice the total world spending of 52 billion dollars on development assistance, and more than enough to achieve the eight global millennium development goals aimed at eliminating extreme poverty. How different the world attitude to the United States would have been if that sum had been spent that way. Bin Laden would have been outflanked, whereas now he will find additional willing recruits for Al'Qaeda.
For the United Kingdom's operations in Iraq, the Chancellor put aside £3 billion in March last year and, at Madrid, we committed £544 million over a three-year period for reconstruction. I am sure that the Minister will have more up-to-date information on current and future costs. Although modest compared to the United States, £3.5 billion—and probably at least £5 billion by the time our troops are withdrawn— is a sum that we can ill afford, especially when the Chancellor is under criticism from the OECD for excessive borrowing.
The human cost in terms of deaths of coalition military personnel is well known. To date, 140 US deaths took place up to May and more than 360 in the subsequent eight months. The United Kingdom figures for the same periods were 33 and 17. Figures for the number of coalition wounded are not announced but, according to the independent Iraq Casualty Count, they amounted to 2,400 by November last year. Most of those are severe and will lead to lifelong disability. In addition, there is a high incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and an increased suicide rate among military personnel who have served in Iraq.

291
Iraqi civilian casualties have not been officially counted, but the independent Iraq Body Count project estimated that between 7,900 and 9,700 had been killed by US military actions. Fewer were killed by British forces, but I know personally of "mistakes" in and around Basra that had tragic consequences. Many Iraqi civilians have been seriously injured but the numbers there are even more difficult to assess. One source estimated at least 20,000 by July. But deaths and injuries have continued to increase daily due to terrorist attacks and unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs. In addition, there may be delayed deaths from cancer due to the use of depleted uranium shells in both Gulf Wars. So far, that is not confirmed, but many reports by clinicians in Basra of an increase in the incidence and severity of cancer there urgently need to be independently investigated.
The number of Iraqi military deaths in combat is also unknown. As General Tommy Franks elegantly put it:
"We don't do body counts".
Informed estimates range from 9,200 to 13,500 and possibly more, and the number of severely injured may be 20,000 or more. Those numbers would have been far higher if the war had not been so short and troops had not melted into the background when faced with overwhelming force.
Overall casualties were thus in the region of 20,000 to 25,000 dead and 50,000 wounded. Those figures are lower than in some wars but are still a major cause of enduring human misery and disability, mostly affecting Iraqis, including many women and children. The families of those 70,000 people will have bitterness in their hearts towards the occupying forces and the governments who sent them, however pleased some of them may be that Saddam has been captured. That applies even if the final count is considerably lower than the figures that I have given. The suggestion that Saddam in power might have killed an equal number over the next few years will not console them.
Apart from damage to people, there is widespread damage to housing, power supplies, water and sewage systems due to the war and subsequent looting. They were not in a very good state before the war. It is almost certain that there will be prolonged effects on the health of Iraqis, particularly children, who are the most vulnerable. UNICEF already reports a sharp rise in malnutrition, which, before the war, was starting to improve. The World Bank reported in October:
"Serious environmental and health risks associated with contaminated water supplies … burden the already severely distressed health system … raw sewage is being discharged into rivers and waterways".
Perhaps my noble friend will have time to tell us how non-governmental organisations, DfID and the armed services are helping to repair Iraq's damaged infrastructure.
One cost that is very difficult to assess is the effect on our future relations with the Arab world. Although some said that the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad, there has been little sign of improvement in the Arab-Israeli dispute since the war. The border with
292
Iran is not controlled, and there is evidence of Islamic fundamentalist infiltration. My noble friend's assessment of this problem would be welcome, as would her opinion on Turkey's possible response, should the Iraqi Kurds achieve greater autonomy, which is what they want.
I hope that my noble friend will also tell us about moves, which are ongoing, to involve the United Nations in preparing for elections and give us a best and worst case assessment of the likely duration and costs of the continued occupation of Iraq.
Operation Iraqi Freedom did indeed result in a lot of freedom in Iraq. There is no Saddam, but also no taxes, no customs, no army and no border controls. There are intermittent electricity supplies, little fuel and few basic services. Those who are lucky enough to have jobs are better paid than before the war, but there is still massive unemployment, poverty and terror. That is all as a result of a war with no international legal justification that was initiated because of a presumed threat from weapons of mass destruction that have never been found.
Senator Edward Kennedy put the case in no uncertain terms on 4 January when he said:
"Week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie".
Surprisingly our Prime Minister appeared to go along with those lies. And such is his apparent sincerity and persuasive power, that all except two members of the Cabinet—or perhaps I should say one and a half— went along with him. He would be widely respected if he could bring himself to admit that he got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction and the war that resulted. A reverse gear is useful sometimes when one is in a cul-de-sac. The families of the service men who have died or were injured and the people of Iraq are owed a profound apology. I hope that that will soon be forthcoming.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell to the debate and very much look forward to hearing his contribution.
Iraq has been under partial British occupation for the past nine months. British troops conquered and now control a large swathe of the south. But what are Britain's role and voice in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad? How is power shared—if at all—between Britain and the United States in the CPA, and what say do we have in vital decisions about Iraq's economic future? Those are important questions for scrutiny by the House. I shall concentrate on them tonight, and I look forward to full and frank answers from the noble Baroness.
The CPA's very informative website announces on its home page that,
"it is led by the United States and the United Kingdom".
What exactly does that mean? Is the CPA appointed by and accountable to the United States Government only, or is it also accountable to us? Do we have nomination rights, and if so, to which positions?

293
The Foreign Secretary, in his letter of 15 December to my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell said that,
"about 150 personnel are currently seconded by HMG to the CPA. They are selected by HMG for their suitability and availability. In some cases, particularly for more senior posts, appointments are agreed with CPA colleagues".
However, consultation is a two-way street. If the CPA is led, as it asserts, by the United Kingdom as well as the United States, were we consulted before Paul Bremer was appointed? What can we do if we are unhappy with his performance in office? Does Sir Jeremy Greenstock have executive authority or an official title within the CPA? Have our Government requested one for him? To what extent does the CPA devolve responsibility to Britain in southern Iraq?
On the management of the economy, the CPA makes no secret of its mission to remould Iraq's economy in an aggressively free-market Western image. Its private sector development division has specific responsibility for developing a privatisation programme for state-owned enterprises, for developing foreign investment and for helping to introduce an entrepreneurial attitude. Looking at its website today, one sees that it features the Business Opportunities in Iraq Index, giving comprehensive sales packs called State Owned Enterprise Profiles, for 45 of the largest companies in Iraq. Today's choice special offer is,
"Ninawa and Samarra—manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, mainly generic versions of branded drugs, supplied 60% of Iraq's market, with good potential for profitability in a free market and exports … high margins … many technologies under its belt to keep supplying highly profitable products without incurring high research and development costs … motivated staff and workforce. High levels of know how and good brands. The facilities are modern".
So hurry, hurry while stocks last. That should make a pretty tasty morsel for one of the big drugs companies backing President Bush's re-election campaign.
The CPA's policy is pre-emptive privatisation of Iraq's economy. Is it being developed and pursued with the active involvement of British members of the CPA? If we are serious about building a democratic Iraq, how can Her Majesty's Government support that? Those are not decisions to be taken by a temporary foreign administration; decisions about how to run the country should be taken by an elected Iraqi government. Unlike cowboy movies, Mr Bush, one has to accept that democracy means that the good guys do not always win in the last reel and the guys who win do not always do what one wants.
The annual Iraqi budget issued in October makes chilling reading for many of the half a million Iraqis employed in public sector enterprises. Clearly, many of them will be closed. The budget states:
"The transition of Iraq's economy to one driven by market forces will involve significant restructuring".
294
It refers to,
"the hardship associated with this necessary but difficult process".
At the same time, the CPA, through Order 39 signed by Paul Bremer last September, has opened up,
"all economic sectors except the natural resources sector in all parts of Iraq to foreign investment, with full and immediate remittance of profits, dividends, royalties and interest out of Iraq",
subject only to a proposed 15 per cent company income tax. No wonder that just after Order 39 was signed, the Iraqi Governing Council trade minister, Mr Alawi, was quoted in the International Herald Tribune as saying:
"Now we face the prospect of free-market fundamentalism. The Iraqi people are sick and tired of being the subjects of experiments".
The Foreign Secretary's letter to Sir Menzies Campbell also states that Order 39 on foreign direct investment,
"was produced following consultation with the IMF and the World Bank".
How long were those bodies given and was the order amended in any way as a result of any representations that they made? Were Her Majesty's Government, as the other leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority, consulted as well? If so, what was our response and what effect did it have?
Last February, even before the attack on Iraq, President Bush suggested that Iraq could become a "dramatic and inspiring example", as the Middle East pushed towards economic openness and free trade. The United States, of course, has its own highly selective definition of free trade, excluding such trifles as steel and food. But if the invasion of Iraq was really to remove a dictator and let the Iraqis decide their own future, how can Britain allow Iraq's assets to be flogged off first to foreigners? Why should the CPA impose free-market fundamentalism on Iraq in Britain's name?
I have stuck tonight to the economic aspects of Britain's role in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq and the actions being taken partly in Britain's name there without any clear scrutiny or authority from Parliament. Other noble Lords may press for more answers on the costs of Iraq to the British taxpayers, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has done already, and the apparent reluctance of the CPA to award any significant reconstruction contracts outside the magic circle of the well connected giant US corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton. Those are important areas of concern. But first our Government must set out fully and convincingly the legal, moral and operational basis of British involvement in running Iraq. Otherwise many people here and around the world will see Britain as little more than a fig leaf while the Americans force out-and-out capitalism on the people of Iraq whether they want it or not. What a mockery that makes of democracy.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rea for introducing

295
the debate. I look forward with anticipation to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell.
The questions the debate raises are very important. I was one of those who opposed the war from the beginning. There were many who felt as I did. We were often accused of being anti-American. We are not. It is becoming clear that there are numerous Americans who feel the same way. Take the attack on President Bush's State of the Union speech by a leading Democrat, referred to in the current issue of the House Magazine. She said:
"The President led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence. He embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history, and he failed to build a true international coalition".
It now seems unlikely that any weapons of mass destruction will be discovered. It is being acknowledged that they may in fact never have existed—at least in recent times—and that the Iraqi Government could well have been speaking the truth when they said that they no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction. We were told by Government Ministers at the time that no one could possibly believe a syllable of that. So there was the war—on the basis that Saddam Hussein was a threat to everyone, including ourselves and the United States.
The Motion tonight, however, seeks information from the Government about the costs of this venture; not only the economic costs, but the cost in human terms.
So far as concerns the economic costs, it is clear to everyone that this has been a very expensive exercise, and continues to be so. We know that the United States now faces a substantial budget deficit, despite the fact that President Bush inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor. He has had to seek further funding. It is alleged that the total costs so far are in the region of 160 billion dollars.
On our costs, the Foreign Secretary has said that British troops may have to stay in Iraq for a number of years, even if there are elections later this year and it becomes possible to hand over sovereignty to an Iraqi Government with some claim to popular support.
There have been references to the Chancellor's war chest, with the inference that the cost to Britain is manageable. But is it? There is concern about public services. The necessary improvements may require investment. There are social costs associated with an ageing population. I have criticised the lack of expenditure regarding care of the elderly, particularly those requiring long-term residential care. To improve facilities would cost a fraction of what the Iraqi conflict is likely to cost.
We have not heard much from the Government about economic costs. I hope we may learn something tonight. Turning to human costs, we know of course about our casualties and those of coalition forces. I believe that the American deaths—now more than 500—exceed those of US deaths in the first Gulf War. These seem likely to continue.
296
We hear little, however, about Iraqi casualties. Various figures have been mentioned—sometimes 10,000 deaths or 16,000 and occasionally even more. As to injuries, it does not seem possible to arrive at any reliable figures. I have heard it said that children are killed or injured every day by cluster bombs, since these remain after an attack and are lethal. Moreover, they appear to have been used in urban areas.
We have very little information about the losses sustained by Iraqi forces. Yet we know from descriptions of the fighting at the time that many must have been killed or injured since the Iraqis possess no aircraft capable of providing a defence, and so the coalition dominated the skies. That led to the slaughter of masses of ill-armed Iraqi soldiers. It is likely that we shall not get reliable information for some time.
We did not get much information about this issue after the First Gulf War, at least for a number of years. There is a rather horrifying description of the slaughter of Iraqi troops—many of whom were young conscripts—in the first Gulf War in John Simpson's recent book, The Wars Against Saddam. He says that it was nine years before General Schwarzkopf would say even roughly how many soldiers he thought Iraq had lost, and when he did speak he put the figure at tens of thousands.
Referring to some of the battles, John Simpson said:
"It wasn't a battle at all, merely the slaughter of tens of thousands of Third World soldiers armed only with weapons incapable of penetrating American armour".
That was the first time around. It seems unlikely that Iraqi soldiers fared any better in the recent war.
It would also appear that napalm was used on Iraqi troops—something that some US soldiers did not at all like; they said so to the press. Moreover, we have little idea about what happened to Iraqi troops: what were their casualties and what happened to those, if any, who were captured. The Government must have some idea and perhaps we shall be told tonight.
As for civilian casualties, I had an opportunity recently to meet an Iraqi doctor whose family had suffered in the war. He was a surgeon working in a hospital in Basra. Believing Anglo-American statements that civilians would not be targeted, only government installations and military sites, he gathered together his extended family to stay with him in his house in Basra. One evening, while he and his wife were out—he was working in the hospital—his house suffered a direct hit in a bombing raid. The entire family—11 of them—died. Four of his children died in the house; he has one remaining child.
He showed me a photograph of his family. He is staying in this country for a while. He says that he loves his country, but that the tragedy that he has suffered is so overwhelming that he cannot go back there for some time. He wants to live and work here. He is a sophisticated, highly civilised man with excellent English who is apparently highly qualified. I am sure that he would be welcome to work here, but his experience was so utterly dreadful that I did not know what to say to him.

297
I have on occasion asked whether there will be any compensation for the civilian victims of the war, but have been told that that is impossible, at least for those killed or injured during the war. Frankly, I do not know why. All we can do now is ensure that there is no repeat performance of such military intervention on the basis of misguided intelligence, and that everything possible is done to ensure that Iraqis are able to rebuild their shattered lives and have a government with at least a degree of popular support.
I hope that my noble friend will not again tell me that had we not gone to war Saddam Hussein would have killed more of his people than have the coalition forces. That is a morally dubious argument, especially as the bulk of Saddam's victims met their fate when he was an ally of the West—during and after the war with Iran. Moreover, there seems no good reason why we should add to the number of Iraqis killed or horribly injured. As we know, regime change is not within the United Nations' mandate. Diplomacy and economic pressure are sometimes better ways to deal with unacceptable regimes than sending in the B52s, especially without United Nations support.
I find it surprising that it is apparently assumed that people who have seen their country devastated by bombing—who have lost homes, relatives and, usually, jobs, and who have seen the collapse of the civilian infrastructure as a result of war—would want to support Western-style government and embrace the culture of those who they feel have been responsible for their suffering. That has not happened in Serbia, where, in recent elections, the population has given much support to the extreme nationalist party, which is anti-West and opposed to sending indicted war criminals to The Hague.
So let us hope that there will be no more military adventures at the behest of President Bush—costly in human life and for the economies of the countries concerned. I await with interest the Government's response to the questions posed by my noble friend.
8.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I am grateful for my welcome to your Lordships' House and for the great kindness extended to me by Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments and all their staff for the helpful induction last week. Perhaps I should first issue a disclaimer that any early failure on my part in observation of the traditions and protocols of the House will be solely my responsibility. I also say thank you for the personal welcomes that have been extended to me from Lords Temporal and Spiritual; they are much appreciated. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for tabling the Motion.
Costing of things is prevalent in all spheres of life and in government policy. For example, in health, economists try to assess costs and benefits to calculate whether prevention or treatment of various diseases and conditions represents good value for money. In the field of the environment, others try to put a value on the preservation of rare species or landscapes and
298
then compare that with the benefits in reduced journey times of building new roads. Whatever strengths there may be in this approach and analysis—at the least it should ensure we are sensitive to the implications of what we do or do not do—we should also be aware of the limitations.
There are two chief limits. First, some things, including perhaps the human costs mentioned in the noble Lord's Question, defy quantification in monetary terms and cannot simply be priced in and counted in with other things. This would be true also of certain benefits too. Freedom and justice, for which the war was allegedly fought, cannot be priced. Secondly, while we should be ready to count the costs we should not think that costs and benefits simply can be traded one against the other. There are certain things we have a duty to do, such as to uphold justice, and certain things we should not do, such as intend the death of the innocent in war. We may need to do those things—or not to do them—even at considerable cost. Most significantly, the human costs of all concerned include social, emotional and spiritual dimensions.
The security situation continues to be an important impediment to reconstruction. Lack of security is affecting the daily lives of Iraqis in many parts of the country but most notably in Baghdad. Shootings, lootings, kidnappings, vehicle hijackings and an upsurge in common criminality have increased alarmingly. Widespread looting, including strategic items essential for the provision of water and electricity, continues apace.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that those who just under a year ago were the subjects of a tyrannical regime and then on the receiving end of the "shock and awe" of the coalition forces should find it hard to establish the rule of law as we understand it. There are many in Iraq who, although they rejoice at the fall of Saddam Hussein, still bear the scars of body, mind and spirit inflicted as a result of the war. These human costs defy quantification.
Neither can we ignore the less obvious cost of the undermining of friendships which are all the time developing across barriers of race, language and religion within the United Kingdom caused by the controversial background to the war.
The more the coalition troops are themselves under threat and the more they have to engage in counterinsurgency operations, the more difficult it is for them to provide security for Iraqi civilians. This corrosive climate of insecurity does not provide the context for developing democratic processes and institutions. It erodes trust and creates a climate of suspicion. I am encouraged, therefore, that the training of Iraqi security forces is now recognised as being of the highest priority by the CPA.
Faced with such a wide range of challenges in Iraq, I must pay tribute to the courage, professionalism and steadfastness of those who have served or are currently serving in Her Majesty's forces. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this difficult time, never forgetting those who have lost loved ones.

299
As a bishop, I would also want to pay tribute to the work of the chaplains of all three services in their support of the Armed Forces personnel both during the conflict and as they continue to serve those who remain in the theatre.
Neither should we, in considering costs, ignore the cost to many members of the armed services in terms of conscience. The men and women of the services are not unthinking automatons and many were profoundly disturbed by the ambiguous justification for the war.
Security is not just a matter of concern to local Iraqis nor to coalition forces, or the CPA. It is a significant factor in the consideration of those aid and development agencies operational in Iraq. The attacks on the UN and Red Cross offices allied to the death of a mines advisory group employee suggest that many Iraqis fail to differentiate between these organisations and the coalition forces. This is not surprising given that many NGOs started work in the centre and south of Iraq immediately following the war. They are unfortunately tainted by association.
This problem has not been eased by the tendency of the coalition forces to prosecute what they believe to be a humanitarian agenda. Pictures of coalition forces distributing non-food items in Basra, immediately following the conflict, have contributed to the narrowing of the humanitarian space for organisations to work in. As a number of NGOs have made clear, coalition forces should not try to do this work themselves, but should provide the humanitarian agencies the space to fulfil that agenda.
It is therefore regrettable, though understandable, that Christian Aid and other NGOs have significantly reduced their presence in Iraq. Even Christian Aid's partners, such as the Iraqi Kurdistan NGO Network, a Baghdad-based organisation, have been forced by the situation to work slowly and carefully. The work of such NGOs is often a target for attack. CARE reports that the sabotage of infrastructure means that one-off repairs often end up being repeated two or three times to keep an installation going. All this adds to the economic and human cost of reconstructing and rehabilitating Iraq. Let us hope that the United Nations can help to orchestrate even greater collaboration of international effort in helping Iraq on the way to finding, and playing, its proper role among the families of the nations, while at the same time continuing efforts to create a viable Palestinian state.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing this debate. We are blessed with a robust system of democratic government in this country. I have no doubt that this issue will be a recurring theme on this House's agenda, and I look forward to contributing to future debates on this issue and on other issues.
9.1 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is an honour to be the first to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell who has given us a fluent and balanced assessment of the situation in Iraq, which
300
shows his considerable experience of world affairs. He has worked in Africa, and more recently he has been Archdeacon of London at St Paul's. His interests are rugby football and chamber music, among others. He has said that he wishes to speak on asylum seekers, gun laws and on other issues, including Nottingham, for which he has a particular affection. I sincerely thank the right reverend Prelate, and I hope that we will hear more from him soon.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for bravely choosing this subject on today of all days, when the Government's star is rising high in the sky, but also for bringing it firmly down to earth with a focus on the Iraqi people, which is what that report was originally all about. The Hutton report shows the Government unbowed, but still reeling under public criticism of the necessity for war, such as we are hearing tonight. We can understand why. Whatever tyranny there was in Iraq, whatever Hutton has proved, people remain confused about the reasons for a war that many people believe was illegitimate and without the explicit approval of the United Nations.
Far from a free Iraq, they see on their television screens a land occupied, divided, fought over and still suffering from inadequate public services. Instead of welcoming smiles, they see the continual anxiety caused by rocket attacks, car bombs and suicide. Wherever the rule of law is introduced, the lack of permanent security, unemployment and the frustration caused by acute material shortages seem to conspire to restore anarchy. With rising costs, shortages of fuel and medicines, taps that are often empty, lights that are often switched off, the people still wonder whether they were better under the dictatorship.
If the US and the UK between them, with their considerable international muscle, are still unable to bring peace and security, let alone shared resources to that once wealthy country, how can the Iraqis look forward to a new life, let alone truly democratic elections within two or three years? An illegitimate war or a war that is generally perceived abroad as illegitimate means that the rest of the world is not prepared to subscribe to solutions. It is the opposite of the peacekeeping in Afghanistan, where nations willingly joined in a wider coalition and the atmosphere with regard to national and international action has correspondingly improved. Many soldiers who gallantly fought in Iraq must now wonder when exactly the peace will begin. At times, I cannot help wondering, as, I am sure, some of the troops have, whether it would not have been better to finish the job in Afghanistan first. Of course, that is water under the bridge.
Apart from the gunfire and frequent bombing incidents, there is still a fundamental lack of trust between coalition troops and the local population that will take months to rebuild. The current issue of Newsweek describes the aggressive attitude of many US troops, about which we read frequently in our newspapers, betraying their lack of training and knowledge of, for example, the Islamic culture. Without a secure environment, humanitarian agencies

301
will be unable to do their work. Without the visible reappearance of the United Nations, the coalition seems doomed to remain an army of occupation, so long as enough Iraqi gunmen survive to ensure that it cannot succeed.
With unemployment becoming more visible and with an increasing number of demonstrations in the streets, the situation is bound to be aggravated. Even with the partial UN return that is now under discussion—obviously, we hope that it will take place—the US will no longer be able to seek a rapid exit strategy. The Iraqi Governing Council is weak; the likelihood of summer elections is fading; and there is a real prospect of coalition forces remaining in Iraq beyond the US elections, perhaps for two or more years.
So much is speculation, and the noble Baroness is certain to present more positive images that will reassure us. What is not in doubt is the suffering of the Iraqi people under any regime, including the present one. The reports that I receive are similar to what we heard from the right reverend Prelate and suggest that most Iraqis still struggle to survive. I acknowledge the help of CARE International, of which I am an associate member. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned malnutrition, with the end of the UN Oil for Food distribution last month. Until a new system is in place, many destitute families no longer have any guarantee of food supplies. Fuel is short, with long queues and many resorting to the black market. Electricity is unreliable, with only two Italian-made turbines functioning at the main Dora plant, largely because of a dispute between Bechtel and Siemens. Although, according to Middle East International, that has been resolved, it has caused months of delay, not least in pumping vital fuel to terminals and refineries that will eventually get the country back on its feet. Those are problems of our making; they are nothing to do with the Iraqi people or Saddam Hussein.
Serious shortages of medical supplies have been reported by UN staff and Medecins sans Frontieres, with some areas having no essential drugs. Distribution problems have never been as bad, according to Dr Nima Abed, director of preventive healthcare at the Ministry of Health. Whatever the evils of the old regime, healthcare, including medicine, was almost completely subsidised, and patients paid less than a dollar to visit a doctor. Unless a new health service can be put in place, the poorest will suffer under the new coalition. They are, as in the least developed countries, at the mercy of private operators.
I have one or two questions for the Minister. The first relates to the subject raised by the right reverend Prelate: security. I am speaking about Baghdad. Perhaps the Minister could refer the problem back to the coalition. She will remember the concerns of NGOs, which I expressed many times in the context of Afghanistan, about the blurring of humanitarian and military aid. I am told that unmarked white vehicles carrying CPA staff are distributing aid. That is not so surprising, as soldiers have to distribute humanitarian aid, and we have seen that role well performed by our
302
soldiers in Basra. White is often the colour used by the UN and others to distinguish aid vehicles. But these staff are also carrying weapons. Is it not increasing the danger to humanitarian work of all kinds that armed men are now to be found bringing aid? Protection, one admits, is often needed for convoys in post-conflict situations, but for armed individuals to be acting as relief workers is surely compromising the wider community, the majority of whom are Iraqis working with the United Nations and other agencies. I would not mention this if it was not a concern seriously expressed by the aid organisations which are there, many of which have been there for several years.
As a trustee of Christian Aid, I feel it may be helpful to quote from a recommendation it made more than a year ago:
"Christian Aid believes the UN and the international community at large must address a potential breakdown in social order in the immediate aftermath of any regime change in Iraq. Therefore, the issue of short-term and long-term protection of Iraqis must be addressed. It would be essential that the form of protection adopted had the acceptance of the Iraqi population".
I have three other questions. Can the Minister comment on the changeover from the Oil for Food system and confirm that the United Nations will continue to monitor food supplies? What is the current role of the coalition in delivering humanitarian aid and will the office of the US humanitarian co-ordinator now give its full support to a new United Nations body, such as UNOCHA, without any political interference? That question coincides with the one raised very pertinently by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. Finally, what participation does the UK Department for International Development have in this process?
9.12 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, after a day in which many of us have spent a lot of time reading and then commenting on pre-war decisions, it is quite refreshing to turn to the post-war record and the question of future commitments. I am one of those who believes that we can debate for some time the legitimacy and the wisdom of going to war. Nevertheless, we all share a common interest in ensuring that the current occupation and the rebuilding of Iraq is a success. We also have to recognise how immensely difficult that is proving and how difficult it will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about Iraqi casualties so far. I think we have learnt from other conflicts that honesty in recording and reporting who has died and where they have been buried is a very important part of rebuilding confidence in the international community. So that is an important part of rebuilding Iraq.
As for the Iraqi economy which was damaged further by the war, we have to recognise that it had already been damaged very considerably by sanctions over the previous 10 years, by the two wars that Iraq fought against Iran and Kuwait, and by the obscene imbalance of Saddam Hussein's spending. Huge

303
amounts were spent on those palaces, while very little was spent on building up the economy and welfare of the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also asked about the costs to the coalition so far. Again, we recognise that one of the costs of going to war without a second resolution has been that those who took part—above all, the United States and Great Britain—have had to carry a much greater share of the burden this time around than we did for the first Gulf war, from which, some people even said, the United States came out almost with a profit after the financial contributions of other states. Can the Minister tell us how far that is now changing? I note that on current figures, the overwhelming majority of members of the European Union and NATO have troops contributing to the rebuilding of Iraq. Even the Icelandic Government have Icelandic coastguards working on bomb disposal in southern Iraq. Does that mean that the responsibilities and financial costs are being more widely spread? Does it also mean that influence over the decisions is becoming a little more multilateral?
We recognise that the state of Iraq after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime is awful. There are mines and unexploded ordnance all around the place, and the administration and the state itself have collapsed. Basic services and forces have to be rebuilt, and the mutual mistrust of the different religious, ethnic and tribal groups is deep. The bitter experience of state-building that this country has witnessed in the past 30 or 40 years shows us how long it takes to rebuild a state. Our experiences of Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia so far show that it takes 10, 20 or 30 years—a generation or more—to rebuild trust once it has been destroyed. Our experience of Northern Ireland shows that even when government have taken office we cannot be entirely confident.
I am one of those who believes that our interventions in south-western Europe were entirely justified and that we have to maintain our commitment there. The setback in Serbia, to which the noble Baroness. Lady Turner, referred, is a setback to democratic forces partly because those forces have been so very badly led—but it is a real setback that we have to work through and work round.
It will be a very long haul in Iraq, in very imperfect circumstances. First, clearly, one needs to establish security. Also, at the same time, there is a desperate need to re-establish a sense of legitimacy and shared national community. Those two things have to be done together, but they also have to be done in circumstances in which it is evidently not going to be possible or desirable to maintain a foreign occupation or foreign authority in Iraq for very long. We are looking for the best available solution rather than the best solution. That is likely to be impaired elections with the considerable disorder and considerable continuing mistrust within the country that follows from that.
I have some questions for the Minister, which I hope that she can answer. First, what is now the nature of the British commitment, both military and economic?
304
Do we see this as necessarily as long term a commitment as we have made in Bosnia and Kosovo and in south-western Europe, or do we see it as one that will be increasingly shared? It is obviously an aim of US policy to have most American troops out of Iraq in the next year or so, with their place taken by troops of other nations. Is that what we see happening with Britain, or do we expect to have a really substantial number of British troops still in Iraq for some time in the future?
Secondly, to raise the question that my noble friend Lord Oakeshott and others have asked, what is the degree of British influence over the CPA? It is never entirely clear to any of us how far this is a US-led occupation or one in which others are allowed occasionally to get a word in edgeways. The explicit unilateralism of the Bush Administration does not give us much room for confidence. I saw in the Financial Times a number of references to British companies being invited to bid for some of the contracts, and being entirely shut out of them. Will the Minister tell us whether any British companies have been awarded any of those rebuilding contracts? I share my noble friend Lord Oakeshott's mistrust of the process of privatisation, which does not seem a legitimate process of privatisation with the Coalition Provisional Authority, as it is rightly named.
Thirdly, what is the British attitude to the role of the UN in what is now going to be a rather more rapid transition back to Iraqi control? We all understand that the question is very delicate and that dumping difficult issues in the UN Secretariat's lap is not necessarily the best way in which to restore the battered authority of the UN.
Fourthly, what is the British and, I hope, also the European, attitude—I hope that the Minister can assure us that we are actively concerting our policy with our European friends—to the future of Iraq within the region and to the interaction between developments within Iraq and the region as a whole?
Many of us have read the two UNDP reports on human development in the Middle East and recognise that the idea of helping the authoritarian states of the Middle East through economic and social development is a necessary part of what we all have to do. But how one pushes democratisation on the Middle East is itself a highly contentious question. I read of think-tanks in Washington talking about coercive democracy, meaning you force them to be free, push regime change, force elections on them and then you can leave and they will be good capitalists afterwards. We all know from our experience in the western Balkans that things do not work like that.
The Bush Administration has just doubled the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy. That is one of the more helpful instruments of American foreign policy. What are the British and European governments doing about helping to promote changes in education not just in Iraq but in Saudi Arabia, Syria and elsewhere if this is the strategy that we wish to push on to the region? As was evident in the rather tense debates in December when the

305
current Iraqi Governing Council Foreign Minister visited the UN, we all recognise that the surrounding states are actively concerned, and extremely nervous, about the implications of what happens in Iraq for their own future. Therefore, there has to be a broader strategy towards the region as well as towards the rebuilding of Iraq. We do not yet see that. We hope that Her Majesty's Government are working on it.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this has been an excellent and important debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on sponsoring it.
I should like to reinforce what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, rightly said about the excellent maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell. I very much hope that the House will be treated to many more such good speeches from the right reverend Prelate in the future.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, reannounced on 13 November that the Chancellor had set aside £3 billion to cover the cost of the war and reconstruction in Iraq. Despite the Defence Secretary's assurances that the costs of the war were being met from this £3 billion contingency fund, it emerged that in fact £100 million was spent from the MoD's already restricted budget.
During the first 11 days of the war £90 million worth of munitions were fired by British forces. From the start of the war to the end of March—11 days—over £847 million was spent in total on troops, munitions and supplies. Thirty million pounds worth of equipment was lost in battle or accidents. An RAF Tornado, a Challenger 2 main battle tank and two CVR(T) light armoured vehicles were lost to friendly fire incidents in which, very sadly, five servicemen were killed and another five were injured.
The Iraqi environment brought its own costs. Fourteen million pounds worth of ammunition was written off after being stored unprotected in high temperatures. The 15 Lynx anti-tank helicopters achieved only 53 per cent availability against an average of 66 per cent availability for the British military helicopter fleet as a whole, due in part to the operating conditions. Pre-war cost cutting led to high levels of vehicle cannibalisation. Of equipment not deployed to the Gulf, 36 per cent of Chieftain engineering vehicles were plundered for spares along with 29 per cent of the more modern AS90 self-propelled guns and 22 per cent of the Challenger 2 fleet.
Some £510 million was spent on urgent operational requirements and £140 million to address stock shortages, presumably not on the most competitive terms. Against sums like that the £4.1 million spent on an air defence suppression capability for the Tornado F3, which was never deployed, looks like small change.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned cluster bombs. The Brimstone advanced anti-amour weapon can avoid the worst aspects of cluster bombs and is a much more accurate system. Can the Minister confirm
306
when Brimstone will finally be accepted into service? I understand that she may not have an answer tonight, but it would be helpful to have a letter on that important point.
So far, the cost of the operation in Iraq appears to be £3.8 billion, taking total spending on the war on terror to more than £6.3 billion since 2001. Each month, military operations in Iraq cost between £100 million and £200 million. If those figures are wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct them.
It is easy to focus on the financial costs of the war in Iraq, but they must be outweighed by the human cost of the lives lost and the families bereaved. I echo the praise of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell for our Armed Forces in Iraq.
It does not appear that there were weapons of mass destruction after all; whether there was the intent on the part of Saddam Hussein to revitalise earlier programmes will be debated for months, if not years, to come. Harder still to quantify is the effect on other areas of Britain's overseas involvement. Our financial ability to provide development aid to other parts of the world has been reduced. There has been much discussion of the assertion that the cost of the operation in Iraq has taken funding away from other DfID projects. The noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council, when International Development Secretary, admitted that projects in middle income countries such as Brazil would be affected by Iraq's reconstruction costs, including a £50 million cut from those middle income countries over the next two years to fund Iraq's reconstruction.
I share the emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the importance of rebuilding Iraq. It is extraordinary how unprepared the Government were, in the words of the National Audit Office, for the consequences of the collapse of the Saddam regime. On 3 February last year the Prime Minister said that,
"we are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan".— [Official Report, Commons, 3/2/03; col.26.]
That turned out not to be the case. The right honourable Clare Short, Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, former International Development Secretary, accepted that there were "poor preparations" for post-conflict Iraq, despite our Benches continuously underlining the need for a comprehensive plan for securing 3 new Iraq.
The status of the UN as an institution has been weakened. Relations between most of Europe and the US, although mending slowly, are still fragile. Those are all costs with an immediate impact on trade and a possible longer term impact on the ability and willingness of the international community to react to future crises.
There are growing concerns over the way that the US Government have awarded contracts for reconstruction and infrastructure projects mainly to US companies—without tender. Although DTI Minister Mike O'Brien has said that British companies

307
could and should be awarded more projects, the US continues to award contracts to US companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out.
There are problems with who should sign the contract. Should it be the Coalition Provisional Authority, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, or the Iraqi Governing Council? Which has legitimacy? If the CPA signs, will the contract still hold after the IGC or the future elected government take over? More worryingly, there are claims of corruption. The Financial Times has reported that two CPA officials and the IGC's Minister for Communications are being investigated over bribery allegations surrounding the issue of mobile phone licences.
Late last year, it was claimed that a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, had overcharged the US for oil deliveries it had been appointed to oversee. The commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, General Robert Flowers, exonerated the company, but a new agency, the Defence Energy Support Centre, has been set to oversee fuel deliveries to troops instead. It has since been reported that the Pentagon is now considering an investigation into fuel prices.
Can the Minister confirm the value of contracts awarded by the MoD to US companies in 2002 and 2003? Could she further confirm the value of defence contracts awarded to British companies by the US Department of Defense over the same period? I accept that she will not have answers to those two questions tonight.
Saddam Hussein's regime has been a costly one indeed. And a clear lesson is that despots are better dealt with sooner rather than later, whether in Iraq, Zimbabwe or North Korea.
But there are benefits also. A murderous tyrant has been removed from power and a powerful signal has been sent to other totalitarian leaders of the dangers of defying the major democracies of the world. Witness the improvement in relations with Libya.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the "oil for food" programme. Also important is the restoration of Iraq as oil producer. The estimated cost of 50 billion dollars is less than two years' revenue. Full oil production will contribute about 1,200 dollars a year per capita GDP.
The recovery of Iraq's oil industry has been hit by delays in assessing foreign reconstruction funding. Output is, at 2 billion barrels per day, still only 80 per cent of pre-war levels and 15 per cent is re-injected into the ground because of export bottlenecks. The CPA has said that the oilfield's reconstruction is its top priority and hopes to produce 2.5 million barrels per day by mid 2005. The Iraqi Governing Council is counting on projected oil revenues of 12 billion dollars, increasing to 19 billion dollars in 2006, to help pay for the country's reconstruction, but it is feared that the delay in providing funds to reconstruct existing infrastructure will reduce the amount of oil produced.
308
The forthcoming elections in Iraq are crucial to the future stability and prosperity of that troubled country. The test will be whether the forthcoming government represents the wishes of the majority Shia population while respecting the needs of the minority Sunni and Kurdish populations. We now have a good idea of what the cost of failure will be; the value of success to the people of Iraq, to the Middle East and to the world as a whole is much greater.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Rea for what he described as the latest instalment in the long-running debate he has conducted with government Ministers on important questions about Iraq. I congratulate him because in a short debate he raised an enormous number of questions. I shall do my best to answer them.
I, too, congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell on a well-researched and very well-argued contribution which was delivered with the great conviction so characteristic of his colleagues on his Benches. We look forward to hearing more from him in the future.
Much as I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the rights and wrongs of what happened recently in Iraq, I strongly agree with him that this is a long haul and that the issue excites an enormous range of practical and political questions.
This range of questions was very ably demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in his very thoughtful contribution in dealing with issues of hard costs, what has really happened and what we can quantify. Then there are the softer costs and dealing with the issue of good will.
I have a short time in which to try to deal with the matter. I suggest to your Lordships at the outset that as the Minister responsible for our relationship with Iraq, I offer noble Lords a briefing on the wide range of issues. In order to do justice to the enormously wide range of questions raised that is the best way in which I can try to pull the threads together. I shall do my best now. I do so in the knowledge that we shall try to have a meeting about this very soon in order to deal with a number of the issues which I shall not be able to deal with now.
At the heart of my noble friend's Question is how we quantify what has happened in Iraq over the past few months; what the balance sheet will look like at the end of the day. What financial resources have been spent and what has been the human cost of the conflict? What more are we to expect as regards those costs? Those are important questions. I shall do my best to deal with those matters.
It is also very important to focus on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, about the gains to the Iraqi people and the international community more generally following our decision to enter the conflict. The balance sheet must take into

309
account the costs on the one hand and the gains on the other and also consider what would have been the price of non-intervention.
Undoubtedly there are many different points of view. I say to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden that I respect her views. She has been clear, unequivocal and consistent throughout the whole debate. But I too am consistent in disagreeing with her profoundly. I freely acknowledge that many will agree with her, but it is important to set out some of the facts as we have them.
The cost of military operations in Iraq has been published as part of the annual report and accounts of the Ministry of Defence. Operating and capital equipment costs for the year 2002–2003 totalled £847,211,000.
Perhaps I can say a little more about our military losses as well. I am very sorry to say that there has been a total of 56 fatalities since the start of hostilities. Thirty-nine of them occurred in action and 22 fatalities have been sustained since 1 May, 12 of them taking place while in action. According to the Department of Defense website, as at 26 January the US has sustained 514 fatalities of which 355 occurred in action. The US has suffered 376 fatalities since 1 May of which 240 occurred in action. In addition, five Bulgarians, two Thais, 19 Italians, 10 Spaniards, one Polish officer and two Japanese diplomats have been killed in action. Two contractors from South Korea and one from Colombia have also been killed in action.
We mourn the losses of all these brave service people, civilians and diplomats. For my part I also mourn the loss of the Iraqi military and civilians. I do so with enormous regret in that we cannot give an accurate figure about the civilian losses of Iraqi people. I know that a number of noble Lords are concerned about this. As many noble Lords will know, it is a question which is raised regularly in another place as well. I know that the Prime Minister is concerned about it and is getting a more accurate figure. We will do our best to get an accurate figure. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that at a time of military conflict there is great confusion and security issues surrounding obtaining information. It may take some time to get that information and it may not ultimately be as accurate as we would wish. What I can say is that considerable care was taken and indeed continues to be taken to limit civilian casualties in any engagement involving our Armed Forces. As a Minister who served in the Ministry of Defence, I know from personal experience that all Ministers in this country who are involved in decisions on targets and military action are made very much aware of their personal responsibilities in that respect.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on the question of the loss of capability of equipment and how we will replace some of that equipment. I have also made a note of the issue that he raised in relation to Brimstone.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, raised questions about the financial issues. I shall try to deal with some of those factual issues. In doing so, I stress to your
310
Lordships that many of the costs that I shall talk about accrue not so much from the conflict itself as from the years of neglect that preceded it under Saddam's regime. One of the difficulties that we experienced was in trying to separate out those costs. When I first started to talk about these issues to my colleagues in our own Government and in Iraq itself, we quickly discovered how difficult it was to allocate costs to Saddam's regime, and then to the period following it, in terms of how we would do our accounting.
The World Bank and the UN carried out a needs assessment on Iraq in 2003. That assessment estimated that the financial needs for Iraq's rehabilitation would be about 55 billion dollars over the next four years. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that 73 countries which attended the very successful Madrid Donors Conference in October 2003 have now expressed interest in this matter. Thirty-three billion dollars was pledged by way of grants and concessional loans to Iraq for the period 2000–2007. Additional pledges were made in the form of trade credits and assistance in kind. It was particularly pleasing to see pledges from some of the major economic powers, such as Japan, as well as from less wealthy countries but none the less important partners. That confirms the confidence of the international community in the prospects for Iraq's future.
In relation to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I should say that my right honourable friend Hilary Benn was closely involved in the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose members include the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development. They are responsible for monitoring the use of funds in the development fund for Iraq, and they will ensure international transparency over the use of Iraq's oil revenue. That comprehensive, international board is not run by an American clique—I think the noble Lord was rather worried that it was—or even a coalition clique, but it is broad based. As the Foreign Secretary said in Davos, Iraq's oil will be used for the benefit of all her people instead of being held hostage to the ambitions of the extravagance of a ruling élite.
We should not forget that Saddam ran up an exorbitant and extremely complex debt, which is estimated to run at about 120 billion dollars. James Baker's recent tour of European, Asian and Middle Eastern creditors created a consensus in relation to the need for substantial debt reduction for Iraq, and we believe that the vast majority of Iraq's debt will need to be written off in order to assure a sustainable solution. On debt, as on other aspects of reconstruction, the United Kingdom is providing a considerable contribution in terms of its financial and political effort.
On contracts and privatisation, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we are talking about many different contracts. It would be very difficult to deal with the list from the Dispatch Box now, but it is one of the issues that we may be able to cover more comprehensively in the kind of briefing that I have suggested.

311
It is almost impossible to attempt in any real sense to calculate the costs in economic or human terms. One has to ask what is attributable to this conflict, as opposed to the other two conflicts in which Iraq has recently been involved, and what is attributable to the years of repression and the use of chemical weapons on Saddam's own people? We should not forget the full extent and nature of the crimes committed by the former regime. Some of the evidence relating to that is only just emerging. Some 270 mass graves have been reported. Estimates of the number of people buried reach some 300,000, although I suspect that we shall not know the real figure until a systematic investigation takes place of all the regime's activities.
On 10 December, the Iraqi Governing Council announced the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute senior members of the former regime who are suspected of having committed crimes against humanity. That is a real gain in terms of Iraq coming to grips with its own past in its own way. We have heard some truly horrible eye-witness accounts of the execution of families, children and helpless civilians. Those are revolting and heart-breaking descriptions.
Therefore. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Rea that the people are not consoled by the ending of this ghastly regime. When I go to Iraq and when I see Iraqis, as I do, around Europe and here in this country, I find it very hard to find anyone who does not welcome the departure of Saddam's regime. I make no apology for asking what the cost would have been if we had not done what we did and if the coalition had not taken action. Would there have been more mass graves, more missing people, more threats against neighbours and defiance of the United Nations?
Now, Iraq can look forward—not to mothers being beheaded in front of their children and not to unspeakable torture of children carried out in front of their parents-but to peace, stability, prosperity and democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said, we must look at the gains.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, indicated that the problems are still profound. Of course, he is right; I fully acknowledge that. However, I believe that he must also look at the less gloomy side. We should consider the 17.000 construction projects, large and small, which provide more jobs and higher salaries than was the case under Saddam's regime. Let us look at the servicing of power facilities and at the water and sanitation projects which are providing cleaner water to 14.5 million Iraqis.
Specifically, I say to the noble Earl that we should look at the 240 clinics and hospitals which have now reopened; at the introduction of vaccination programmes around the country; and at the estimated 3 million children under the age of five who have been vaccinated. Let us look, too, at the 3.6 million children now in their primary schools or the 1.5 million attending secondary schools. In some parts of the country, the figures are higher than they ever were under Saddam Hussein. We have also seen Iraqis coming to this country benefiting from our Chevening programme, and we hope to arrange further exchanges of that nature.
312
The right reverend Prelate raised a very good point in relation to security. Criminal offences are now declining. There are more than 45,000 non-partisan Iraqi police on the streets and extensive police training is taking place. I can give your Lordships many, many figures on that. However, I believe that the right reverend Prelate was right to focus on Iraq's own security capability, which is building up. The 27 battalions of the non-political New Iraqi Army have graduated and are being deployed. There are also developments in the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps, whose numbers, we hope, will double to approximately 36,000.
I have my eye on the clock and I know that time is short. However, the noble Earl raised very important questions about armed individuals in relation to aid. I believe that the noble Earl must consider what our real alternatives are. Are they to send aid with an armed guard, which he considers to be deplorable, or to send no aid? Or are we to send the aid workers without guards and thus fail in our duty to protect those who are distributing the aid? These are terribly difficult questions. We are conscious of the point that the noble Earl raised and I believe that it is one on which we should have further debate.
I could say much, too, about the gains in the political sphere. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor of Hever, covered that point very well. We all agree on the need to hold elections. The only matter in question now is the form that the elections should take. We all know that there is a disagreement within the Iraqi hierarchy about that. Ayatollah al-Sistani takes one view; the Sunnis take another; and the Kurds take another. I assure my noble friend Lord Rea that we have warmly supported the intervention of Kofi Annan. He has confirmed that, once he is satisfied about the security arrangements, he will send his team to Iraq to examine the feasibility of holding elections in the near future.
I also take the point that there are issues for Iraq's neighbours, and I have discussed those issues with many of them. The United Kingdom attaches enormous importance to preserving the territorial unity of Iraq because we believe that the only long-term viable solution is one of a unified Iraq at peace with herself and her neighbours. That must mean discussion with neighbours about the way in which that will be done.
There have been financial costs and costs in human terms. But I think that most people—including most Iraqis— would agree that painful though those costs have been, they have been and should be worth while. Compared with the horror of what went on before, Iraq has gained immeasurably. It has gained in a practical sense from the financial support that it receives from the worldwide community. It has also regained its standing in the world. It is regaining its identity and the control of its democracy. It is regaining the asset of living under the rule of law. It is regaining its schools and hospitals. And, it is also regaining in the dignity that it is able to return to its people.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
  Wednesday, 28 January 2004.
  (Third Day)
  The Committee met at half past four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
  Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 31 A:
  Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  "MANDATORY CAUTION
  (1)At the outset of any police interrogation of any person reasonably thought to have knowledge of the circumstances in which an offence under section 4 may have been committed, such person shall be cautioned that failure or refusal to answer any question put relating to such circumstances shall be treated as evidence on which an inference of guilt may be drawn if charged with such offence, subject to such as directions may be given by the trial judge.
  (2)No such inference shall be drawn unless such caution has been recorded as and when given."
  The noble Lord said: This is essentially a probing amendment to engender critical examination. It is related exclusively to interrogation concerning the commission of a Clause 4 offence for which the sentence is 14 years. The provisions of the amendment would not apply if other charges such as murder or manslaughter were to be laid in the same indictment and proceeded with at the same trial.
  In a sense, the amendment is an alternative build-up to subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 5 not standing part of the Bill, which will be moved in due course in Amendments Nos. 32 and 37. However, in another sense, it is free-standing. It is an amendment to the pre-trial procedure of general application on the form of caution, but in exceptional circumstances, amended as proposed.
  If the amendment were to commend itself, there would be absolutely no need to tinker with the mode of trial, as proposed in Clause 5, for example, or at all. There would be no need to engage Article 6 of the convention in the context of an unfair trial. It is not proposed to pre-empt the debate on Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 in the light of paragraph 2.8 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That will be moved by other noble Lords.
  GC 136
  This amendment provides for a mandatory form of caution to be given,
  "at the outset of any police interrogation of any person reasonably thought"—
  I have put "thought" rather than "suspected"—
  "to have knowledge of the circumstances in which an offence under Clause 4 may have been committed. Failure or refusal to answer any question relating to such circumstances shall be treated as evidence on which an inference of guilt may be drawn if charged with such offence, subject to such directions as may be given by the trial judge".
  There are many circumstances in which the trial judge may wish to use his discretion, but I shall not elaborate them in this short introduction.
  If the circumstances of death are inconsistent with apparent natural causation, and if they have arisen in the Clause 4 circumstances within that remit, such circumstances are known only to those who lived with, cared for or visited the deceased. It is not acceptable, I would suggest, in the interests of due and fair administration of justice, that the entitlement of silence of general application should apply to such persons. On a police interrogation there should be the exceptional caution, the exceptional provisions proposed by the amendment or a similar amendment of like effect. The presumption of innocence would be qualified only by an inference of guilt expressly drawn on the accused, of which he would be made aware. There is no fundamental unfairness in the proposal.
  In effect, the amendment would deprive the accused of any realistic option to elect not to give evidence at the trial. No lawyer worth his salt would advise his client in those circumstances not to answer questions during a police interrogation. The concern is not with advice tendered by lawyers to their clients under extant procedures. I heard some reference to "bent lawyers" in that context, but I could not find it in the Official Report.
  We are not concerned with that. We are concerned with whether extant procedures in such circumstances inhibit a fair trial. The right of silence should therefore be curtailed by statute. In the hope that this DIY draft of the amendment may commend itself in principle— and inevitably improved after critical examination by the Committee—I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: While we do not support the precise wording of the amendment, we would be grateful for some acknowledgement from the Minister that the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would undoubtedly have to be amended to provide the appropriate safeguards for a person who was being questioned about the offence that is now set out in Clause 4. It is necessary for a particular type of caution to be given because, in many instances, a person who is in the position of responsibility for the victim will not know the true explanation for death and will have no means of knowing the facts that require to be explained. At the very least, some amendment to the codes of practice will need to be made.

  GC 137
  There is great merit behind the concepts advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, although a little more thought needs to be taken as to how it is to be expressed.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support my noble friend Lord Campbell. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I believe his intentions are admirable. But, because of the way in which the amendment is worded, I am not quite sure what it will achieve and in what way it will change the law.
  As I understand it, my noble friend's intention is that in a case where Clause 5 is brought into effect— where the failure to answer questions may be taken, for example, at the end of the trial rather than half way through, and where it may stand on its own, without any evidence, as the basis of a conviction—the person to be charged should have a special warning given to him before his interview by the police.
  I ask what the amendment adds, because anybody cautioned by the police for any offence must, before being interviewed, be given a warning that if he refuses to answer any question, that failure to do so may be taken into account at a later stage—am I not right in saying that? Although I agree entirely with my noble friend's intention, does not the amendment as drafted merely restate current law, rather than achieve its end?
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for tabling the amendment. He has brought to the Committee's attention the important issue that the PACE code will have to be amended to ensure that somebody charged as a result of investigations into the Clause 4 offence will be in a special position. It would be important that they be made very aware of the change under Clause 5—for example, of the fact that by inference alone from their silence, they could end up being convicted of manslaughter or murder, in certain circumstances? Such people would be in a very vulnerable position as a result of the changes achieved in Clauses 4 and 5.
  When I saw my noble friend's amendment, I thought that, very cleverly, not only had he drawn the points to our attention, but he had reflected some of the views in the Law Commission's second report. In Clause 5 of its draft Bill it, too, had looked at what should happen when the police initiate investigations in such circumstances. The commission was hidebound by the fact that it had taken the line that there should be statutory responsibility at the first stage. I tabled an amendment on the issue which did not find favour with the Grand Committee during the previous sitting. I note that the Minister, although she acknowledged that there was some room for improvement in the Government's stance on the matter, did not acknowledge that there was room for developing their position.
  Although the Law Commission was more narrowly concerned with police investigations after the statutory responsibility, it too was as concerned as my noble friend with the importance of the police caution.
  GC 138
  It pointed out the consequences of silence in this case. As my noble friend has rightly pointed out, this pre-trial procedure has general application as well.
  The amendment is an important contribution to the debate. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I too am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. I understand that he tabled it as an alternative to the scheme we have proposed, because, along with other noble Lords, he understands the need to address the very difficult issue of how to deal with cases where two or more people are responsible for a death but it is difficult to define.
  I do not think that we can accept the need for the amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I welcome the opportunity to explore whether it could be a way forward. The noble Lord's amendment would place a statutory obligation on the police to give a special caution to a suspect when investigating the new offence proposed in Clause 4.
  As many noble Lords are aware, it is already possible to draw an adverse inference from a defendant's silence when interviewed under caution by the police. But it is worth considering the matter in more detail. As noble Lords know, under Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994, where a defendant gives evidence and relies on some fact that he or she failed to mention on being questioned by the police and could reasonably have been expected to mention, the court or jury, in deciding whether the defendant is guilty, may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper. The court may also take into account that silence when determining whether there is a case to answer. Section 35 of the same Act provides that, if a defendant chooses not to give evidence to the trial, the court or jury may once again draw an adverse inference if it is proper to do so. Of course, I emphasise "proper".
  We will be able to debate the implications of Section 35 for those cases in the context of the next group of amendments, and I anticipate that we shall do that at some length, so I shall not trespass too much on that debate now. However, the amendment helpfully poses the question of whether anything else is needed to ensure that inferences can fairly be drawn when a suspect gives a "no comment" interview to the police in such difficult cases. As I mentioned, the jury may already draw an adverse inference from a "no comment" interview under Section 34(2) of the 1994 Act.
  When the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Thomas of Gresford, ask whether anything is added, we think that something may be, but not quite in the way that they would find helpful. In practice, Section 34(2) means that the suspect will have been interviewed under the PACE codes of practice

  GC 139
  and given a formal caution about the implications of remaining silent. In other words, they were cautioned by the interviewing officer in the following terms:
  "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence".
  The fact that a caution is given is also recorded.
  I am not aware of any concerns that the police are failing to give an adequate caution in those or any other cases that may justify the noble Lord's no doubt well intentioned proposal. A new mandatory caution would, if anything, add to the problems that can arise in investigating such difficult cases. For example, the mandatory requirement for a warning is linked to the circumstances of the new offence proposed under Clause 4, but it will not necessarily be clear at the very early stages of an investigation that the case will involve a prosecution for that offence. That places the police in a somewhat difficult dilemma about whether to give the new mandatory caution or the old one set out in Code C of the PACE codes of practice.
  I am concerned that adverse inferences from silence should be drawn only in circumstances where it is just to do so. The amendment would go significantly further than the current position in Section 34 of PACE, in allowing an adverse inference to be drawn from silence in police interview, whether or not the silence relates to something later relied on in court. Because the proposed new inference is free-standing, it would not invoke the safeguards under Section 38 of the 1994 Act. In particular, the limitations of the jury cannot convict on adverse inference alone, a point made in passing by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, when she said that there would be a risk of someone being convicted as a result of an inference alone. We are absolutely clear that that would not be appropriate, and that the current rules to prevent that happening should be maintained.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness was right to say that we do not want to encroach on the debates on Clause 5. Naturally, I have read Clause 5 in the light of the statement in brackets relating to cases even where there is no other evidence. That means that I have been making the assumption that it is possible for a person to be found guilty if a jury draws inferences from silence alone but there is no other evidence of that person's direct culpability. I shall certainly bear in mind what she said when we come to Clause 5.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may follow that intervention. In stating the current caution, the noble Baroness has highlighted the problem. If Clause 5 is to remain, it does envisage that silence can turn what is not a case against a defendant into a case. Surely the caution that should then be applied to a suspect for an offence under Clause 4 should contain a form of words to the effect not of, "If you fail to mention a fact now on which you are relying for your defence, you may harm that defence", but rather of, "If you fail to mention a fact now, it may be evidence of your guilt". Clause 5 goes much further than the present position.
  GC 140
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has proposed this new clause as an alternative to Clause 5, but if Clause 5 is to remain—I presume that the Government want it to do so—then something must be done about the form of caution. I have suggested amendments to the code of practice and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could address them.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Could I just—
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should answer the two sets of questions which have been put to me and respond to them now. I have quite a retentive memory, but I would be sad if I did not respond to those questions. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as soon as I have given my answers.
  While I do not want to encroach on the debate, when we come to consider Clause 5, I shall seek to explain how the PACE codes will interact with the new clause in a way that makes it compatible. So at this stage we are dealing with two different scenarios. The first relates to the caution which properly should be given at interview. Our proposals do not alter the procedure in police interviews. The adverse inference may be drawn from silence at trial, not under questioning by the police. Thus no change in the PACE code is likely to be necessary. The adverse inference will bite at a different point.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to give way?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say one more sentence before I do so. We believe that the current limitation stipulating that a jury cannot convict on adverse inference alone, which is an important factor in ensuring compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be maintained.
  I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I think that we are getting into a muddle, largely because I have kept right off Clause 5. I do not propose to discuss it on this amendment—I have said so already. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, had it in one when he rose to say that if Clause 5 stands, then subsections (1) to (3) should stand part, while the basis on which this amendment has been put forward is that they would not. I have added my name in support of both of those amendments.
  If we try to discuss Clause 5 at this point, we shall get into a hopeless muddle.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I say that we do not believe that changing the caution in the way suggested by the noble Lord would obviate the need for Clause 5 because the caution that would be given at this stage would not materially improve the situation we face now when dealing with such cases. I suggest that the same problems would flow. That is why, as attracted as we may be to the simplicity of the proposal set out

  GC 141
  by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, we are not persuaded that it would have the effect of curing the mischief which still remains.
  I understand too that the suggestion may have sprung from the draft Bill produced by the Law Commission, a point made plain by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her remarks. The commission considered this point as a part of its review of this area of the law, but noble Lords will recollect that it recommended that those with responsibility for a child at the time that they are the victim of certain specified offences should be under a statutory responsibility to assist the police with their investigations.
  The Committee recognised that this proposal would have implications for the drawing of adverse influences under Section 34 of the 1994 Act. We dismissed in short order the suggestion that the Law Commission made in that regard on the last occasion that we met in Committee. Although we understood the reasoning for the commission's suggestion, we do not feel that this amendment will do what the noble Lord hopes it will.
  Lord Renton: Before my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway replies, there is one further point that should be borne in mind on this. That is that although silence may eventually be held as an indication on the part of the accused that he is guilty, nevertheless he has always had that right. Sometimes it works in his favour, but generally it does not. If this amendment were to be accepted, and if I read it as I think that it has to be read, we find,
  "that failure or refusal to answer any question …shall be treated as evidence on which an inference of guilt may be drawn".
  To have an inference of guilt at that early stage of an inquiry breaks new ground. We have to be careful about that.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very grateful for the criticisms that have been made, all of which have been most helpful. The last was particularly so, because the inference can be drawn only at the trial and I did not say so. The drafting is bad. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for seeing the merits and saying that it has to be more thought out. I could not agree more. I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I take the points that she has made and I have made a note of them.
  To save time I shall not detain noble Lords at the moment, but the amendment will come back in a revised form, largely because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend said, there is a need for a special form of caution. I cannot assume that Clauses 5(1) to 5(3) will stand part; I am opposing them. We shall divide on them and may win. Then this amendment will hold the fort in a sensible way and will ensure that we do not tinker with the process of trial. One cannot tell how things will work out until there are Divisions on Clause 5. In the mean time I shall do my best, with your Lordships' help, to seek to improve the drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 [Evidence and procedure]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 32 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 33 to 36.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I should like to raise the question of whether the Government consider the clause contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Is it all right for us to raise that matter during the debates that we are about to have, or must I do it as a separate issue?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that it can be taken during the course of the debate, but it is not a matter for the Chairman.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not want to be ruled out of order when I raise it.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My name is attached to Amendment No. 32. I wholly accept that it is proper that it should be raised in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: Interestingly enough, I was about to introduce the debate on Clause 5(1), which I seek to exclude, by reference to the certificate on the face of the Bill where the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, makes the statement:
  "In my view the provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
  It is very much up to her in due course to tell us how that can possibly be.
  The noble Baroness referred to Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That provides that, at the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, Section 35(2) requires the court to satisfy itself that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can if he wishes give evidence; and that if he chooses not to give evidence or, having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any questions, it will be permissible for the jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give his evidence or his refusal without good cause to answer any questions.
  We are dealing not with an ordinary offence to which we are accustomed; we are dealing with the strange offence established by Clause 4. In cases where a child is non-accidentally injured or dies, Clause 4 proposes very severe penalties of up to 14 years. It is grossly unfair to ask a defendant to provide an account in these circumstances on the basis that the case cannot be proved without an account or the adverse inference that is to be derived from failure to provide an explanation.
  In an opinion given for Justice, Anthony Jennings QC refers to the case of Slater v. Her Majesty's Advocate—a Scottish case in 1928—where the learned judge said:
  "The presumption of innocence applies to every person charged with a criminal offence in precisely the same way … [it] is fundamental to the whole system of criminal prosecution, and it is a radical error to suggest that the appellant did not have the benefit of it to the same effect as any other accused person".
  In Clause 5(1) the presumption of innocence is being removed. An account is required on the basis that if no account is given guilt can be proved by that failure.
  In the previous debate the noble Baroness said that Clause 5 applies only to proceedings at court. I had understood that the refusal to answer a question in Clause 5(1)(b) could also refer to the refusal to answer a question when interrogated by the police. If that is not the intention, then the Government will have to bring forward an amendment to demonstrate their interpretation that a failure to answer a question refers to the proceedings in court.
  In the case of Murray v. United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights stated that an important protection in relation to a fair trial was that an adverse inference from a failure to give evidence could be drawn only if the prosecution case called for an explanation. So an inference can help a jury to reach its conclusion only if a case exists apart from the refusal to give evidence or refusal to answer a question. That is the current situation.
  The Judicial Studies Board's general direction advises the judge to tell the jury:
  "The defendant has not given evidence … That is his right. He is entitled to remain silent and to require the prosecution to make you sure of his guilt. You must not assume that he is guilty because he has not given evidence. But two matters arise from his silence.
  "In the first place, you try this case according to the evidence, and you will appreciate that the defendant has not given evidence at this trial to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution.
  "In the second place, his silence at this trial may count against him. This is because you may draw the conclusion … that he has not given evidence because he has no answer to the prosecution's case, or none that would bear examination. If you do draw that conclusion, you must not convict him wholly or mainly on the strength of it … but you may treat it as some additional support for the prosecution's case.
  "However, you may draw such a conclusion against him only if you think it is a fair and proper conclusion, and you are satisfied about two things"—
  and here is the important point—
  "first, that the prosecution's case is so strong that it clearly calls for an answer by him … and second, that the only sensible explanation for his silence is that he has no answer, or none that would bear examination".
  So it is a prerequisite of any inference drawn from silence that a case exists. That is what Clause 5(1) is withdrawing. It says in terms that the court may draw an inference in determining not simply whether a person is guilty of the offence under Clause 4, but also in relation to a charge of murder or manslaughter, even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer on that charge.
  I have referred to the European Court, which is generally regarded as authoritative in deciding how to interpret the convention. In R v Cowan, Lord Chief Justice Taylor said that the prosecution have to establish a prima facie case before any question of the defendant testifying is raised. Similarly, his successor, then the Lord Chief Justice Bingham, in the case of Birchill, said that there had to be a case,
  "sufficiently compelling to call for an answer",
  before an adverse inference can be drawn.
  This provision in the Bill drives a coach and horses not only through the basic, fundamental protection that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt—it has the burden of proof—but through the second protection, the right to silence. The judge must leave the case to a jury where there is no sufficient evidence under these provisions, in the hope that the defendant's silence will be sufficient to convict. It forces the defendant to give an account. That is why it denies the right to silence.
  We on this side of the Committee would oppose this clause even if it were confined to the offence created by Clause 4. In fact, however, it extends to offences of murder and manslaughter. We really do not understand why that should be so—why, simply by charging a new offence under Clause 4, all of a sudden, all the protections surrounding a person charged with the most serious offences of murder and manslaughter are thereby to be removed and a person should be convicted when there is no case against him.
  The noble Baroness referred on a number of occasions to the Law Commission's report, but the Law Commission did not suggest that. It did suggest that there should be a responsibility for a person to give an account. In part 4 of its paper it put it in these terms:
  "In our view, in furtherance of the discharge of the state's obligations towards children and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights, our domestic law should expressly recognise that the state is entitled to call on persons who have responsibility for a child during a time when the child suffers non-accidental death or serious injury to provide such an account as they can and assist those properly responsible for investigating what happened to the child. This giving of the account should be recognised as an incident of their responsibility for the welfare of the child".
  That is one thing, but suggesting that the failure to give an explanation, first to the police, or subsequently in court, should in itself provide the essential element which turns a case that does not exist into one upon which a jury can be satisfied of guilt has to be in breach of the European convention. That is why I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's explanation in due course. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support the amendment. With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to my Amendments Nos. 33 to 37. I thought that it would help on this occasion for the amendments to be grouped together, so that we could have a full introduction to the debate. That will then give my noble friends an opportunity to draw attention to the issues raised by the Select Committee on Human Rights before we go further into the amendments.

  GC 145
  Amendment No. 35 has the same objective as that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Amendment No. 32, so I shall be very brief on it before I go on to the others. I made it clear at Second Reading that I expect the Government to give a justification in Committee for their provisions in Clause 5, which appear to be in breach of the ECHR. I also made it clear that I started from the position of hoping that the Government had got it right, because we are all keen to resolve the problem that exists. However, the more I have read and heard since Second Reading, the more sceptical I have become that there can indeed be a justification for subsection (1).
  As the Law Commission points out in its paragraph 5.11, the fact that new rules of procedure have been proposed in order to remove a present obstacle to the proper conviction of the guilty must be a legitimate matter for the legislature to consider if the procedure adopted can result in a fair trial. It is the whole issue of whether there would be a fair trial that is properly our province to debate.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, a significant step is being taken. My worry is that it could be a precedent used to extend the consequences of drawing inferences from silence to other matters. The question really is about how can one be sure beyond doubt of someone's guilt where there is no evidence, but merely silence. Like the noble Lord, I had assumed from the drafting of Clause 5 that we were talking about silence not only in court, but from the beginning when there are interviews with the police.
  Justice provided noble Lords with a copy of the opinion of Anthony Jennings QC. I was certainly persuaded by him when he said, on behalf of Justice:
  "The provision undoubtedly waters down the burden of proof and fails to confine an adverse inference within proper limits … While the Bill has not adopted the approach suggested by the Law Commission which requires a defendant to provide an account to the police and the court as to what happened to the victim, it would appear that the same result is achieved by the proposed sections in the Bill. The defendant is not compelled into an explanation, but the pressure resulting from the consequences that could flow from not providing an explanation come perilously close to a statutory duty to provide an account. With this we disagree".
  I am grateful as ever to Justice for its briefing. I look forward to the Minister's justification, but I give notice that I need a lot of persuading on the matter.
  I shall move on to my other amendments, which I hope will round out the debate on Clause 5. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 33,34 and 36 is to probe the problem of the defendant who comes within the provisions of Clause 4 but did not actually commit the fatal act. However, the defendant is in this case in terror of the person who committed the act. I am thinking of a domestic violence situation, where one person is abused by another and their child or a vulnerable adult in their household is killed.
  Amendment No. 33 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 36. This disapplies subsection (1) from a defendant whose physical or mental condition
  GC 146
  is such that it would not be in the interests of justice for that person to be put in a position where inferences could be drawn from his silence, such that he could be convicted where there was no other evidence except his silence. Amendment No. 34 provides another route to protect a defendant who is in fear or who has been abused, since it confines the right to draw inferences from the defendant's failure to answer questions to those circumstances where his failure to answer is without good cause. I fully recognise that the drafting is faulty; it is my own. The intention is that a jury would have to consider whether there was evidence that a defendant had good cause to remain silent.
  Finally, the substantial amendment—Amendment No. 37—was put forward by Liberty, which I thank for the briefing. Of course, Liberty objects to the whole of Clause 5 standing part, and in particular to subsection (1). It says that even if one got rid of subsection (1) there is no way in which subsection (2) and subsection (3), which is parasitic on subsection (2), could be made to function satisfactorily by means of amendment. Liberty points out that subsection (2) attempts to sidestep the problems created by subsection (1) where, on a proper analysis, there is no real case to answer by postponing any consideration of whether there is a case to answer until the end of the defence case.
  Liberty says that the precise effect of subsection (2) differs depending on whether the defendant chooses to give evidence or not. However, whether he chooses to do so or not, in practice subsection (2) will remove the ability of a defendant to obtain an acquittal at the conclusion of a weak prosecution case, and will jeopardise his case. If the defendant gives evidence, a submission of "no case to answer" would be likely to fail. The defendant's evidence becomes evidence in the case. As a result, any submission can be met with the irresistible argument that the state of evidence has changed since the close of the prosecution case. If they wish, the jury is now able to treat such evidence as additional support for the prosecution. Presumably the question for the judge at this stage would be whether a reasonable jury could treat the defendant's evidence as supporting a prosecution. If so, Liberty believes that there are few cases that would not pass that test. It follows that defendants who give evidence will generally become unable to make a submission of no evidence on the facts.
  I believe that Liberty makes an important point regarding the fundamental flaws in subsections (2) and (3). It also says that the defendant choosing not to give evidence will also create a problem because, in deciding whether to withdraw the case from the jury at the end of the defence case, the judge must have express regard not only to the evidence but to such inferences as it would be proper to draw from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question.
  Accordingly, by the time a defendant who has not given evidence is allowed to make a submission, he will find that the case against him must now include the additional component of a possible inference of guilt. It seems that the judge will be obliged to proceed on the

  GC 147
  basis that an inference of guilt may be drawn from the defendant's silence. It would therefore appear that those who did not give evidence would in practice also be unable to make submissions. Liberty adds that in order to be fully effective, this proposal presumably also requires the abolition of the right to apply for charges to be dismissed following transfer to the Crown Court on the basis that there is no case to answer. It seems that a case can proceed from automatic transfer to conviction without any necessity for a case to answer at any point in the process.
  I appreciate that I have gone on at some length on Amendment No. 37. It was originally intended to be a standalone debate but, after representations from my noble friends with their greater wisdom, I conceded that it would be better to put it as part of the whole debate on Clause 5.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: Perhaps I can say a few words about the purposes of Clause 5 and the mischief with which it seeks to deal. Under the present law the prosecution and the public interest suffer because in so many cases of domestic violence there is no one present at the moment the deed is done, except the victim and the perpetrator of the deed. There may be other people, but I do not want to complicate my point by talking about the difficulties when the perpetrator of the deed may have a husband, boyfriend, spouse or whatever also present, who may be very reluctant to give any evidence against the perpetrator.
  Let us suppose that there simply is the perpetrator of the deed and a young child or a baby. Let us suppose that there is no evidence as to what happened from any third party; everything occurred in private. The victim is not there to give evidence and, in any case, would have been too young. We have only the alleged perpetrator of the deed and he—it might be a she, but let us say he—declines to speak to the police when interrogated or declines to say very much.
  The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to "responsibility" in the statements of the Law Commission as, in the facts that I am describing, a desirable responsibility that should be on the alleged perpetrator. That responsibility should be there, and it should be a legal one at that. And, on the facts that I am supposing, a failure to respond to that responsibility surely justifies, in the public interest, inferences to be drawn. Otherwise, there will continue to be far too many cases where no one is charged and no one is convicted for what may be a most serious offence.
  One of the most important points in Clause 5—I think that the Minister has referred to it already in a preliminary way—is in subsection (l)(b), which states that,
  "the court or jury is permitted … to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question".
  There might be all kinds of complications that justify a failure on the part of the alleged perpetrator of the offence to give a full account of what had happened or
  GC 148
  not to answer certain questions, and there may be a lack on the part of the prosecutor in terms of having any other evidence at all. But there almost certainly will be some other evidence, such as the child or baby being seen perfectly fit and well the day before, but being dead the following day. In between, no one appeared to be there. There is no evidence of any kind as to what happened, except that the alleged perpetrator was on the scene.
  That seems to call for quite a lot of explanation on the part of the defendant. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the responsibility on the prosecutor to prove his case must continue to be part of our law—no question. But I do not see that Clause 5 completely changes things so that the accused has to establish innocence. The presumption of innocence is still there. But, in the circumstances that I described, the inference is, to some extent, rebutted. In those circumstances, I do not see anything wrong in the accused person having to get over that and explain that he really is innocent and had nothing to do with the offence. The word "responsibility" used by the Law Commission is extremely important and should be embodied in law in the form of what Clause 5 attempts to do.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord sits down, he must concede that he is reversing the burden of proof and that he is requiring the defendant to prove innocence by what he says. If I am wrong about that, would he mind explaining?
  Lord Borrie: That is why I chose to quote the words about the court drawing only,
  "such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence".
  There will be other facts, as I described, such as when the child was last seen, when other people were last in the house, and so forth. There will be those points to be made. On that basis, it will be for the court and the jury to draw such inferences that are proper. I fully agree—no doubt any judge would repeat the point— that it is for the prosecution to prove the case.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: With respect, that is already in Section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which states that it would be permissible for the jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from someone's failure to give evidence or his refusal without good cause to answer any question. We have not reversed the burden of proof so far as a result of Section 35(2). So why do these words in Clause 5(1) justify reversing the burden of proof this time?
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may intervene in this interesting dialogue. I am at a loss about this. I originally understood—I still understand—the problem which arises where there are two parents and you cannot prove which of them killed the baby. You may be absolutely certain it was one of them, but that does not get you anywhere That remains the position under the first sentence of Clause 4(l)(d), where the possibility is that "D" was the person whose act caused the death.

  GC 149
  As I understood it, the skill of Clause 4 was that it left the ordinary burden of proof in relation to proving who killed "V" exactly as it is under the law at the moment. I did not understand then and I do not understand now why we need Clause 5 at all, unless it does something that I have not contemplated.
  If the prosecution is in the classic position of having two potential defendants and cannot prove which one is guilty, it can go on to an alternative new offence— and a perfectly proper offence, as I see it—which consists of the elements in paragraph (d)(i) to (iii). Paragraph (d)(i) is about whether:
  "D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk".
  I imagine that the prosecution in most cases will not be able to prove that "D" was aware of the risk, but it may be able to. However, it is quite sufficient if it can prove that he ought to have been aware of the risk, and it will be able to prove that from the surrounding circumstances. It will not require any assistance from the accused for that.
  Paragraph (d)(ii) is about whether:
  "D failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk".
  That is an objective test. Were there steps which he might reasonably have been expected to take?
  Paragraph (d)(iii) deals with whether,
  "the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen".
  So we get the prosecution sketching in a general situation where there was a clear risk of which the defendant ought to have been aware; where there was a failure to take such steps as the prosecution may suggest he could reasonably have been expected to take; and where the act occurred in circumstances, the prosecution will seek to persuade the jury, that "D" ought to have foreseen.
  If the prosecution proves those matters, as I understand whatever Act has been quoted, it would be perfectly permissible under the existing law for the jury to say, "Well, he has not told us why he could not reasonably have been expected to protect 'V' from the risk. He has not told us why he ought not to have been aware of the risk"—because, for instance, he spent the previous three months in Australia or whatever it may be. "He has not told us why he did not foresee the risk and there was no reason why he should have foreseen the risk".
  If the accused fails to answer any of those questions, he will be convicted under the existing law. What on earth do we want Clause 5 for? I do not understand it.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I say at once that I fully appreciate the intention of the Government in trying to avoid the situation that now exists, which we discussed on the previous occasion, where a serious offence is committed and neither of two people can be convicted. I, too, believed that the new Clause 4 was intended, in part at least, to meet that position—although the offence is different and lesser, perhaps,
  GC 150
  than that of murder and manslaughter. We are told that the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. Therefore it is in itself a serious offence.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is 14 years.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Although I accept the Government's intention, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I must ask: "Is Clause 5 necessary?", "What does it do in practice?" and, "Does what it does in practice do such harm to the general principles of our law as not to be acceptable even in these circumstances?"
  I am sorry if my knowledge of the law is out of date, but I think that I am right in saying this. If I am standing on my feet in the Old Bailey or some other court defending a person charged with murdering a child, at the end of the prosecution case, if I consider that the case is weak, I can rise to my feet and make a submission of "no case to answer". If the judge is satisfied either that there is no evidence or that there is not sufficient evidence on which a jury could properly convict—and I emphasise the words, "not sufficient evidence on which a jury could properly convict"—he will stop the case.
  On the other hand, if the judge feels that there is sufficient evidence, he will allow the case to continue. The jury may, as has been said, examine the totality of the case and take into account any inference that it wishes to draw from the failure of the defendant to give evidence if I do not call him or his refusal to answer certain questions if I do.
  What would be the position if Clause 5 came into force? First, as I understand it, if I am defending a person who is merely charged with murder, Clause 5 does not come into effect at all. Clause 5 deals with a case in which a person is charged in the same proceedings with an offence of murder or manslaughter and with an offence, under Clause 4, in respect of the same death. If the DPP decides in their wisdom to charge murder and nothing else, there is no change in the present situation. On the other hand, if they want assistance so far as probity of matters may be concerned, after the law comes in, there is nothing to stop them taking route two, which is to add a charge under Clause 4 and to have them tried together. There is no way to stop them.
  What would be the position then? Surely, it dramatically changes. As the person defending the man charged with both offences, I would get up and make the same submission as I would have done before with only one offence. However, if Members of the Committee read the whole of Clause 5(1)—let alone Clause 5(2)—they will see that it states:
  "the court or jury may also draw such inferences in determining whether he is guilty on the charge of murder or manslaughter"—
  that is, inferences from his failure to give evidence—
  "(even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer on that charge)".
  That must mean that, if I get up at the halfway stage, the judge may say, "I am sorry Lord Carlisle. I hear what you say. I also consider that there is no case

  GC 151
  against your client, but I cannot stop the trial. It must go on because the jury are entitled to take any inference that they wish from the fact that the defendant chooses not to give evidence or fails to answer certain questions".
  The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, suggested that there was always other evidence—that the child was perfectly fit shortly before and then dead the next day, for example. In that case, there is some evidence on which the judge may choose to decide that it is right for the case to go to a jury. However, if there is no evidence against the person at all—they have got the wrong person—the jury may be told, "Although we have no evidence against this man, merely what may look very suspicious circumstances, he failed". As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, "Does that mean failed as well at an earlier stage to the police or merely failed in the court?" The judge may say to the defendant, "Because you failed to give evidence, you can be convicted of murder".
  A third example would be when two people are charged. One is charged with the offence of murder and the other is not. Clause 5(2)(b) states that,
  "the question whether there is a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be considered before the close of all the evidence at trial".
  Again, in that circumstance, a man charged with murder, against whom there is no evidence whatever at the halfway stage, cannot have his question of no case to answer considered at that stage. The trial has to go until the end. At the end of the trial, the judge can say, "Of course, although there is no other evidence, you are entitled to infer guilt against the defendant if you think that that is right on the basis that he chose not to give evidence".
  I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas, that that drives a coach and horses through the presumption of innocence and the fact that no man has to prove his innocence in this country. Perhaps there is no other way out of this problem, but it needs strong justification from the Minister. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I cannot see why merely proceeding on Clause 4 would not sufficiently meet the concern that exists, without making major changes in our criminal law.
  My final point relates to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, the provision is a breach of Article 6.1 of the right to a fair trial. It is also a breach of Article 6.2, which relates to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Although the Minister has put her name to a certificate on the front of this Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has examined the Bill and queried its legitimacy. The Committee wrote to the Home Secretary on 6 January, setting out the arguments much more lucidly than I have done. The letter states:
  "In the light of this, why does the Government consider that clause 5 would not allow a conviction to be based mainly (but not wholly) on an inference from a defendant's failure to give evidence, and why accordingly there is no probability of a violation of ECHR Article 6?".
  GC 152
  That letter was sent on 6 January. Has a reply yet been sent to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights? If so, when? May we see a copy? I know that the Minister is very busy, but when is it likely to be sent and when will we see a copy? Perhaps we may keep that question open. I see that the Minister is being advised firmly from the box. Surely, we should know the view of the Home Office before finally leaving Clause 5.
  Lord Renton: I wish to make a fundamental but short point on Clause 5(2). It states:"Where—
  (a) a person is charged with an offence of murder or manslaughter, and (b) he or another person is charged in the same proceedings with an offence under section 4 in respect of the same death".
  Then we have these words at the top of page 4:
  "the question whether there is a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be considered before the close of all the evidence at trial".
  Does that mean that at the conclusion of the prosecution case the defence will not be able to say that the prosecution have not made out a case to answer? It would be absurd if that were not so.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree with the representations of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and of my noble friend.
  Let me deal shortly with the report of the Human Rights Commission and the way in which it works. The committee never says, "Your certificate is wrong". We never say that. If we believe it is wrong we say something like, "In our view, the provisions of Clause 5 may give rise to a risk of incompatibility with the right to a fair hearing under Article 6. We have raised this matter with the Government and expect to report further on it in due course". The letter to which my noble friend referred was then sent on 6 January and, as far as I am aware, there has been no response. If there had been by the date this document was published on Monday, there would have been a copy with it. But there is nothing unusual in that. The Government often do not reply for months.
  As to the business of the certificates—and I am not getting at the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland—this kind of thing goes on in all departments the whole time. There are numerous erroneous certificates. You cannot blame the Ministers because they act on departmental advice—and the departmental advice is absolutely hopeless. Over and over again you get erroneous certificates.
  The first time this issue arose was when I challenged a certificate of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. He claimed parliamentary privilege and refused to disclose the substance of any reasons for which the certificate had been given. This is a very good example. At the next stage of the Bill, I cited three or four authorities of the European Court of Human Rights. I said, "On the basis of these authorities, I must be on the way to being right. May I know the substance of your argument?" "No. Privilege". So I gave up. A year later I read in the papers that a High Court judge in

  GC 153
  Hull had decided that my submissions were totally right; that the Government were totally wrong; and said so.
  We then got to the stage where the issue was raised as an oral Question at Question Time. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, took the point straightaway and said, "We will do something about it". The law has been changed and you will now find little boxes on your electoral forms which you can tick if you do not want to be on the general register and receive junk mail. I am only telling the Committee this—it is all recorded— because the certificate of the department is not a safe basis on which to proceed. I shall not take time, because this is a document available to everyone, but I invite you to read the letter at Appendix 2. It is not very long. It puts the essence of the argument in support of the view of the committee very clearly and as yet has had no response.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: In a conversation with the Attorney-General, I moved on to this question at one stage. I said that I was rather surprised at some of these certificates and asked if he was ever consulted. The impression that I got was that he was consulted and, contrary to my impression and that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, these certificates were taken very seriously and that, if anyone had any doubts, the Attorney-General was consulted. I would prefer to think that my impression was right, but different conclusions can be reached according to what the starting point is. It is not unknown for counsels to have different views bona fide. We should not assume that Ministers casually sign certificates that are put in front of them. Nevertheless, they may well be wrong.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is no place to argue with the noble and learned Lord, but, outside this Chamber, I shall show him Hansard and perhaps he will then understand that I know exactly what happened and will refer him to it.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: So far as this case is concerned, and from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson has said, I was not intending to challenge the fact that the Government had given consideration before the Minister put her signature on the Bill. I hope that she did not get that impression. If so, I immediately withdraw it. I was saying that, since the Government came to that view, the Joint Committee has come to another view, and has conveyed that view to the Home Secretary. Has it influenced or changed the view that he had at that time?
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister replies, from my position in the steerage, I raise one question that I hope she will be good enough to deal with. It derives from Clause 5(2); the provision to which we have already been alerted. It states:
  "the question whether there is a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be considered before the close of all the evidence at the trial".
  GC 154
  Looking at paragraph 38 on page 7 of the Explanatory Notes, I am reminded that:
  "The clause makes clear that the inference can be drawn, even where there would not otherwise be a case to answer on that charge. This is subject"—
  and this is my point—
  "to the safeguard in section 38(3) of the 1994 Act, which has the effect that a defendant may not be convicted solely or mainly on the basis of an inference from silence".
  If that is to remain the governing safeguard, why on earth should that defence not be taken at the conclusion of the prosecution case? Why should it have to be postponed until the close of all the evidence at the trial?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I may respectfully say so, we have had a fascinating and important debate. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the issues arising as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights and our own human rights legislation were taken very seriously indeed. I can reassure the noble Lord that we bore in mind that we were seeking to do something innovative to address a real mischief. We wished to do that in a way that was fair, proportionate and in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, in crafting Clause 5, all those issues were at the forefront of our minds. At the end of the day, our judgment was that the provisions, as drafted, do not fall foul of the Human Rights Act or its principles. I hope that I will be able to explore and explain why we say that.
  The Government answered the questions raised by the Committee on 27 January. That reply has now been given to the Committee in the usual way. As the noble Lord knows, it will be for the Committee to consider that and publish the letter, together with its response to that letter, in any further report that arises out of its deliberations. If Members of the Committee, contrary to the normal way of dealing with such matters, wish to see a copy of that, I am most happy for it to be made available and a copy put in the Library. Indeed, I will ensure that noble Lords in the Committee today are sent their own copy, if they feel that that would be of some little assistance.
  Bearing in mind the depth of the comments and questions that have arisen, it would be right for me to answer those questions very fully indeed. If I may respectfully say so, I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Borrie, who rightly reminded us of the nature of the mischief that we seek to cure. I also pray in aid the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, amplified his comments by directing the Committee's mind to the mischief that we sought to lay to rest in Clause 4.
  Before I go into the detail, it might help if I mentioned some issues that Members of the Committee should bear in mind. The reference that we have made relates only to silence at trial, as does Section 35. Section 34 deals with silence during questioning by the police. The reference that we make in Clause 5 is to Section 35. Clause 5(1)(b) uses the words,
  "by virtue of Section 35(3)".

  GC 155
  That refers only to silence at trial. We have made that matter plain in the Bill.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked why we needed Clause 5. I shall deal with that now because the explanation will make the matter clearer. We need it because we have created a new offence in Clause 4 that will deal with the mischief with which we have erstwhile been unable to grapple sufficiently well. We still need Clause 5 to enable the appropriate conviction to be secured against the more culpable party. We do not wish for a person who is responsible for a murder or the commission of manslaughter simply to have a Clause 4 offence established against them if it is not the proper offence with which they should be convicted on the evidence produced to the court. Clause 4 is not intended as a substitute where murder or manslaughter can be established.
  As I say, it would not be a just outcome if a conviction for a Clause 4 offence is achieved where it can be shown that a defendant is in fact guilty of murder or manslaughter. We therefore believe that we should aim to pursue charges for murder or manslaughter where those charges properly reflect the culpability of the defendants. The measures included in Clause 5 aim to allow more charges of murder or manslaughter to be left to the jury safely in those very difficult cases.
  The Law Commission did a great deal of very helpful work on the subject. Members of the Committee will remember that it recommended in its report, Children: Their non accidental death or serious injury—Report No. 282—that, subject to certain safeguards, adverse inferences should be able to be drawn where the other evidence did not amount to a technical "case to answer", and that in certain circumstances the "case to answer" decision should be postponed until the end of the case.
  Certain comments made by a number of Members of the Committee—it was touched on in part by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Lord Renton and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—almost suggested that the Government propose to expunge the opportunity for a defendant to make a case of "no case to answer". That is not so. At the end of the totality of the evidence, it will still be possible for that submission to be made. We do not seek to transfer the burden of establishing a prosecution case on to the defence, as that would be improper.
  We have taken forward in the clause both of the principles I have discussed, although the circumstances in which our procedural measures are triggered are somewhat different. We have linked our procedural measures closely to the circumstances of our proposed new offence, which we believe produces a coherent and effective package of measures targeted at the core cases of familial homicide. Members of the Committee will know from our earlier discussions that one of the problems we often have is that, where two
  GC 156
  or more are charged with an offence, the game goes if both remain silent—they both go free. How to unravel that knot has proved difficult.
  Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 deal with the circumstances in which, under Clause 5, adverse inferences can be drawn from the defendant's silence at trial. It may be helpful to put that debate in its proper context by setting out briefly why we have taken this approach to the drawing of adverse inferences under Clause 5 before turning to the detail of the amendments. I do so particularly to answer the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  We believe that where a defendant remains silent in circumstances that clearly call for an explanation from him, the jury should be able, where it is proper to do so, to draw an adverse inference from the defendant's silence. That is why we have linked the drawing of the adverse inference on a charge of murder or manslaughter to the circumstances of the new offence. My noble friend Lord Borrie was right to say that, in a number of circumstances already described, it is demanded as a responsibility for the person to give an explanation.
  For the inference provision in Clause 5 to apply, there must already be a "case to answer" on the Clause 4 offence. That is to say that the prosecution will have shown evidence that a member of the victim's household, who had frequent contact with the victim, caused the death. It will also have produced evidence showing that the defendant was such a member of the household, and evidence to show that the defendant either caused the death of the victim or was aware of a serious risk to the victim and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the death. We believe that that situation calls so clearly for an explanation that it is fair to draw an adverse inference on both the new offence and an accompanying charge of murder or manslaughter. That, I know, is the issue with which the Committee has been most troubled.
  That leads to the issue raised by Amendment No. 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St John, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and by Amendment No. 32 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Thomas of Gresford. Amendment No. 32 would remove the provision for the drawing of adverse inferences under Clause 5. Amendment No. 35 would remove the possibility of drawing an adverse inference from the defendant's silence at trial on a charge of murder or manslaughter, unless a technical "case to answer" had been made out on each charge.
  Of course, where a case to answer has been made out, the existing provisions in Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allow for an inference to be drawn. So the effect of Amendment No. 35 would also be to nullify the adverse inference drawing provision under Clause 5 and maintain the position under the current law in relation to the drawing of adverse inferences from silence. However, as Members of the Committee will be aware, the current requirement that the court first find a case to answer on the prosecution evidence before it can draw

  GC 157
  an adverse inference from silence was set out in the case of Cowan, which has been referred to already in Committee. Of course, at present, under traditional procedures, as the prosecution must establish a "case to answer" before the defence responds, the court will always be satisfied that there is a case to answer before a Section 35 inference can be drawn.
  The Law Commission looked closely at whether the requirement in Cowan was necessary to ensure fairness. It was of the opinion that it was,
  "unduly technical and artificial … that the only legitimate meaning of… 'a situation which clearly calls for an explanation' is that on the evidence, without any inference being drawn, a jury could convict a particular defendant".
  We agree with that analysis. We therefore do not consider that in all cases there need be a technical "case to answer" before it is fair to draw an adverse inference.
  For that reason, we do not think that the strict requirement of Cowan should apply in these cases. I refer specifically to the cases with which the Committee has been seized, and the nature of the cases with which we have dealt. The key question is whether the circumstances where an inference can be drawn are such that they call for an explanation from the defendant. For the reasons that I have outlined, Clause 5 sets out appropriate circumstances in which inferences should be able to be drawn in cases of that kind.
  There is also the related issue of whether a conviction following such an inference could be considered fair. The concern raised is that such a conviction would necessarily be based wholly or mainly on the adverse inference from silence and, as such, would be incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Let me first make absolutely clear that we do not advocate convictions based wholly or mainly on inferences from silence. Indeed, by linking the adverse inference that can be drawn to the existing provisions under Section 35 of the 1994 Act, we ensure that the protection afforded by Section 38(3) of that Act applies.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may ask a question on what the Minister has just said. What is the purpose of the words,
  "even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer on that charge"?
  As I understand it, the Minister is saying that if you are charged with a Clause 4 offence and murder, you can still make a submission to the judge that there is no case to answer. But how does that relate to the provision that they can be convicted on inferences even if there would otherwise be no case to answer on that charge? Surely, if there would otherwise have been no case, the judge would have already withdrawn it.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are talking about the opportunity to postpone the "no case to answer" submission. As the noble Lord knows, currently the submission of "no case to answer" is put forward at the
  GC 158
  end of the prosecution case alone, so if at that stage there has not been an explanation and the case comes to an end, the whole process often comes to a halt. In these circumstances, where D has a responsibility to V in a household, by creating Clause 4 we are placing a responsibility on D to give an explanation. In effect, where what is charged is murder and/or manslaughter and a Clause 4 offence, instead of having the "no case to answer" submission made at half time—at the end of the prosecution case—it is postponed until the end of all the evidence. That is the shift being made.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I—
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would be grateful if I could continue my response. Members of the Committee have made some very complex submissions. If I can explain the scheme and deal with the questions, I hope that the Committee will be able to understand why we have said what we did. Afterwards, of course, I will be more than happy to answer questions. I am afraid that I must give a long explanation in order to respond to the plethora of quite proper questions that I have been asked.
  The effect of what I have described is that a defendant may not be convicted solely or mainly on the basis of an adverse inference from his silence. However, there will be circumstances where the adverse inference drawn under Clause 5 will supplement the other evidence in the case in such a way as to take the evidence as a whole over the threshold necessary safely to leave the case to the jury without the inference being the sole or main basis for the conviction.
  Let me explain why. We concur with the reasoning of the Law Commission, which looked at the issue very carefully. It said that an inference could be drawn in circumstances where there was not otherwise a "case to answer", and that an ensuing conviction could be fair. In its analysis, with which we agree,
  "an 'eloquent silence' of the defendant might be said to be the 'decisive' element in a decision to convict but it would not mean that the defendant was convicted 'solely or mainly' on an inference from silence any more than the 'decisive' straw is the 'sole or main' cause of the camel's broken back".
  We agree. I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, say, "I'll bet you do".
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: No, I said "rubbish and rhetoric".
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for his usual graceful language.
  The fact that such an inference may be drawn may encourage the giving of evidence. Evidence, rather than silence, may mean that a case to answer is established. Therefore, we do not think that Clause 5 will result in any unfairness. It will be an important part in ensuring that more people who cause the death of children and vulnerable adults are convicted and sentenced for an offence commensurate with their guilt.

  GC 159
  I am aware of the difficulties in drawing adverse inferences from silence and am strongly of the view that there should be effective safeguards. By linking the measure under Clause 5 to the existing provision of Section 35 inferences, we have ensured that important safeguards in the 1994 Act apply.
  One such safeguard is that raised by Amendments Nos. 33 and 36, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Those amendments aim to ensure that an inference can not be drawn where the court has reason to believe that physical or mental condition makes it undesirable for someone to give evidence. This safeguard replicates that found in Section 35(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. We agree that this is an important safeguard and that inferences should not be able to be drawn in these circumstances. However, we do not agree that this amendment is necessary to give effect to that aim. This safeguard will still apply under Clause 5.
  I am able to provide similar reassurance about Amendment No. 34. This amendment would state that an inference could not be drawn unless the defendant remained silent without good cause. The principle behind the amendment is that where the defendant has a proper reason for his silence, other than his guilt, the jury should not draw an inference. This is a principle that we support and endorse. However, we think that it is already achieved by the current drafting.
  Clause 5 already provides that only such inferences that appear "proper" can be drawn from the defendant's silence. The meaning of a "proper" inference has been developed by the court to mean that an inference can be drawn from the defendant's silence, where the only sensible explanations for the defendant's silence were that he had no explanation or none that would stand up to cross-examination. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary and might cause confusion. I understand that the noble Baroness, wants to tease out how this would operate. It is the same in relation to Amendment No. 37, which would remove the provision to allow for the "case to answer" decision to be postponed until the end of the case, under Clause 5.
  Noble Lords will be aware that under the current law, as reflected in the 1986 Court of Appeal decision in the case of Lane and Lane, a judge must withdraw the case at the end of the prosecution case before any of the defendants has given evidence, if at that stage the prosecution is unable to establish a case to answer against the defendant. This case has given rise to the perceived loophole in the law that we have been discussing in these cases.
  We think that it is entirely logical to delay the question of case to answer on a murder or manslaughter charge until after the defence has presented its evidence, providing that the prosecution has established a case to answer in relation to the Clause 4 offence. In these cases, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said, it is often only the defendant who will know the circumstances in which the offence was committed. We therefore propose that in these
  GC 160
  circumstances the court proceedings should operate in such a way as to give the opportunity for the evidence of the defendants to be heard.
  It goes without saying that a criminal trial is not a game where tactical considerations are paramount. Indeed, tactical considerations should not act to hinder the true story being aired in court. While postponing the case to answer decision may therefore remove a tactical advantage from the defendant, we do not think that it will result in unfairness. The Law Commission in its consultative report on the subject made that plain. Its non-accidental death or injury report said that postponing the case to answer decision in certain circumstances,
  "would remove a present hindrance to the effective discharge of the state's duty to protect the fundamental human rights of the child".
  We unreservedly agree.
  We also reject any notion that this provision will lead to speculative prosecutions based on insubstantial evidence. For the decision on a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter to be postponed, the prosecution must be able to demonstrate a case to answer on the Clause 4 offence. We regard that as an important requirement. Where that is met, the prosecution will have shown evidence that a member of the victim's household, who had frequent contact with the victim, caused the death. The core cases at which our proposals are targeted are where there is a closed group of suspects, one or more of whom must have been responsible for the death. That is the group that we want to answer for their actions. There is no convention right to make a submission of no case to answer. In these particular circumstances we consider that it is right that the question on whether there is a case to answer in relation to murder or manslaughter be postponed, and where a defendant opts to give evidence in defence to the Clause 4 offence, additional evidence may well be uncovered that makes it fair to leave to the jury a charge of murder or manslaughter. Alternatively, it may be that the defendant does not give evidence, as is his right, and an adverse inference can properly be drawn that supplements the other evidence in such a way that it is fair to leave the charge to the jury. Where that is the case, it is important that a procedural technicality does not prevent the judge from leaving those charges to the jury, where it is safe to do so.
  I hope that I have been absolutely clear that we do not propose to leave cases to the jury where the court considers that there is not enough evidence to found a conviction. The clause postpones the case to answer. However, at the end of the case the judge will address the question of whether there is sufficient evidence— considering the prosecution evidence, defence evidence and any permissible adverse inferences from silence—on which a jury could safely convict. If the judge does not so find, it would be proper for him not to leave that charge to the jury. Bearing in mind the experience of our judiciary, I am confident that our judiciary is perfectly capable of performing that exercise.

  GC 161
  The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the issue of Murray, specifically Article 6. He asked whether the provisions reach Article 6. Our short answer is "No". The Law Commission, at paragraph 4.11 of its report, dealt with why it did not believe that the provisions are in breach. I would adopt that position. The commission said:
  "Although the right to a fair trial under Article 6 is unqualified, this right attaches to the fairness of the trial overall and not to each and every manifestation of it. Thus the question is always whether, looking at the proceedings as a whole, the defendant has had a fair trial".
  We believe that, as a result, there is nothing under the convention to make a submission of "no case to answer" at the close of the prosecution case. The presumption of innocence will remain. All we seek to achieve is the postponement.
  In relation to Murray, we believe that the circumstances in Clause 4 call for an explanation. It is important to bear in mind that in these cases the prosecution will have established that the death was caused by a person who was a member of the household. We believe that Section 38(3) of the 1994 Act applies, as interpreted in the Murray ECHR case. This has the effect that an adverse inference cannot form the whole or main basis of the conviction. We do not propose that it do so.
  There are two parts of Murray which I shall not read out but will pray in aid. Paragraph 47, on page 17 of the judgment, is relevant. The matters were dealt with also at paragraph 51. I shall read a short extract from that, as the noble Lord has placed great emphasis on it. The judgment states:
  "In the first place, before inferences can be drawn under Article 4 and 6 of the Order appropriate warnings must have been given to the accused as to the legal effects of maintaining silence. Moreover, as indicated by the judgment of the House of Lords in R. v Kevin Sean Murray the prosecutor must first establish a prima facie case against the accused, i.e. a case consisting of direct evidence which, if believed and combined with legitimate inferences based upon it, could lead a properly directed jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the essential elements of the offence is proved".
  It continues:
  "The question in each particular case is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficiently strong to require an answer. The national court cannot conclude that the accused is guilty merely because he chooses to remain silent. It is only if the evidence against the accused 'calls' for an explanation which the accused ought to be in a position to give that a failure to give an explanation 'may as a matter of common sense allow the drawing of an inference that there is no explanation and that the accused is guilty'. Conversely if the case presented by the prosecution had so little evidential value that it called for no answer, a failure to provide one could not justify an inference of guilt".
  For all the reasons that we have set out—and, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said, because of the way in which they arise such cases call for an explanation—we believe that these provisions are ECHR, and therefore Human Rights Act, compliant.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Renton: The noble Baroness may have answered my query indirectly and I have not
  GC 162
  understood. I asked her to consider the effect of the first two lines at the top of page 4. It seems to me that a case could go on until the defence had produced any evidence.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have answered that issue at inordinate length. I do not know whether the Committee want me to do so again, but my answer is unlikely to change.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does the noble Baroness accept that the report of the Human Rights Commission does not take the point that postponing the submission of no case is contrary to Article 6? The point has never been taken.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is why we will explain in the letter the Committee will see that we are not suggesting that the inference alone is anything upon which one could rely. I hope that the explanation I have given will enable the Committee to feel content that these provisions are indeed Article 6 and Human Rights Act compliant.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I know that there is a feeling that these proceedings should be drawing to a close—I share the feeling—but perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for her explanation which, as far as I am concerned, has made matters crystal clear. But, lest I misrepresent her now or hereafter, perhaps I may tell her what I understand her to have said.
  I start from the point that up until now the law has been that where you are darn certain that one of two people did the damage to the child but you cannot show which, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof. The noble Baroness says, "Ah, but that is a technical matter". I do not believe that it is. I have never heard it suggested up until now that there is anything technical about that.
  The noble Baroness goes on to say that, in effect, Clause 4 has a duality of offence wrapped up in it. I agree that you have to charge separately, but essentially what she is saying is that the alternatives in 4(l)(d)—where it states,
  "either D was the person whose act caused these deaths or"—
  are a duality of offence; that you could, on that, provided you charged him, find the defendant guilty of being the cause of death even though up until now you never could.
  I do not believe that is what Clause 4 does at all. It produces a single offence. If by chance the prosecution can prove that D was the person whose act caused the death, the probability is that it would have charged murder or manslaughter. As far as the offence in Clause 4 is concerned, it makes no difference whether you prove the actual causing of the death or whether you prove the alternatives in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii). That offence does not need Clause 5. The ordinary rules will apply to it and if the prosecution can prove the matters in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) it will succeed. It does not need Clause 5.
  If one goes back through Hansard I think it will show that the Minister said that the only purpose of Clause 5 is to extend the cases in which charges of

  GC 163
  murder and manslaughter can be made to stick. If she is right about that, we do not need Clause 4. It means that, unbeknownst to any of us, there was a perfectly simple way of getting round the awkward fact that, in cases where we are certain that one of the defendants did it but not which one, no one has ever thought it proper to convict either of them of murder or manslaughter. There is a real change there. So for that purpose, yes, Clause 5 is necessary. But in my book it is a—perhaps I should not use the phrase—wholly improper purpose. At any rate, it is such a departure from the law as we have always understood it that I shall not accept it and I hope that the House as a whole will not, in due course, accept it. That is by the way, but that is what is happening.
  Clause 4 is perfect in its own terms—it does not need any alteration of inference or anything else—but on top of that we are being asked to produce a different situation in relation to murder and manslaughter where the inferences can be carried over. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness will say that it is a technical matter because anyone applying any common sense will know that if there are two people in the dock, one or other of whom must have committed the offence—which is a common situation; it is what we have all been talking about—and neither of them will say a word, the obvious inference is that one or the other or both did it. Any jury would draw that inference without the slightest difficulty. But they are not allowed to because of the presumption of innocence.
  The twin of that—this is absolutely fundamental— is that the prosecution has to prove its case in its own time. Not in the case as a whole; it has to prove it in the prosecution case. Unless the prosecution can do that so that there could be a conviction then and there if nothing further were said—or arguably it could; there could be submissions by the defence and so one cannot reach that conclusion—then that is the point at which the presumption of innocence applies. Clause 5 seeks to wipe that away. It will not do.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord puts the matter a little too simplistically, which is unusual for him.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am a simpleton.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would never accept that. The noble and learned Lord will not tempt me into agreeing with him. Many of these cases, as we have just described, are extremely difficult. We have thought long and hard about postponing the "case to answer". The noble and learned Lord accepts that Clause 4 is perfectly good, but we may be left with a scenario where we get past half-time and there are inferences, which it would be proper for the jury to draw at full-time, that one or either defendant caused, contributed to or was responsible for the death.
  Once the case goes past half-time one may then be faced with a situation where one or other defendant decides that he or she does not wish to be dealt with as being equally responsible for causing the death, and one or other of the defendants gives evidence. So
  GC 164
  whereas at the close of the prosecution case it was not clear that there was significant evidence that one defendant was guilty of the murder of the child, by the end of the defence case it does become clear.
  One is left with a situation where the judge and the jury have heard evidence on which one or other of the parties properly could be found guilty of the murder but, at half time, on a technicality, that charge of murder or manslaughter has already been withdrawn from the jury. The postponement of the case to answer to the conclusion of the defence case will not jeopardise the fairness or otherwise of the case that may be left to the jury. There is no change in relation to evidence for murder or manslaughter. If the only evidence before the court is the evidence in relation to Clause 4, the judge would be perfectly and properly within his or her rights to withdraw the other charge from the jury and to not allow it to enter a verdict in relation thereto.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to the Minister. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, thought that we were hurrying to a close, I am sorry he got that impression—far from it. I was somewhat taken aback that so many Members of the Committee were trying to intervene. Of course, the great joy of Committee is that we can come back at any and every stage.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I drew a wrong inference.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was very grateful for the additional words from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He clearly put to me some of the reasons why I still have concerns. It might be helpful for Members of the Committee and for the Minister's officials if I made it clear that I was particularly grateful for her responses to Amendments Nos. 34 and 36. I accept her explanations and can indicate that I shall not return to those on Report. I thought that I might have to, but I will not.
  With regard to Amendment No. 37 on the postponement of a submission of "no case to answer", I remain severely concerned with that. I am sure that we shall have to return to it.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: In her response, I noticed that the noble Baroness used the words "technicality" and "tactical procedures" with the same vehemence as I use the words "rubbish" and "rhetoric". There is a fundamental problem, and I should like the noble Baroness to interrupt me and explain. This clause creates a different class of murder. It introduces different laws of evidence and different procedures. It does not do so in respect of a person who comes within a particular class; that is, someone to whom Clause 4 applies, such as a member of the same household and so forth. It does not apply if it is proved that the person is a member of the same household and, therefore, comes within that class, but merely if the person is charged with being in that category. So, merely by

  GC 165
  charging someone under Clause 4, the possibility of convicting someone for murder on a different ground is introduced.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord asked me to interrupt him, and I shall. That is not the case if a person is charged. We are saying that the prosecution would have to prove at trial that a person was a member of the household, so those issues would have to be established by the prosecution at the end of the prosecution case. Of course, it would be perfectly proper for there to be vigorous debate. We expect that there might be certain cases in which the defendant was not a member of the household, could not be so classified and does not fall within the definition. It is not the charge alone. It is the prosecution producing evidence at trial that establishes that to be the case.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: With respect, the clause does not say so, if that is the intention of the clause. As I said, as drafted, it creates a different class of murder, different procedures, and different laws of evidence from every other type of murder. Every other type of murder has well known ingredients—I shall not repeat them—and well known procedures to prove them. The suggestion now is that, at half time, there can be a debate with a judge on whether there is a case to answer on the basis that the person is not a member of the household. Then, at the end of the defence case— or the silence, if no evidence is called, two minutes later—there is a debate about whether there is a case to answer overall. Surely, that is a legal nonsense and must be opposed completely.
  The Minister gave us her explanation of the purpose behind this clause by reference to the Law Commission. The Law Commission produced a scheme that is different from the Government's, which I am sure she will concede. It was a fundamental part of the Law Commission's proposals that a statutory responsibility should be placed upon somebody if they are part of the household—I will use that as shorthand for all the other possibilities that may exist. That is not repeated in the Bill so, in some ways, the Minister draws something from the commission, but not the whole scheme. The result is a hotchpotch.
  Let me explain it this way. The Minister says that a defendant can be guilty of murder or manslaughter if there is no case to answer and the defendant gives no evidence, because an adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that no evidence was given. I think that the Law Commission's proposal is rather different. It proposed that, although there may be no case to answer at the end of a prosecution case, there is a statutory responsibility to fulfil. It is the failure to meet that statutory responsibility which might give rise to an inference for the jury to consider. It is not a question of refusing to give evidence, failing to give evidence or failing to answer a particular question. The scheme is quite different.
  The issue of whether there is a case to answer is not a technicality. The question that the judge must generally ask himself at the end of a prosecution case is, "Is there a case such that a reasonable jury, properly
  GC 166
  directed, could convict?" If there is no case, the defendant has no case to answer. He is not called upon to answer something that does not exist. That is the end of it. I do not know how it is possible to move from that to saying, at the end of the prosecution case under these provisions, "There is no case to answer. You're not required to answer it, but we will wait until you and your co-defendant refuse to say anything. We will then say to the jury, 'They had their opportunity and did not take it. Therefore, you can convict them'", even though there is not sufficient evidence that a jury, properly directed, could convict.
  In my view, these provisions have been cobbled together in a way that does not make logical sense and is contrary to principle. I take on board everything said so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. However, one must not be carried away by the fact that because this has been included in some form within the Bill, there is a possible principle on which one can act in response. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I hope that I have given sufficient notice that we will return to this matter on Report, when the Bill will be debated in the Chamber. We will seek to remove completely from the Bill this clause and anything that depends upon it.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I should like to ask a simple question to which I ought to know the answer and I am sorry that I do not. Under the Law Commission's scheme, there was a statutory duty to explain, as far as possible. However, if that duty was not complied with and the defendant simply stayed mum—refused to give evidence and so forth—was the defendant convicted of murder or a breach of the statutory duty? There is a difference.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention because he raised a point that I wanted to make. The Law Commission confines it to the new offence—not to murder and manslaughter—creating a new type of murder that applies only if a household position is established or proved in a particular way. It makes my point that the Government are moving way beyond the Law Commission's position into territory which really ought not to be discovered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may clear my own mind. Is the Minister saying, in simple terms, that before you can be convicted under Clause 5 there must be evidence of an offence under Clause 4 to leave to a jury, although thereafter you can be convicted of murder or manslaughter merely on the basis of silence or failure to answer? Must there at least be some evidence to leave to the jury on Clause 4 before the jury can consider a charge of murder or manslaughter?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If Clause 4 is established, that enables you to postpone the

  GC 167
  argument as to whether there is a case to answer in relation to murder or manslaughter until the end of the prosecution and defence evidence. It would not prevent you from restoring a submission that there is no case to answer in relation to murder or manslaughter until the end of the case.
  Of course, if in making the "no case to answer" submission the defence were to say to the judge, "We do not intend to call any further evidence of whatever nature, in relation to either Clause 4 or a murder/manslaughter charge", it would in effect be a submission made at the end of all the evidence, and those submissions would be dealt with at that stage. It would then be for the judge to determine whether the evidence submitted in relation to Clause 4 was or was not sufficient to get past what had hitherto been half-time in relation to the murder/manslaughter charge. If the judge came to the view that there was insufficient evidence to leave the murder/manslaughter charge to the jury, he would be duty bound not to do so. I hope that that is clear.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may add a practical comment. The decision to call the client— who has a fundamental right to a fair trial—will not be taken before a submission of "no case to answer" has been made. That simply will not happen. You cannot take that decision until you know what the response of the judge is to that. You cannot say to the judge, "I am not going to call any evidence, and now I am saying that there is no case to answer". It is just not possible.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Then I suppose you could have a technical procedure. For example, you could say, "I will make my submission that there is no case to answer", and when the judge asks you to call your evidence, you say, "I call no evidence". The judge would then ask, "Would you like to reply and refresh your application for no case to answer, Lord Thomas?" and would then deal with that application. Those who have dealt again and again with such cases know what happens in practice.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 38:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  "EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE: NORTHERN IRELAND
  (1) Where—

  (a) a person is charged in the same proceedings with an offence of murder or manslaughter and with an offence under section 4 in respect of the same death, and

  (b) in relation to the offence under section 4, the court or jury is permitted, by virtue of Article 4(4) of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1987 (N.I. 20)), to draw such inferences as appear proper from the defendant's failure to give evidence or refusal to answer a question,

  the court or jury may also draw such inferences in determining whether he is guilty on the charge of murder or manslaughter (even if there would otherwise be no case for him to answer on that charge).
  (2) Where—

  (a) a person is charged with a offence of murder or manslaughter, and

  (b) he or another person is charged in the same proceedings with an offence under section 4 in respect of the same death,

  the question whether there is a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter is not to be considered before the close of all the evidence at trial.
  (3) Where—

  (a) a magistrates' court is considering under Article 37 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26)) whether to commit a person ("the accused") for trial for an offence of murder or manslaughter, and

  (b) the accused or another person is charged in the same proceedings with an offence under section 4 above in respect of the same death ("the section 4 offence"),

  then, if there is sufficient evidence to put either the accused or the other person upon trial for the section 4 offence, there is deemed to be sufficient evidence to put the accused upon trial for the offence of murder or manslaughter.
  (4) An offence under section 4 is an offence of homicide for the purposes of the following provisions—

  Article 17 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 (N.I. 9)) (mode of trial of child for indictable offence);

  Article 32 of that Order (power and duty to remit children to youth courts for sentence)."

  The noble Baroness said: These amendments deal with the position in Northern Ireland. We dealt with them in part during the previous sitting. We debated at length the provisions in the Bill that relate to familial homicide. Those measures will address a particularly harmful loophole in the law, as I have already made plain.
  Amendment No. 38 provides a procedure in Northern Ireland for dealing with the evidence and procedure in relation to offences under Clause 4. It mirrors what applies in England and Wales, with the exception that it does not refer to trial by jury because of the different system that applies in Northern Ireland involving Diplock courts and, therefore, the possibility that someone may not be tried by a jury for the offence under Clause 4.
  Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110 are consequential upon Amendment No. 38. I signal our intention to bring more amendments to Clause 5 on Report to meet the specific needs of the Armed Forces. Those amendments would ensure that the provisions apply equally for a trial by court martial as they would if the trial were in the Crown Court. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment. The Minister will know that at the beginning of Grand Committee I made it clear that we would object to the amendments on this occasion simply because we appreciated that they were controversial matters that were tabled very late. We are grateful to the Home Office for giving us the earliest possible notice of the amendments, but it was given on the day on which tabling closed for the first day of Grand Committee. We felt that it would be only proper to object to the amendments so that we could make our own

  GC 169
  soundings in Northern Ireland and with our colleagues who deal with such matters. Those consultations and soundings have begun.
  I thank Home Office and Northern Ireland Office officials, who forwarded to us a note explaining the background to the consultation that had taken place in Northern Ireland and the rather accelerated timetable to which it had been subject. As I understand it, although the consultation took place over a relatively brief period, attempts have been made to "major" in the subject—if I can call it that without being too flippant—and intensive workshops were held. That was a helpful indication.
  Although I object to these amendments today, that will not necessarily hold true to all the government amendments that may come before us today. I suspect that only those regarding Northern Ireland will be opposed. I would be grateful if the Minister could withdraw the amendment and bring it back on Report.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am very happy to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 39:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  Amendments to Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
  "PARENTAL CONTACT WITH CHILDREN AFTER SEPARATION IN CASES INVOLVING ILL-TREATMENT OF THE CHILD OR ANOTHER PERSON
  In Part 2 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (orders with respect to children in family proceedings), after section 8 insert—
  "8A ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT MADE IN SECTION 8 PROCEEDINGS
  (1)Where it is alleged that a party to the proceedings has inflicted ill-treatment on the child or on another person, the Court shall, as soon as practicable, determine on the basis of the evidence presented to it by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings, whether the allegation of ill-treatment is proved.
  (2)Where the Court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings (in this section referred to as the abusive party) has inflicted ill-treatment on the child or on another person, the Court shall not—

  (a) make any order granting the abusive party residence of the child; or

  (b) make any order granting the abusive party contact (other than supervised contact) with that child, unless the child wants to see the abusive party and the Court is satisfied that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of or contact with the child.

  (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where in any section 8 proceedings—

  (a) the court is unable to determine on the basis of the evidence presented to it by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings whether or not an allegation of ill-treatment is proved; but

  (b) the Court is satisfied that there is a risk of harm to the child,

  the Court my make any order under this Act that it considers necessary to protect the child."
  "8B PARENTAL CONTACT WITH CHILDREN AFTER SEPARATION IN CASES INVOLVING ILL-TREATMENT OF THE CHILD OR ANOTHER PERSON
  When determining whether the child will be safe if contact or residence is granted to the abusive party, the Court shall, so far as is practicable, have regard to the following matters—

  (a)the nature and severity of the ill-treatment;

  (b)how recently the ill-treatment occurred;

  (c)the frequency of the ill-treatment;

  (d)the risk of further ill-treatment occurring;

  (e)the physical, sexual or emotional harm inflicted on the child or harm suffered by the child as a result of seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person;

  (f) whether the other party to the proceedings—

  (i) considers that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of, or contact with, the child; and

  (ii) consents to the abusive party having residence of, or contact with, the child;

  (g) the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them, and having regard to the age and maturity of the child;

  (h) any steps taken by the abusive party to prevent further ill-treatment from occurring; and

  (k) any other matters as the court considers relevant.""

  The noble Baroness said: Noble Lords involved in debates on the Adoption and Children Bill two years ago may be forgiven if they have a strong sense of déjà-vu with this amendment, because it deals with the issue discussed during the passage of that Bill, which started with a similar amendment. I would dearly like not to move this amendment again, but the truth is that we have not yet cracked the issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for their support in this amendment.
  Some children and parents are still badly served by courts and court services when child-contact issues are at stake. I appreciate that we are discussing very few cases, but they are very hard ones that can, and do, put children at risk.
  The amendment is supported by a coalition of children's charities—the NSPCC, the children's charity NCH, Childline and Women's Aid—all of whom support the principle of children maintaining contact with both parents following separation where it is in their best interests, including their safety and protection. Between them, those children's organisations have wide experience of working with children and provide a wide range of services, including helplines, family support services and specialist domestic violence projects. We are concerned that the existing system fails to listen to children where they have concerns about contact with a parent and fails to protect them from abusers who are known to them. It is important that the child's voice, including concerns about their safety, is not lost during the debates on this Bill.
  The experience of the children's charities suggests that, under the present system, some children are unable to voice their concerns about contact and continue to have contact with a parent who has abused

  GC 171
  them. The question is whether the courts are listening to children about contacts and their concerns about safety.
  A recent study by Women's Aid and the NSPCC found that only 6 per cent of practitioners working with women and children believed that children who say they do not want contact with a violent parent are being listened to and taken seriously. In most cases, 57 per cent say that this only happens in some cases and 13 per cent say that children are never listened to.
  Urgent action is required to address the risk to children when courts grant unsupervised contact with abusive parents. A man who has been convicted of a Schedule 1 offence would not be allowed to drive the school bus but could be granted unsupervised contact with children he has abused. It is an irony that public law seems to give greater protection to children than that afforded by private proceedings.
  The children's organisations are convinced that 10 children have been killed in connection with contact arrangements in England and Wales since February 2002. In 2002, the courts granted 61,356 contact orders in England and contact was refused in only 518 cases, even though the Association of Chief Officers of Probation stated in 1999 that domestic violence is involved in about 16,000 cases a year—almost half of the cases where a Section 7 court report is ordered.
  We need to ask whether there are a significant number of cases where domestic violence may be an issue and is being missed by the court system. I believe that we have failed to overcome the problems that arise out of the case law on this issue. I hope that the Committee will bear with me because some Members will have heard me speak of these cases in the past.
  It is frequently claimed that the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989 provides adequate protection for children. However, case law precedents have altered the meaning of the Children Act in ways that can be damaging, especially in cases involving violence and abuse.
  The Children Act states that the welfare of the child is paramount. However, in Re A and N (Refusal of contact) [1996], the Appeal Court ruled that the welfare of the child is not paramount in committal proceedings. In this case the mother was sentenced to six weeks in prison for not complying with a contact order even though the father had a history of violence, including a very serious assault on his former wife for which he was sent to prison.
  Assurances have been made that the standard of proof required under the Children Act is the balance of probabilities. However, the House of Lords ruled in Re H and R that a higher standard of proof should be required in family law cases involving more serious allegations. As the Committee will know, dissenting from this ruling, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, stated that he feared it would make the Children Act unworkable because child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law. As a result of this
  GC 172
  ruling, we believe that it is now harder to protect a child who has been physically or sexually abused than a child who has witnessed violence.
  It was hoped that family court practice would improve following the Appeal Court judgment in Re L, V, M & H, in which four violent fathers were granted only indirect contact with their children. However, this judgment stated that it was in no way inconsistent with earlier decisions and therefore judges can still apply the presumption that contact is almost always in the interest of the child without fear of legal challenge. Many of the recommendations contained in the Re L, V, M & H judgment were also set out in Guidelines for Good Practice on Parental Contact in cases where there is domestic violence, endorsed by the Government in April 2001—but these guidelines are not mandatory and do not overrule the case law precedents which have proved so problematic.
  We have to ask the question: was this issue covered in the Adoption and Children Act 2002?
  I join with the children's charities in welcoming the changes made in that legislation to give children a voice in private proceedings and acknowledge the issue of domestic violence for children in children care legislation.
  The Adoption and Children Act 2002 extended the definition of significant harm in the Children Act to include harm a child may suffer as a result of witnessing ill-treatment of another person (Section 120). The Adoption and Children Act also requires the courts in private family proceedings to consider whether the child should have separate representation (Section 122). Neither of those clauses have yet been implemented. I am informed that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is unable to say when that will happen.
  Although the reforms are welcome, I wish to query whether there is still a need for legislation to require the courts to ensure that contact and residence arrangements are safe for children. Furthermore, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 does not address the problems created by the Re H & R judgment on the standard of proof in cases involving more serious allegations.
  My amendment addresses the issue by stating that, if a parent is found to be violent within the family, the court must not grant residence or unsupervised contact to the violent parent unless the child wants contact and the court is satisfied that that can he arranged safely. That rebuttable presumption is closely based on Section 16B of the New Zealand Guardianship Act, and similar measures have also been adopted by 17 states in the USA.
  Furthermore, the amendment states that, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove abuse but the court is satisfied that there is a real risk of harm to the child, it can make whatever order it considers appropriate to protect the child. It reflects the difficulties in proving domestic abuse, which generally occurs behind closed doors when no independent witness is present. It also allows the court to uphold the guiding principle that the welfare of the child is paramount and overrules the

  GC 173
  damaging precedent set by the Re H & R judgment, which states that the court should require a higher standard of proof in cases involving more serious allegations. Again, that is based on the New Zealand amendment. This clause is likely to be particularly valuable in cases where a child has been abused but is too young to give evidence.
  Is this approach justified? The measures contained in proposed new Section 8A reflect the advice provided by two eminent child psychiatrists for the Court of Appeal when it considered four test cases involving child contact and domestic violence. In their report on the effects of domestic violence on children, Dr Claire Sturge and Dr Danya Glaser made the following comments:
  "Research indicates that children are affected as much by exposure to violence as to being involved in it. The ongoing fear and dread of it recurring is also emotionally very damaging… We take the position that all children are affected by significant and repeated inter-partner violence, even if it is only indirect".
  Noting that emotional trauma continues even when a child is removed from a violent situation, the psychiatrists comment:
  "The child needs to be protected from all this … The fear that one of their parents might be killed during the violence is often a significant part of the trauma to the child … We consider that there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a previously or currently violent parent is in the child's interests: if anything the assumption should be in the opposite direction".
  The report also emphasises that the child's wishes must be respected:
  "In domestic violence, where the child has memories of that violence we would see their wishes as warranting much more weight than in situations when no real reason for the child's resistance appears to exist".
  Unfortunately, the judgment in Re L, V, M & H does not appear to have improved court practice significantly. The Sturge and Glaser report, however, has been widely praised by family court professionals, and the views expressed in it are reflected in this amendment.
  The Government previously pledged to change the family proceedings rules after the Adoption and Children Act 2002, to require the courts to decide whether allegations of violence are proved before granting contact. A clause on deciding whether allegations of ill-treatment are proved is included for comprehensiveness, and the terms "ill-treatment" and "harm" are used because they reflect those used in Section 116 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
  Subsection (3) of proposed Section 8A is intended specifically to deal with the problems created by the House of Lords ruling in Re H & R on sexual abuse in 1995. It is included because it is linked to the previous provisions.
  Proposed new Section 8B is based on Section 16B(5) of the New Zealand Guardianship Act. The effectiveness of that legislation in tackling domestic violence in private law family proceedings is largely attributed to this mandatory risk assessment checklist, which provides a framework for all court welfare reports in cases involving allegations of abuse. The
  GC 174
  terms "ill-treatment" and "harm" are used because they reflect those contained in Section 116 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
  I do not expect my noble friend to fall on my neck and say, "Welcome, welcome", but I hope that she may agree that she too is disappointed at the lack of progress in this area since we last considered it during the adoption Bill.
  In conclusion, I end with some quotes from children given to me by Childline and the NSPCC. One child said this to Childline:
  "Mum's solicitor and school staff suggested I ring you. I don't want to live with my dad. He's beating me. I want to live with my mum. There's going to be a court case but no one's listening to me".
  An eight year-old girl said:
  "The courts have said I've got to see my dad but I don't want to. I'm nervous and I want him to leave me alone. Nobody has asked me what I want".
  Similarly, the NSPCC told me that:
  "A mother and two children had been separated from the father for some years. However, the father was given unsupervised contact by the courts. The children reported that the seven year old was hit several times during a contact visit".
  The charity went on to say that:
  "The fear of the court upholding an order for contact has led a child to believe that they have no choice but to run away from home. If the order is upheld they feel that they have not been believed and need to take matters into their own hands. This causes additional worries for the mother about the risk of this happening on top of the anxiety about the hearing".
  I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Walmsley: On behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord McNally I rise to support the amendment, mainly because I am concerned that the existing system fails to listen to the concerns of some children about contact with parents. In some cases it fails to protect them from abusers who are known to them.
  The amendment gives a comprehensive structure to the factors which must be taken into account when contact is being decided upon, including the views of the child and the need to address the problems that have been thrown up by the case law mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Currently, children involved in domestic violence cases are unable to voice their concerns about contact and are forced to continue to have contact with the parent who has abused either them or their mother.
  Some noble Lords may have received briefing from Fathers for Justice. The organisation makes the point that more children die at the hands of their mothers than at those of their fathers, but of course more children are looked after by their mothers than by their fathers. However, that said, we must bear in mind that sadly some mothers do commit violence against their children. No doubt the courts will bear that in mind when making the orders.

  GC 175
  The basic and fundamental problem here is that the sooner our society outlaws the routine physical abuse of children, the better. That will create a completely different culture, one in which this kind of thing will not thrive as widely as it does now.
  I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the children's charities in welcoming the changes made in recent legislation to give children a voice in proceedings and which acknowledge the issue of domestic violence in childcare legislation. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the measures for listening to children in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 have not yet been implemented. I understand that we have not been told when they are going to be implemented.
  It is clear that we need to move towards a culture where not only are children listened to but action is taken as a result of the serious concerns they express. On that basis, I am very happy to support the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the various children's charities for their briefing on this matter. It is an important and complex issue. Unfortunately, I was not one of those noble Lords who took part in the proceedings on the Adoption and Children Bill. Obviously the noble Baroness and the Minister had a good experience and I wish that I had been able to join them.
  Certainly it is the case that disputes over contact can cause the deepest anguish among both parents and the children; they can lead to all manner of allegations, including false allegations. However, I acknowledge that this is a very complex and difficult area. My only experience of it took place several years before I came to this House, when I chaired family courts. Despite all the training we went through, we still found the duty of making orders of this nature one of the most difficult. In many cases I found them more difficult to make than when dealing with orders for imprisonment. It was an extremely complex matter.
  I appreciate the concern expressed that it is important that children's voices, including their concerns about safety, are not lost during our debates on this Bill. We have to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Walmsley, for making sure that their voices are not forgotten. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister when she responds whether she believes there is evidence that children's voices have been lost as a result of the accretion of case law, which is the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Seven years ago, when I was considering the welfare checklist under Section 1 of the Children Act, I did not feel encumbered by case law that prevented me from looking at a child's welfare first on each and every occasion.
  I speak only as a layman, but I am intrigued by the drafting of subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause. It states that the court shall not give contact to the abusive person,
  "unless the child wants to see the abusive party and the Court is satisfied that the child will be safe".
  GC 176
  I like the words, "the Court is satisfied", but the difficulty lies in the first words in which the child must express a view; that is mandatory. What if the child is too young to express its own views, or is physically or mentally unable to do so? What would happen then? The amendment does not seem to allow the court to grant contact come what may, even if that was the right order to make in all the circumstances. The court is not given any discretion. Perhaps it is wording to which the noble Baroness is not absolutely wedded.
  It is right that we should have on record the Government's views on this matter. The Minister practised in family law over a number of years and I am sure will be able to bring a special perspective to our debate on how the attitude of the courts has developed since the time of Lacey v Lacey in 1980, when violence within marriage was described by a court as "not serious", which is extraordinary.
  Does the Minister agree that the way forward was presaged by Wall J, recently promoted to Wall LJ, in Re H [Contact: Domestic Violence]? He said that:
  "The point that has troubled me most on this aspect of the case is the question of domestic violence. Can it be said, as a matter of principle, that it is in the interests of children to impose an order for contact on a mother who is caring for them well in favour of a father who has treated her with such violence as to give her good and valid reasons to oppose contact?".
  Having asked the question, he went on to say that the answer must be, as a matter of principle, that domestic violence of itself cannot constitute a bar to contact. Each case must inevitably be decided on its facts. Domestic violence can be only one factor in a very complex equation. There will be contact cases where it is decisive against contact, but there will be others in which it would be peripheral. He concluded that the matter is therefore not one of principle, but of discretion. I would be interested to know whether the Government share that view.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank my noble friend for raising this issue and tell her without any qualification that she would never give me anything other than pleasure by raising issues in relation to children. These are extremely important matters. I should also say that I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. These cases and the decisions that judges, whether lay or professional, have to make are by nature the most difficult and testing.
  The import of Re H—and I commend also the words of Lord Justice Wall because he has specialised in this field over a long period—is high. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the welfare of the child, pursuant to Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, remains the paramount concern. Regrettably, no two cases are the same. That which is to be commended as a proper solution for child A may be disastrous for child B. For that reason, the court must exercise its discretion in each case in order to promote the paramount best interests of the child with which the court is dealing on that day as opposed to any other.
  I too am disappointed that we have not been able to implement the provisions more quickly. I shall turn to that point in more detail in a moment.

  GC 177
  Noble Lords will recall from our discussions that in its 1999 report, Contact and Domestic Violence, the Lord Chancellor's Children Act Sub-Committee rejected the proposal to amend legislation to have a presumption of no contact in cases of domestic violence as not being in the child's best interests. Instead, it produced new guidelines on how the courts should deal with such allegations.
  Re L, the Court of Appeal judgment in 2000, partially incorporated the guidelines into law and the guidelines were promulgated in 2001; perhaps I may say that they are good. The guidelines require the courts to consider at the earliest opportunity any allegations of domestic violence and decide whether the nature and effect of the violence is such that it is likely that an order of the court for contact should be affected.
  The issue of a presumption of no contact in cases where domestic violence is alleged was considered during the passage of the Adoption and Children Bill in 2002. At the time we talked about this extensively and very properly. We said then and we still believe that an automatic presumption of no contact would not be in the child's interests. I cite here too some of the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. However, before decisions about contact are made, allegations of domestic violence should be investigated and findings of fact made.
  To strengthen the courts' ability to consider allegations of violence and the impact on the child, Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 amends the Children Act 1989, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lady Thornton, so as to extend the courts' definition of what might constitute harm a child might suffer to include any harm as a result of witnessing violence.
  We also made a commitment during the passage of the Adoption and Children Bill to introduce new forms for applications under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 covering contact, residence, prohibitive steps and specific issue orders. These forms enable parties to Section 8 applications to highlight allegations of domestic violence right at the start of the proceedings. The courts could then make findings of fact before deciding what, if any, order to make.
  I recognise that there has been a delay in implementing the new definition of harm and the new forms to highlight domestic violence. I can reassure
  GC 178
  noble Lords that we are totally committed to their implementation and introduction and I undertake a commitment to coming back to this issue on Report. I hope that I shall be able to give a fuller and more pleasing answer then.
  Finally, I would be very concerned about the provision in the amendment which makes a presumption of no contact, but which can be overridden by the child, so long as the court is satisfied about safety—again, for many of the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. While the Children Act already requires the court to have regard to the child's wishes, it would seem to put the child in a very difficult position if the child could, in effect, seek to overturn the court's decision prohibiting direct contact with the non-resident parent. It could open up all kinds of pressures and counter-pressures on the child from both parents, as well as allegations of undue influence from either party. I know that that is not something which either my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would wish to see.
  I can reassure the Committee that this is something about which we are very concerned. We want to see it resolved and we want to make good our commitment in relation to this matter. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment and I invite my noble friend, with her usual generosity of spirit, not to press it.
  Baroness Thornton: I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Anelay, for their remarks. I thought that the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put at the end of her remarks was very interesting. It is a better response than I received last time, and I am very grateful for that. I will take the matter away and look at the wording, because a good point was made there. I thank the Minister for her response and look forward to re-engaging with the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: In view of the complexity of the next amendment, I propose that the Committee adjourn for today.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 2 February at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at quarter past seven o'clock.

  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Mr C Spencer
  Mr C Spencer
  Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003: Schools and Colleges
  Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003: Schools and Colleges
  Marriage Support
  Marriage Support
  Parents
  Parents
  School Session Times
  School Session Times
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Incapacity Benefit
  Incapacity Benefit
  Community Development Awards Programme
  Community Development Awards Programme
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Research and Development: Tax Credits
  Research and Development: Tax Credits
  Somerset House: Building Works
  Somerset House: Building Works
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Financial Understanding
  Financial Understanding
  Inland Revenue: Disclosure of Information
  Inland Revenue: Disclosure of Information
  Companies: Board Diversity
  Companies: Board Diversity
  Energy: Electricity Generating Costs
  Energy: Electricity Generating Costs
  House of Lords: Science Scrutiny
  House of Lords: Science Scrutiny

  Cat and Dog Fur: Imports
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Mike O'Brien) has today made the following Written Statement.

  On 17 July last year I made a Written Statement to the House (Official Report, cols. 79–80WS) on the issue of cat and dog fur. I asked interested parties to try within six months to produce hard evidence of the extent of imports of domestic cat and dog fur into the UK. I said that if such evidence could be produced, I would in principle be prepared to support a ban on the import of these furs. If, after six months, hard evidence had not been produced, the Government would not legislate until evidence is forthcoming.

  The six-month deadline has ended. The Government understand the ethical concerns about the alleged import of cat and dog fur and are therefore reporting back to both Houses on progress made over the last six months.

  Our priority on this issue has always been, and remains, the need to establish the facts about the extent of this alleged trade and to act in a measured way.

  The Government have maintained regular contact with interested parties over the last six months. However, over this time we have received only one alleged sample of domestic dog fur and no samples of domestic cat fur.

  We have asked scientific experts at the former Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC Limited) to determine the reliability of "mass spectrometry" as a possible means of accurately distinguishing the furs of domestic cats and dogs from that of other animal species. Such a test is necessary to determine whether domestic cat and dog fur is being imported into the UK, to permit effective enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act and that of any future legislation governing the import of these furs.

  Known samples of fur from both domestic and wild species within the cat and dog families, fur from other animals and the alleged sample of domestic dog fur were sent for testing last year. Some of these samples were also tested in an altered state to replicate the effects of textile processing. Thirteen samples were tested in total. All of them were tested twice, further to the discovery that technical problems might have affected the initial results.
  WS 10
  LGC Limited has confirmed that four of the 13 samples were correctly identified in the initial testing and six out of 13 were correctly identified in the subsequent testing. Less than half of the samples were therefore correctly identified, and probability ratios demonstrate that there is a high chance that these samples could in fact have come from another species. Given these results, LGC Limited has recommended that "mass spectrometry" is not yet currently sufficiently reliable as a means of identifying domestic cat and dog fur from the fur of other animal species. I have placed copies of LGC Limited's report in the Library of the House.

  While these results are very disappointing, there is some evidence that the reliability of "mass spectrometry" may improve as the database of known samples is built up and the software improves.

  In my previous Written Statement, I made clear that, while the Government are prepared to take practical and proportionate action to address this matter, any action would be most effective if taken at EU level. There is stronger evidence that domestic cat and dog fur has been used in products found in some other EU countries. For this reason, we have been working hard over the last six months to raise the profile of this issue at EU level. In November last year, I publicly supported calls by the European Parliament for an EU ban on trade in cat and dog fur, while making clear that it was also essential to have in place a reliable scientific test to ensure effective enforcement. The UK has also, in the context of various EU meetings, either raised the issue of cat and dog fur or supported calls by other member states for the European Commission to consider this issue further. We continue to be in regular contact with officials from other countries and from the Commission in order to share information and our approaches to this emotive issue.

  In July I undertook to give support to a ban on the import of domestic cat and dog fur if clear evidence could be produced of the extent of this problem in the UK. This has not been achievable over the last six months, and as I made clear last summer, I cannot therefore support an import ban at this point in time. However, this Government will continue to encourage interested parties to provide evidence of the extent of this problem. I have also asked LGC Limited to submit new known samples of fur for testing in order to further analyse the reliability of "mass spectrometry" and we will continue to push for greater EU involvement on this issue.

  I can assure the House that this Government remain fully committed to establishing the facts about this issue and to taking proportionate and practical action. I therefore further undertake to report back to Parliament on progress made at the latest within 12 months and earlier if there are any substantive developments.