Sitting of 1 July 2004

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

    School Transport Bill
    Nick Harvey: If he will make a statement on progress on the draft School Transport Bill. [181592]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on his promotion. In politics, I never like to say, "I told you so", but when the Opposition tried to join the portfolios, one or two of us argued that the wheels would come unstuck. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition in his wisdom has acknowledged that and appointed the hon. Gentleman.
    In answer to the question, we shall announce a decision on the Bill once we have examined the report of the Select Committee on Transport. which we have, and that of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which we hope to receive shortly, and after consultation with colleagues.
    Nick Harvey: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Although there is widespread support for the Bill's overall objectives, does he realise that there is widespread opposition to the specific proposal to end the automatic right to free school transport? In the south-west alone, 86,000 pupils have free transport and there is alarm about the implications of such provision becoming a discretionary rather than a mandatory duty for local authorities. Given the widespread opposition to that, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Bill and find another way of achieving its general objectives?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. It is a draft Bill, which has yet to be introduced and cannot I her More be withdrawn. I know about the massive Liberal Democrat mudslinging campaign on the Bill—it is based on no substance. It is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats oppose a measure that liberates local education authorities to decide what do only if they wish to do so—I thought that the Liberal Democrats would support that. I am surprised that a party that
    418
    purports to be green opposes a measure that is designed to reduce the school run and traffic. The attitude of Liberal Democrats is extraordinary. Perhaps it is worth noting that Liberal Democrats in local government—like Conservatives in local government—strongly support the Bill.
    Kali Mountford: The House should welcome measures that introduce a range of different ways to get children safely to school. I want to focus on safety. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the methods of transport chosen in each local area fulfil the highest safety standards to avoid the sort of accident that sadly occurred in my constituency, where a child was seriously injured? Will he ensure that mechanisms monitor and secure the highest safety standards for all our children?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. We are introducing the Bill precisely to find better ways to transport children to school. My hon. Friend is right that safety must be the paramount consideration for young children who travel, and it will be a central element of any scheme that we operate. I know about her work on the subject and I pay tribute to her.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I have every confidence in the good sense of those at local level to make the right decisions when the time comes. However, given the hazards to children, especially those who have to walk to school in rural areas, will the Secretary of State try to facilitate parents whose children do not qualify for free transport? Will he afford them an opportunity to pay for their children's transport on the school bus that passes their homes?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly. We are introducing the Bill precisely to give local authorities the flexibility, after consultation, to make the sort of judgment that he suggests. We want to give local authorities the right to weigh up safety issues, examine travel patterns and form a view. That is why the Local Government Association—Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour members—said, "Thank goodness; here is a proposal to try to make some progress." The rubbish-mongering of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members is extraordinary. They are essentially telling untruths about the proposals.
    Jeff Ennis: The Government are a great advocate for extending parental choice but under existing rules and regulations, the only genuine choice is for parents who have the use of a car to transport their children to school. Is it one of the draft Bill's objectives to extend choice by building up a better public service network for parents who do not have cars to send their children to the school that they choose?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the moment, far too many parents do not have a realistic choice as to whether to transport their child to school by public transport, by car or whatever. We want to encourage, through our work with local government, projects and approaches that will achieve precisely what he suggests, so that people can have a real choice

    419
    between travelling by public transport or walking or cycling to school rather than going by car in the numbers that they do now. I am amazed that this approach is not being supported by the Opposition parties; it should be supported right across the House.
    Ann Winterton: The Secretary of State will be aware how vital and valued school transport is in rural areas. Will he take on board the concerns of the parents and teachers at Brereton school in my constituency about the category of vehicles being used at present? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) is quite right to say that safety is vital when transporting young children, and proper seat belts, not just lap belts, are essential. Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board those views when he considers these matters?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly will. Perhaps the hon. Lady could let me have details of the particular points raised by the school that she mentioned, with which I am not familiar. I would be happy to take them on board. She began by saying, quite rightly, that people value the chance to have a bus to take their child to school. The truth is, however, that only some parents have that chance at the moment. I should have thought that we should extend that choice more widely.
    Andrew Bennett: When my right hon. Friend makes any announcements next week, will he take into account how important it is to enable children to go to a local school of high quality, so that they can walk there?
    Mr. Clarke: I completely agree with that, without any qualification. That is what I did throughout my life, and it is the right way to proceed. As my hon. Friend knows, the way to achieve that is to raise the standards of schools so that people can have confidence in the quality of their local school. That is precisely what our policies are about, and that is what we have been achieving.

    Sure Start
    James Purnell: What research the Department has conducted into the effect of Sure Start on children's development. [181593]
    Jonathan Shaw: What assessment he has made of the impact of Sure Start in assisting children with their education. [181603]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): We are undertaking a national evaluation of Sure Start. Early findings already show that children attending pre-school education do better than those staying at home full-time, and that disadvantaged children benefit most. Local evaluations of Sure Start local programmes show that they are also making an impact for parents and children in a variety of ways, including cutting the number of children entering school with a special educational needs statement, cutting emergency referrals to social services, improving breast-feeding rates, cutting smoking in pregnancy, reducing postnatal depression, improving speech and language development, and helping parents to find work.
    James Purnell: That research was fully reflected at the meeting that I had last Friday at Hyde Sure Start, when was told by Stacey Isles that Sure Start had completely changed her life. All the parents there asked me to come back to the House and ask the Government to guarantee that the money for sure Start would continue after the text general election Can my right hon. Friend give my Hyde Sure Start parents that guarantee?
    Margaret Hodge: We are currently considering the implications of the very generous settlement for early years education that the Chancellor gave us in the Budget, which involves a 17 per cent. real-terms increase n spending every year over the coming spending review Period. We shall give priority to ensuring the continuation of programmes that are now proven to be affective.
    Mr. Speaker: Jonathan Shaw.
    Jonathan Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker— [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This Shaw did lot get off to a very good start, did he? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration she has given to the new developments in the proposals for children's centres, and how they are to link in with the development of schools services and the child-centred approach outlined n the Green Paper "Every Child Matters"? It is vital that all those different components join up and that Sure Start forms an integral part of that programme. What is more, it needs to be an integral part of many more communities. We have 500, but we need 500 more.
    Margaret Hodge: We are ensuring that the Sure Start principles are embedded in the development of the children's centre programmes. That means bringing together all the services that impact on a child and their family's life in their early years, around the needs of that child. We are ensuring, that throughout our radical transformation of children's services, with the introduction of both children's trusts and extended schools. My hon. Friend is right to point out that using schools as a non-stigmatised safe environment in which to build many of those services is the appropriate way to go. I look not just for 500 more Sure Start programmes but for a Sure Start children's centre in every community in this country.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats welcome the Sure Start programme and we want to add our congratulations on the 524 centres that celebrated that programme last month. For many of our poorest families Sure Start is an irrelevance, because it simply does not exist. The Daycare Trust has done some research, which shows that 600,000 children aged under three, from some of our poorest families, have no access—only one child in 14 has access—to a free or subsidised place. When will the Minister guarantee that the poorest children in this land will get access t o quality child care before the age of three? Does she agree that the irrelevance of the money being given to son e of the wealthiest parents in this country through the child trust fund—£1 billion in the

    421
    next Parliament—could be better spent on dealing with and providing education in early years settings for some of our poorest children from our poorest families?
    Margaret Hodge: Before this Government came into office, there was no Sure Start programme, no free part-time nursery education for every three and four-year-old, and no national child care strategy. Since we have been in government, we have created more than 500 Sure Start programmes, we have free part-time nursery education for the first time ever, with a new frontier for the welfare state for every three am four-year-old, and we have created more than 1 million new child care places for nearly 2 million children. We will carry on developing our existing programmes, which will spread to more children living in poverty. It is not a question of doing one thing rather than another—building an asset base for children, particularly the poorest, so that when they come of age at 18 they have some of their own money to invest in their future, s as important as ensuring that through education care and health provision they get the very best start.
    Finally. the £18 billion cuts that the Conservative party intends to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Sally Keeble.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, the two Sure Starts in my constituency are incredibly focused on the disadvantaged, and have transformed the lives of those children. However, can my right hon. Friend say how the benefits will spread? As she knows, in constituencies such as Northampton, North, where many women work shifts and have flexible working arrangements, there is a huge need for much wider provision, which must work flexibly so that parents can mix and match child care for their working day, and get the same quality of services as is available in Sure Start.
    Margaret Hodge: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that Sure Start transforms the lives of many individual children and their families. I spend much of my time visiting Sure Start programmes. Whenever I talk to a Sure Start mum, the main thing that they say is that the isolation of coming home in the first few days when they have a new baby is completely mitigated by being able to access the services from Sure Start. We need more, and we need to ensure that what we offer is flexible to fit in with the different working patterns that many parents have today. I take those points, and I am considering them as we take forward our programme with the generous financial settlement that the Chancellor gave us.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: When my right hon. Friend looks at various forms of Sure Start provision, will she look at some in my constituency? There is a children's centre at Highfield on the edge of a very Asian area, and another at Guardhouse, on the edge of a white area. Will my right hon. Friend consider the impact on those two communities of getting children together at an early age? In my constituency it is unusual to see white and Asian kids together This provision gives Asian kids the advantage of speaking English
    422
    before going to school, and I hope that eventually it will have an effect on white children and parents, moving them away from the terrible impact of the British National party.
    Margaret Hodge: I spent yesterday looking at Sure Start programmes in Blackburn, which face issues similar to those in my hon. Friend's constituency. Steps are being taken to ensure that children from different communities and backgrounds come together, build respect for each other's communities and are properly integrated without assimilating their varying cultures. We need to use these excellent early years facilities to break down some of the intolerance and suspicion that all too often exist in communities throughout Britain.

    School Funding
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will take steps to reduce variations in pupil funding per head between counties. [181594]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The current system, which was the subject of widespread consultation, reflects the relative need of counties and metropolitan areas alike. Our priority is to restore stability and predictability to the school funding system, and we will not be changing it during 2004–05 or 2005–06.
    Mr. Luff: We in Worcestershire are always immensely grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he listens to our arguments, and for the commitment he has made to go on listening to them. Admittedly we are always disappointed by the outcome, but at least he listens.
    Sadly, however, the most recent detailed academic evidence in favour of a change in the balance of funding between Worcestershire and its neighbouring counties was simply passed on by the Minister's Department to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, unopened and unconsidered. Can the Minister reassure me that he has not changed his policy of constructive engagement with us on these important issues—or has the ODPM heavy mob had a quiet word with him at Admiralty arch, telling him to stay shtum and turn the other way while our children and schools are mugged for the cash they are owed?
    Mr. Miliband: The temptations of constructive engagement with the hon. Gentleman and his friends are so great that I certainly would not want to turn away from the dialogue that has been initiated.
    I am sure that the whole House is intimately aware of the details of the Oswald and Blanchflower study of Worcestershire and its labour force survey. No doubt the House is also aware that the new earnings survey on which we base the area cost adjustment deals with a much wider sample, and is therefore considered more representative by many academic commentators. None the less, I look forward to continuing the discussion in this forum and elsewhere.
    Mr. David Kidney: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a new formula since April 2003. It is, without doubt, simpler and clearer than its predecessor. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that a league table of per pupil funding across the country shows that the gap between the best and the worst funding has widened under the new system? Does that not mean that it is deficient in justice and equity?
    Mr. Miliband: Having acknowledged the existence of constructive engagement with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I feel that I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning in the interests of Staffordshire. He will, I think, be as pleased as I am that Staffordshire's per pupil increase in the school formula funding share this year is 6.3 per cent. above the national average, thus narrowing the gap between it and other authorities. I am sure he will also agree that it is important for all school funding to be based on fair and transparent criteria, rather than arbitrary targets. It is on that basis that we will continue to make progress.

    Truancy
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What progress he has made in meeting his target to reduce truancy. [181595]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): This is the first Government to put attendance at the heart of their policies for improving standards and pupil achievement. Our measures provide both support for pupils and their parents and sanctions to reinforce parental responsibility. The year 2002–03 saw school attendance at a record high, and 1,300 truants back at school each day.
    Mr. Djanogly: Despite £600 million of taxpayers' money having been spent on reducing truancy since 1997, secondary school truancy has shot up from 450,000 pupils in 1997 to 630,000 in 2003. Is that not another fine example of a Government who know how to spend very well, but how to manage very poorly?
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has read out very effectively the briefing from central office. I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that attendance in our schools is at a record high and that those who are truanting do so less frequently. There are other realities, however, including the fact that when we give more priority to the issue of attendance, heads are far less likely to authorise a level of attendance that they previously authorised. In this country, 50 per cent. of truancy takes place with the knowledge and collusion of parents. This Government are tackling that problem in a serious, fundamental and long-term way by reforming the curriculum so that it is more relevant to the needs of individual young people and by offering individual support to pupils and families who have genuine challenges and problems, but also by ensuring that there is enforcement where parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities. That is a long-term sustained strategy to tackle truancy in a serious way.
    Vera Baird: In addition to those very important truancy-specific measures to which my hon. Friend has just alluded, which are certainly having their impact in my constituency, is it not the case that children stay in school if they are interested in what is going on there? They need to value that experience, and our focus on and success in improving teaching, learning and skill leadership is also having a significant impact.
    Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend. That is central to raising school standards, to improving the leadership of schools and to having a positive ethos in e very school in every part of the country. We must hive a far more flexible curriculum to turn young people on to learning. The 14 to 16 flexibility programme has been a major success, and we are reducing the statutory core curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds from next September and introducing a new young apprenticeship. Central to the Tomlinson review on the future of 14 to 19 education is the need to ensure that we have pathways through the system for young people that motivate and inspire them, and do not differentiate between vocational and academic education. It is extremely important that we tackle not just the symptoms of truancy but their causes, by reforming the curriculum, tailoring education to suit the needs of every individual young person and ensuring that behaviour and discipline are central to our agenda of raising school standards.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Minister accept that the majority of the 1 million pupils who played truant last year were teenagers who voted with their feet because they were dissatisfied with the relevance to them of the education that they were receiving? Will he therefore take it from the Conservatives that we are genuinely willing, despite our differences on other educational matters, to work with him and Mike Tomlinson on providing a 14 to 19 curriculum that cat survive a change of Government and provide stability to teachers and others? Will he and his ministerial colleagues undertake to work with all parties in the House to ensure that we can do that constructively?
    Mr. Lewis: I strongly welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to trying to achieve consensus on a new 14 to 19 phase of education that will stand the test of time and represent the test interests of every single young person who accesses the education system in this country. Yes, of course we will work with members of other political parties and with people with expertise in this field. It was brave of the Government to set up the Tomlinson group, external from and independent of Government, to make credible, acceptable proposals so that we have, for the first time in this country, a 14 to 19 phase of education that inspires young people and also gets rid of this country's historic divide between academic and vocational education. That is central to ensuring that we do something about the fact that far too many young people in this country drop out at 17. That is the great challenge facing the English education system, and I would welcome a political consensus to address that.

    Construction Skills
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to improve skills in the construction sector. [181597]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We have set up a network of employer-led sector skills councils to work with the Government to meet the skill needs of their sectors, and Construction Skills—the sector skills council for construction—was licensed in September 2003. Construction has been designated as one of four priority sectors, and a new sector skills agreement will set out how the sector skills council and other partners will maintain and improve the sector's skills base.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he pay tribute to the excellent work being done in my constituency by West Anglia college, which, under the first-class leadership of its principal, Peter Stewart, is providing a very large number of construction skill places in East Anglia? Given the recent Learning and Skills Council survey, which revealed that skills shortages in construction could be running as high as 38 per cent., does the Minister agree that it is vital that trained and motivated plumbers and electricians be attracted into the further education sector as instructors and lecturers? To do so is obviously very difficult, given that they can earn so much in the private sector. What is the Minister going to do to address this situation, and how will he ensure that FE colleges can pay competitive salaries?
    Mr. Lewis: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the college in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am also proud to say that we have a record 255,000 young people participating in apprenticeships this year, which is a source of celebration but not complacency. Rebuilding vocational education is not just about aspiring to offer that route to young people; it is also about investing in the capital infrastructure, which is why the centres of vocational excellence are so important, and why specialist status is vital. It is also important that we recruit into our education system people with vocational skills—the trainers—who are able to transfer their expertise and knowledge to young people.
    This Government are proud of the fact that we have put a record level of investment into FE year on year in the past three years. We regard FE as absolutely central to providing a demand-led education and training system that will be able to respond to the needs of all sectors of our economy, and especially of crucial sectors such as construction.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I commend the Government on making construction a priority in the sector skills council. Perhaps the Minister will commend my local authority on its housing stock transfer initiative, which will ensure that the young people who are taken on are trained specifically in construction trades and skills to maintain that housing stock. Does he agree that there is no more important time to encourage
    426
    the development of such skills, given that we are witnessing the biggest ever investment in new building, such as housing, schools and hospitals?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. This Government's investment in capital infrastructure is absolutely central to the social and economic regeneration of the nation, but we also need to ensure that we have the necessary skills to meet the demand. One key issue is to ensure that the Government and the public sector meet their responsibilities in terms of the people whom they employ and the use of their procurement power. That is why, when the Government announce next week the progress that has been made one year on from the skills strategy, we will focus on the progress that we have made in meeting our responsibilities as a procurer of goods and services, and as an employer.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: The construction industry, as has already been made clear, faces a severe skills shortage, which has led to recruitment problems, higher operating costs, lost orders and delayed product development. While the construction industry is a core economic component, it is evident that across the economy, business is facing chronic skills shortages. To date, the Government have had little impact in this regard, and employers and colleges remain dislocated. The Learning and Skills Council is currently submerged in bureaucracy, and it provides inadequate, poorly structured and over-complex funding. When will the Government listen to real business and respond to its demand for greater focus on basic skills, more work-based training, and funding for learning, not just qualification—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.
    Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that the consensus has just come to a grinding halt. I am delighted, actually, because I am not too comfortable when there is consensus between the Government and the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the fact that a record number of young people are undertaking apprenticeships is a source of celebration. He should also recognise that this Government—through our key stage 3 strategy, our reform of 14 to 19 education and the new GCSEs in vocational subjects—are finally addressing the problem of young people being disengaged from education far too early.
    The hon. Gentleman should also welcome the fact that we are moving the education and training system from a supply-driven to a demand-led system. Instead of having the education and training world developing courses in one place and the needs of business and employers being somewhere else, we are bringing them together so we end up ensuring that the education and training system is able to respond to the skills gaps that employers tell us about.
    My final point is that the skills White Paper that we published last year was based on a year-long consultation with business in every region of the country. That is why business has welcomed it, because it responds to every single concern that business raised about the historical inadequacies of our training system.

    427
    I ask the hon. Gentleman to join the consensus that exists in this country regarding the development of a skills strategy.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to secure the financial viability of further education colleges. [181598]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): Funding allocated to the Learning and Skills Council for further education is set to increase by more than £1 billion over the three years to 2005–06. In 2003–04, the LSC increased colleges' unit of funding by 2 per cent. in real terms. Colleges that meet their targets will receive a further real-terms increase of 2.5 per cent. in 2004–05. The sector's success has created pressures on funding for this year and in recognition of that we have added £130 million extra to the LSC's budget.
    Mr. Prentice: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, but there seems to be a huge mismatch between what the Government are saying and the reality on the ground. I recently met the new principal of Nelson and Colne college of further education in Pendle and she gave me a briefing note listing 17 areas of concern where the financial viability of the college was being put in jeopardy by factors outside the college's control. I ask my right hon. Friend to look again not just at the Nelson and Colne college but at a raft of colleges across the north-west that are making it very clear that they cannot deliver the Government's agenda—they want to be able to—because the resources simply are not there.
    Alan Johnson: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I am perfectly willing to look into those 17 points. I would be very interested in seeing what I could do to help with those problems. We know that Nelson and Colne had a particular problem in failing to recruit the number of students that it expected. The whole sector—and everyone in the House—must accept that the Learning and Skills Council cannot provide funding for students who are not there. As I understand the position, this year—let alone last year, when there was a 2 per cent. real-terms increase&Nelson and Colne will receive a further 2.5 per cent. real-terms increase in funding. I accept that there are real issues which my hon. Friend is raising on behalf of his college and I am perfectly willing to look into them, but it should not detract from the overall record levels of funding that we are currently putting into further education.
    Chris Grayling: Of course the worry for the college is that, with the Government having provided an extra £130 million, it will find in due course that it is clawed back through lower grants. The Government have a track record of clawing money back when no one is looking. Can the Minister confirm that the extra £130 million is a new baseline figure for FE budgets for the spending review period, and can he guarantee that it will not be paid for in future by reducing the annual grants increases that colleges would otherwise have received?
    Alan Johnson: I would love to be in a position where we could do things when no one is looking, but that is what parliamentary scrutiny is meant to avoid. I can give the guarantee that the £130 million is not coming from the unit of funding. It is a very genuine attempt to resolve a very real problem raised with us by the Learning and Skills Council. I should like to put another point to the hon. Gentleman. I, too, welcome the consensus built up by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) in respect of 14-to-19 education, but education is so crucial that I am amazed that his party has given a guarantee to preserve funding for schools, while planning £18 billion worth of funding cuts, which is bound to hit further education. We will have a completely different dialogue, I think, if we ever get to the fairy tale of a future Conservative Government.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the most important colleges in north Derbyshire was a mining college, but the Tories clawed back all the jobs? The net result was that the college had to change its nature. What is happening now is a 5,000-job development at Markham and Bolsover, about two miles away from the old mining college. Will the Minister meet Derbyshire county council—part of the stakeholders in the new project, just off the Ml, junction 29A—to ensure that we get those jobs and all the facilities for training that will be needed? As we all know, some jobs are for life, but a lot of new jobs need constant re-training; and re-skilling.
    Alan Johnson: I can promise my hon. Friend that I will turn off the M1 at junction 29B, or wherever it is, on the way to Hull—
    Mr. Skinner: 29A.
    Alan Johnson: The famous junction 29A—it's just as well I checked. I shall indeed have the meeting that my hon. Friend has asked for, as it is crucial that we have the skills and training ready to deal with the increase in employment numbers to which he referred.

    Food Hygiene
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What his policy is on teaching food hygiene in schools. [181599]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): All primary pupils are taught food technology as part of the national curriculum. At key stage 3, the Government strongly encourage secondary schools to offer pupils the opportunity to study food technology, and 90 per cent. do so. Pupils team procedures for food safety and hygiene, which it includes safe food handling in the preparation, cooking and storage of food.
    Mr. Blizzard: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but food is one of the main ways by which infections and diseases are acquired and transmitted. Is it not vital that more is done, beyond the primary level, to ensure that all our children understand basic food hygiene, which there is not really much about in the national curriculum? I used to be a teacher, and I did not find that

    429
    children at secondary level were given much instruction in food hygiene. Will my hon. Friend have another look at this matter? I am worried that we are creating a time bomb, as fewer and fewer of today's children understand basic food hygiene.
    Mr. Twigg: I shall be happy to look at the matter again. As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a strong focus on personal hygiene in the primary school curriculum, but the focus in secondary schools is more on science teaching. As he is probably aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is leading on a cross-government project to publish a healthy living blueprint later this year. I undertake to ensure that concerns about food hygiene are central to that document.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: It has been my pleasure over the past few years to present food hygiene certificates to pupils at the Priory secondary school in my constituency. They are taught by one of the teachers, Christine Osbourne, in her spare time. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Christine Osbourne for giving up her time in that way? Will he encourage other schools and teachers to follow that example?
    Mr. Twigg: I am very happy to pay tribute to Christine Osbourne and the pupils at the Priory school, and to join my hon. Friend in congratulating them on their achievements. There are many other fine examples of teachers who go beyond the call of duty to offer similar instruction. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to congratulate them.

    Vocational Education
    Mr. David Amess: What recent meetings he has had with employers to discuss vocational education. [181600]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I regularly meet the CBI, the TUC and educationists to discuss skills and vocational education. Jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I chair the Skills Alliance, which brings those organisations together with the Small Business Service and the relevant Departments.
    Mr. Amess: That might be all well and good but, after more than seven long years of this wretched Government, surely the Secretary of State understands that we lag way behind other European countries, especially France and Germany, in the numbers of youngsters with apprenticeship; and vocational qualifications. The Government love setting targets: when will the Secretary of State set a target on this matter, and when would he expect to reach it?
    Mr. Clarke: I am delighted that consensus across the House is breaking out on this key question, as manifested by that contribution. The number of modern apprenticeships has tripled since this Government came to office and the Government the hon. Gentleman supported left office. We are widening apprenticeships across a variety of sectors of industry. The traditional areas are construction and engineering, but we are
    430
    making modern apprenticeships much more widely available. We are integrating them into the 14 to 16 age range, so that students can begin the work earlier, and we are also linking them into our foundation degrees as part of a coherent, positive and strong programme.
    However, I concede that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has a point. As I have said publicly on many occasions, we lag behind many of our competitor countries—not just France and Germany—in relation to stay-on rates at 16 plus. That is why we have the programme, why we have built consensus around it, and why we have targets to achieve it.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Reading borough council has applied for academy status for Thamesbridge college, in partnership with the local business community? The aim is to give the college, and its staff and students, a positive future, and to provide enhanced opportunities for vocational training to meet the needs of employers and the very successful local economy of Reading and the Thames valley.
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of that, and I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the subject and is supporting that initiative. It allows me to make the point that our exciting new schools programmes, whether for specialist schools or city academies, are path-breaking on the academic-vocational question, and recognise the need to invest and give students real choice about what they will focus on in their future lives.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If he will make a statement on plans to improve special needs education in England. [181601]
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): We published "Removing Barriers to Achievement", our strategy for special educational needs in England, on 11 February 2004. The strategy contains a programme of practical measures to promote early identification of children's special educational needs, boost early intervention to support those needs, improve coordination of services to children and their families, improve staff training and build strong collaboration between mainstream and special schools to share knowledge and expertise. Those measures will help to provide the opportunities and support for children with SEN to realise their potential.
    Mr. Wiggin: As there is a shortage of trained SEN professionals, does the Minister agree that what parents require for their children is more choice, whether they want to go for a special educational needs school or the mainstream?
    Margaret Hodge: I completely agree that parents should have choice, and that the facilities for children should meet the individual needs of each child—but if the Conservative party were to introduce a voucher worth £5,600, how would that help to pay for a child in a non-maintained special educational needs school, where the average cost is more than £41,000?
    Mr. David Cameron: Is the Minister aware that since I held my debate with the Minister for School Standards about the Government policy of inclusion, I have had letters from all over the country saying the same thing—that Government policy is being prayed in aid by educationists and accountants who are closing special schools in the name of inclusion? Will the Minister get her Department to investigate what is actually happening? Does she not agree that those of us who have very disabled children should not have to spend our time fighting to keep open the wonderful schools that do such a good job?
    Margaret Hodge: We are attempting to maintain choice for individual children and their families. Closure of special schools has not moved apace under this Government. There has been a small closure of special maintained schools, but it has taken place at about the same rate as under the Conservative Government, and there has been growth in the non-maintained special school sector. An increasing number of parents wish their children with disabilities or special educational needs to be educated in the mainstream sector. Where that is the choice of the parent and the child, we attempt to facilitate it. That provides both good special schools and good choice for people to have their children educated in the maintained mainstream sector, which is the underpinning drive of our policy for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
    Angela Watkinson: What measures does the Minister have in place to address the chronic under-provision of speech and language therapy for special needs pupils? The national professional body says that 780 speech and language therapy students graduate every year and enter the job market. What will she do to ensure that more of those graduates are attracted into special education, to ensure that the pupils there attain the communication skills that they need?
    Margaret Hodge: I agree that there is a shortage of speech and language therapists. Interestingly enough, because of our Sure Start programmes we are identifying the speech and language needs of children at a much earlier age. The answer is to train more people, and we are doing that. We will provide 6,500 more speech and language therapists and other health professionals in the schools sector by 2004, and we are training nearly 4,500 more therapists and key professional staff each year. I have also seen schools and Sure Start programmes which, through cascading some limited training to support staff in the schools or in the programmes, have built skills among other people in the staff cohort so that they too can help with the speech and language needs of young children.

    Mathematics Teachers
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: What plans he has to increase the number of qualified teachers teaching mathematics in secondary schools.
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): This Government have delivered an increase of about three quarters to the number of new entrants to maths teacher training in the past four years, and there are now one third fewer maths teacher vacancies than in 2001. The new measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 28 June will help schools to recruit and retain maths teachers, including through higher training bursaries, golden hellos for mathematicians, more maths places on the graduate teacher programme, and higher pay for advanced skills teachers.
    Mrs. Brooke: How will the Minister finance his proposals for higher salaries? I have specific concerns about the pressures on teachers in low-funded authorities such as Poole and Bournemouth in which schools are struggling to identify funds to implement the work load reduction scheme. Surely it is important to ensure that we haw good conditions for all teachers.
    Mr. Miliband: Obviously I agree that it is important that we have the right training, support and conditions for all teachers. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that the Government's determination through the advanced skills teacher scheme, for example, to pay the extra salary from the centre gets over the sort of troubles to which she refers. As we have 4,000 advanced skills teachers, the measure represents major support for the quality of teaching throughout the country.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Violent Crime Prosecutions
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on prosecution rates for violent crimes in North Yorkshire in (a) January 1997, (b) January 2000 and (c) January 2003. [181614]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): In January 1997, 59 defendants were prosecuted for violent crime in North Yorkshire magistrates court. In January 2000, the number was 77.
    Miss McIntosh: I understand that we do not have the figures for January 2003 in that case, but I thank the Solicitor-General for her answer. At Question Time last month, she hinted hat there was scope for greater cooperation between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in North Yorkshire to prosecute people for violent crimes, burglaries and other crimes after they had been detected. Will she elaborate on how she would like such further co-operation to develop?
    The Solicitor-General: That co-operation happens through the North Yorkshire criminal justice board, which is chaired by the chief Crown prosecutor for North Yorkshire, Rob Turnbull. There is a constant process in which the police, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, prison and probation services and

    433
    other agencies work together to ensure that the issues that the hon. Lady raises, which are of concern to her constituents and people more widely in North Yorkshire, are dealt with. I was interested to note the figures on the hon. Lady's area. I welcome the fact that the percentage of ineffective trials in the Crown and magistrates courts in her area is low. That shows that there are fewer adjournments than before, which means that offenders are brought to justice more swiftly.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Julie Morgan: What plans she has to include the Crown Prosecution Service in multi-agency working. [181615]
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service works with many different agencies including local police, local government, Victim Support and community groups.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the key role played by the Crown Prosecution Service in south Wales in the multidisciplinary Cardiff domestic violence forum and when working with the Cardiff won pen's safety unit, and that south Wales CPS was praised for its work on domestic violence in the recent inspectorate report? How does she think the CPS can become even more involved in inter-agency work?
    The Solicitor-General: I am glad to welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the role played by the Crown Prosecution Service, together with statutory and voluntary agencies in Cardiff, on tackling domestic violence. Of course, 25 per cent. of all reported violent crime represents domestic violence so the issue is by no means marginal. I am aware that there is scope for further work.
    Ms Meg Munn: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to consider the involvement of outside agencies in training Crown Prosecution Service staff? Having witnessed difficulties when lawyers did not appear to understand the complex issues involved, the participation of those agencies in cases involving sexual offences, child abuse and—as we have heard, domestic violence—would surely help us to make progress.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but we need a two-stage process. CPS lawyers are increasingly expert in difficult and challenging cases such as rape and the prosecution of cases of sexual offences against children, but they must be aware of the wider context in which those offences take place, and must work closely with local agencies. It is also important, however, that they take part in training staff from those agencies so that they, in turn, are aware of the way in which the criminal justice system works and can reassure victims that a prosecution team will work together to ensure that they get justice.

    Guantanamo Bay Detainees
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent discussions she has had with her counterparts in the United States concerning the fate of UK citizens held in Guantanamo bay. [81617]
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General last had discussions with his counterparts in the US about Guantanomo bay in February 2004. Following discussions with the US led by the Attorney-General, the UK Government concluded on the basis of his views that the US military commission process would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. The UK Government's position remains that the British detainees should either be tried fairly in accordance with international standards or be returned to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her reply. In a landmark decision, the American Supreme Court said that the detainees can challenge their detention without trial in Guantanamo bay in the United States courts. Will the British Government act on behalf of the four UK citizens and take their case to the American courts?
    The Solicitor-General: We are not yet aware whether or not any applications have been made on behalf of the British detainees. As for the US Supreme Court judgment, it was very recent and we are considering its implications.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? He is entirely right—unless the British Government rally round and give the detainees assistance in Supreme Court proceedings or elsewhere the relief will be fairly lame, so I hope that the Solicitor-General listens sympathetically to the hon. Gentleman.
    The Solicitor-General: The House has heard the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and those matters are all under active consideration. If there is something to be announced, it will be announced, but I cannot say anything other than that the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. John Burnett: But that is simply not good enough. So much time has elapsed, and those people have been unlawfully detained for an extremely long time. We want to know what action the Attorney-General will take. He made his views known last week in a speech at the Cour de Cassation, and was right to say:
    "Any restriction on fundamental rights must be imposed in accordance with the rule of law."
    He went on to criticise the proposed military tribunals at Guantanamo bay. Action is now called for, and we must know what he is doing. The House would also like to

    435
    know whether he believes that the detainees are entitled to damages for unlawful imprisonment compounded by a lack of fair representation and a fair trial.
    The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I can just step back, as I know the whole House appreciates the Attorney-General satisfying himself as to whether or not the way in which the US authorities plan to deal with the British citizens detained in Guantanamo bay accords with international law. It wanted him to make that decision impartially on the evidence in the case and give his advice clearly and straightforwardly. I am sure that it appreciates the fact that, as he formed the view that the proposals for dealing with the detainees did not comply with international law, attempts have been made to negotiate with the US authorities to persuade them to change the way in which they intend to deal with the detainees so that they are treated in accordance with international law. Progress was made and at least five detainees were released. I know that the whole House welcomes that.
    I know the House would also agree that pressure should continue to be exerted on the US authorities to try and resolve the position of the remaining four detainees and that we should remain clear about our position, which we have done. In the meantime, I know the House welcomes the fact that consular activity has ensured that close contact has been kept with the detainees. We try to maintain contact and support them.
    436
    At the end of the day, they are being held by the US authorities. We have said that we are not satisfied with that and we keep further action under review.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the Solicitor-General agree that in the context of a trial by a military tribunal, it ought to be possible for such a trial to take place in compliance with international standards, including independent representation, an independent element on the tribunal, proper procedure and a proper ability to assess evidence? Those standards are common to our common law jurisdiction and that of the United States. Have the US Government advanced any argument to explain why they cannot meet those minimum standards in the type of tribunal that they want to set up?
    The Solicitor-General: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have made it clear to the US authorities what we consider the international standards to be. They have net been prepared to accede to that. They have, however been prepared to suspend bringing the UK detainees before the military commission because of our strong representations to the effect that we did not consider them to be guaranteeing a fair trial in accordance with international law. There is no difference on that between any of us in the House. The Government and the Attorney-General have made their position clear, but at the end of the day we have to persuade the US authorities to return the detainees if they are unprepared as at present they appear to be, to afford them a fair trial according to international standards.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 JULY—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government Failure to Deliver Improved Postal Services", followed by a debate entitled "Personal Indebtedness and Savings". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 6 JULY—Motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions on the Finance Bill followed by progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day One). Followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 7 JuLY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day Two).
THURSDAY 8 JULY—Debate on le Intelligence and Security Committee annual report 2003–04 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 12 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments. As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on the comprehensive spending review.
TUESDAY 13 JULY—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 14 JULY—Remaining stages of the Patents Bill [Lords]. Followed by a debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 15 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments.
FRIDAY 16 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
May we have an urgent oral statement about the recent capture and denigration of our servicemen in Iran? Why was such an important issue dealt with only in a written statement?
Can we debate the draft Bill on regional assemblies before the recess so that the public can judge the proposals before the referendums?
Can we have a statement about new Government policy on mobile phone masts? The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and that of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) are both being blocked by the Government. My early-day motion 1231 calls for protection, as do those two Bills, to keep phone masts away from schools.
[That this House notes that on 31st March a petition from Sandra Cole and 1632 other residents of Royston, Hertfordshire was presented expressing their dismay at the decision of NTL to site a mobile phone mast in Stamford Avenue, Royston; expresses its concern that
438
NTL have so far ignored public opinion and actually erected the mast the day after the petition was presented; and calls on the Government to give more control over phone masts and antennae to local communities through planning procedures and local councillors to ensure that councillors are able to take account of the proximity of schools and the health fears of local residents.]
If the Leader of the House agrees with that, is he able to announce a Government change in the law? If not, how does he justify Labour's leaflet in the Birmingham, Hodge Hill by-election, which attacks the Liberal Democrat as a
"mobile phone mast spin doctor"
and states:
"We should do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools".
Why have not the Government done something about it then?
Continuing, if I may, with the election theme, when can we expect a statement, as promised yesterday by the Prime Minister, on the appointment of Electoral Commission observers for the two by-elections? The Birmingham Post today reports that a second election petition alleging postal ballot fraud against Labour councillors has been lodged in the High Court. It says:
"June 10 was a sad day for democracy in Birmingham."
Concern has been expressed in all communities, including in The Muslim News, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) has spoken out condemning the bribery and bullying involved in those elections. As I expect we will hear later today, and rightly so, Ministers are willing to condemn Robert Mugabe for not having election observers, so should they not be setting an example in these by-elections?
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill started in the other place and since it has come here the Government have tabled a series of late amendments on a real ragbag of other matters. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman explain to his colleagues in government that they should at least have some idea in advance of what they want to put in a Bill? Could he not make that a new Labour commandment? I think it may be the 12th, after "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's job."
Mr. Hain: I do not think that any Conservative Member will be coveting the Leader of the Opposition's job, given his dismal performance recently. [Interruption.] Coveting a job in an election when there was only one candidate—that is some coveting, is it not?
What has happened in Iran is serious. The Defence Secretary gave a written ministerial statement as soon as he could yesterday, quite properly, to the House.
Mr. Heald: He should have come here.
Mr. Hain: That is a regular bleat of Opposition Members. When the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are handling very sensitive relations with Iran, these things have to be managed carefully. The Defence Secretary's written ministerial statement made it absolutely clear that the practice and behaviour of the Iranians in this situation was intolerable.

439
As I have said before, the regional assemblies Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and published before the summer recess in a few weeks' time. The pre-legislative scrutiny will provide a full opportunity to go into all the Bill's details and establish any issues that Members wish to establish. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the Government's practice of providing pre-legislative scrutiny on an increasing scale so that precisely the debate that he is asking for can take place.
Local planning authorities already have powers to determine the suitability of sites for mobile phone base stations, and planning policy guidance on telecommunications is set out in the revised PPG8. The Government also strongly encourage telecoms operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions about the roll-out plans in each area, especially as they affect sensitive issues such as schools.
With regard to the request to the Prime Minister for election observers, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that what might or might not be going on in the Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election is in any way comparable with the systematic rigging, violence and intimidation for which Robert Mugabe has been responsible in elections? That is a ridiculous comparison. The Prime Minister will be responding to the Leader of the Opposition's request in due course, and I might add that if there were any irregularities, they would be under the traditional election system and nothing to do with the all-postal voting pilots that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have regularly attacked in past weeks.
If any improvements are needed to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill as a result of the scrutiny and debate in both Houses, it is important that the Government bring them forward in the form of amendments. But let us not lose sight of the fact that this is a very important Bill. It is one of the Government's flagship Bills in this Session. With a quarter of all violent crimes taking place in the home against women and two women dying every week from violent crime, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would applaud our attempts to get the law absolutely right.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the written ministerial statement, which appeared in Hansard on Tuesday, from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the proposed closure of massive numbers of benefit offices? The matter is so serious that it should be debated in Government time—an oral statement should have been made, but that can be put right. The written ministerial statement does not inspire confidence, because it discusses developments in the Child Support Agency and the Appeals Service, which is under pressure in many areas. The whole matter should be fully debated.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that my hon. Friend supports the Government's objective of serving all our constituents better by transferring resources and priorities to frontline services. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions also intends to follow the Government's policy of transferring jobs from over-congested, overheated
440
London and the south-east to the regions of England, Wales and Scotland. and those of us who represent such regions welcome that policy.
Mr. Paul Tyler: If, as expected, the Butler inquiry report is published on Wednesday 14 July, will the Prime Minister make a statement in the House that afternoon?
The Electoral Commission was mentioned earlier. Will the Leader of the House examine the possibility of a statement, or better still a debate, on its role and remit in the next couple of weeks, so that we are sure about its responsibilities and how it is accountable to Parliament?
On funding and democracy, did the Leader of the House read the report in The Times on 28 June that Mr. Paul Sykes is willing o spend all his —500 million fortune on seeking to manipulate public opinion and undermine the political process? Mr. Sykes may even be interested in seeking to deflect attention from the referendums on regional assemblies which were referred to a few moments ago, so the matter is urgent. In the report in The Times, the chair man of the Electoral Commission said that he is concerned about the intentions of the millionaire manipulators:
"That could distort the whole campaign. The legislation is flawed".
I hope that the Leader of the House will acknowledge that the issue is urgent.
Finally, the Defence Committee published an important report this morning. How quickly can we expect the Government to respond to it? The report raises important issues such as command, intelligence capabilities and equipment provision, which I have drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House before. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about equipment provision, particularly in relation to actions currently being undertaken by British troops in Iraq.
Mr. Hain: On the Butler inquiry, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for living me the opportunity to clarify matters. The Butler review press office aims to publish the review on Wednesday 14 July. The timing and exact arrangements for publication are a matter for it, and we will announce the parliamentary arrangements when it makes its position clear. Whenever the report is published, the Prime Minister will make a statement—there is no question about that, and he will be pleased to do so—and hon. Members will have a chance to debate the issue at an appropriate time.
The Electoral Commission's role and remit is set out on a statutory basis, and I see no need to revisit it—the Electoral Commission's work is important, and we will continue to monitor it. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) raised an important point about attempts to manipulate elections, especially on the European issue. In the end, the people of Britain will vote according to the national interest, which is to keep Britain at the heart of the European Union, and they will not be bribed by millionaire manipulators or persuaded by propaganda. The people of Britain will vote in the national interest, and the Government will put the case in the national interest.

441
On defence policy, we very much welcome the Defence Committee's report on the White Paper; as ever, it makes a valuable contribution to defence issues. We need to await the outcome of the spending review on 12 July and any statements that might follow. However, two annual defence debates are as yet unused in this Session.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the Leader of the House make a statement to clarify the position of MPs' re presentations and correspondence on behalf of their constituents in relation to the Data Protection Act 1998? Confusion and inconsistency still surrounds the question of whether constituents need to give written permission before a third-party body can respond to the MP. That obviously causes great inconvenience, because the constituent would not have contacted the MP in the first place if they did not want them to make that representation on their behalf. Can the position be clarified to ensure that that confusion in relation to third parties does not continue?
Mr. Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that matter, which goes to the heart o Members' rights in representing their constituents. As he will be aware, in response to such pressure the Government made a change—through an order that me into force on 17 December 2002—that removed the restrictions in the Data Protection Act 1998 on the disclosure of sensitive data to MPs and other elected representatives when they are dealing with constituents' cases. As a result, Members secured proper protection and enhanced rights.
Information that hospitals have about an individual's health is likely to be held in confidence—I suspect that that is where the issue has arisen in my hon. Friend's case—and disclosure to a third party is governed by the common law on confidence. However, the Department of Health has issued guidance to the effect that hospitals should accept an MP's word that they are acting on behalf of their constituent; that means that the necessary information can be disclosed and the case can be processed in the normal way. The message should go out loud and clear that every hospital and every trust is obliged to treat MPs' representations in the proper way and should not try to impose any bureaucratic obstacles.
Sir George Young: Reverting to the question about the Butler report, will the Leader of the House set out next Thursday the detailed arrangements for publication; and can he confirm that the debate to which he referred will take place before the House rises?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly try to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's first request, which is very reasonable. It is an independent report and, as with the Hutton report, we are reliant on Lord Butler and his team to make the arrangements that they deem appropriate, with which we will fit in. I will certainly give details next Thursday if I am able.
We will try to have a debate as soon as possible, because it is in the House's interests to do so. I note, however—I do not know whether it will happen on this
442
occasion—that the clamour for a debate on the Hutton report before its publication was followed by a rather subdued whimper afterwards. Relative to the massive series of attacks and allegations that took place before the debate, virtually no serious interest was expressed subsequently.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention back to the proposed loss of tens of thousands of civil servants' jobs? If 550 out of 650 local benefits offices close, they will not be in London, but in Leeds, Liverpool, York and possibly Halifax. In view of the devastating effect that that will have on employees, who will almost certainly be made compulsorily redundant, and the effects on our constituents as vital services are lost, can we have a full, at least one-day debate in Government time before the recess?
Mr. Hain: I reassure my hon. Friend that, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) a moment ago, the intention of this whole exercise is to devolve more resources and front-line opportunities to staff in the Department for Work and Pensions, including in benefits agencies, precisely to provide the face-to-face contact and assistance that our constituents need. It is simply not the case that wholesale benefits agency closures are planned. No decision has yet been made on the precise configuration. Full consultation is occurring and will continue to occur with the trade unions. I assure my hon. Friend that the intention is to enhance local provision and use new technology and efficiency measures to switch priorities from backroom operations.
Mrs. Angela Browning: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the House next week, will the Leader of the House ask him to incorporate in his statement details of how he will manage the United Kingdom's economy in future when there is an European Union constitution? When the Prime Minister made a statement on 21 June, I asked him what voting method would be used for coordinating EU economic policy. He replied that the treaty made it clear that member states determined their economic policy, but he did not specify the voting method. A few moments later, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) repeated the question but he still would not specify the voting method and I therefore tabled a written question. The Prime Minister referred it to the Minister for Europe, who replied by citing article 1.11(3) of the draft constitutional treaty, which states that part III determines the arrangements. I have studied part III, which clearly states that, because the voting method is not specified, the default applies as per article 1.22(3), thereby making proposals subject to qualified majority voting.
Now that economic policy in this country will be determined by QMV by other countries, perhaps the Chancellor will explain whether he is happy with that arrangement.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady and her colleagues have an obsession with attempting to show that the new draft constitutional treaty is a threat to Britain's interests

443
when the rest of the European Union views it as a triumph for Britain and our negotiators. Only the Conservatives and their allies in the media and elsewhere cannot recognise that.
On tax and the central economic decisions that the Chancellor makes, this Government are the sovereign body. On co-ordinating economic policy, we have been responsible for driving forward an agenda for economic reform in Europe that was determined at the Lisbon summit some years ago. It included liberalisation of energy policy, so that our companies, which were previously denied the opportunity to get into markets such as France and Germany when their companies had access to ours, were given free access on a level playing field under single market rules. That is co-ordination of economic policy. Such matters are normally decided by unanimity at the European Council. All decisions at that level are made by unanimity.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We read in the newspapers about the likely huge expansion in city technology colleges. The Times cited 500 and there have been other estimates of 200. Will the Secretary of State for Education and Skills make a statement about that next week? May I encourage my right hon. Friend to schedule a full day's debate on that major policy announcement?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend must be referring to press reports about city academies, not city technology colleges. When the Secretary of State for Education and Skills comes to the House to report on his five-year departmental plan, my hon. Friend will appreciate the huge focus of resources on inner-city areas where youngsters have been denied the opportunity for far too long to benefit from educational advance. The academies are designed to assist them. Where they have been established, they have an excellent record of improving standards and opportunities. Throughout the country, we are providing improved opportunities, choice, standards and outcomes. When the Secretary of State makes his statement, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the programme is exciting and radical, and designed to raise standards for people from all backgrounds, not only those at the top of the income bracket.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has already mentioned the lack of concern of Liberals in Birmingham, Hodge Hill about an important matter to many people who live in the Birmingham area—the siting of mobile phone masts. Will the Leader of the House consider a more general debate on mobile phone safety issues, following the jailing last week of a Sutton Coldfield man for grooming a 13-year-old girl through text messaging? A massive growth in mobile phone sales, especially to youngsters, has occurred. The industry should help parents and children to promote the best possible safety practices in the use of mobile phones. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously
444
consider holding a debate on the matter so that hon. Members of all parties can stress to the industry the importance of promoting children's safety?
Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work in bringing to the House's attention the important issue of the use of mobile phones and the text messaging system to groom vulnerable youngsters. I hope that he continues to campaign on the matter. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is aware of his anxieties. He has tabled many questions on the matter and he can be satisfied that the Government take it seriously. I hope that mobile phone operators will take it much more seriously—that is partly the cause that he is prosecuting.
I am intrigued by the way in which Conservative Members are desperately trying to fight the Liberal Democrats for second place in the Hodge Hill by-election. Both parties are trading propaganda and attacks on the Floor. Long may that continue.
Andrew Mackinlay: May I draw the attention of the Lender of the House to the list of Standing Committees on page 2070 of the Order Paper? Will he consider—and perhaps hold discussions through the usual channels and with Departments—whether longer notice of delegated legislation Committees can be given? That would improve deliberations because it would allow people to volunteer to the Whips to serve on Committees. The current position means that Whips, including my hon. Friend the mute hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), have to muster Back Benchers to serve on Committees in which they are not especially interested when other Committees in which they have a specific interest could be meeting simultaneously. Fore example, I am interested in landfill tax but horse passport its do not exercise me, although some hon. Members consider them to be important. Cannot we have square pegs in square holes and get Departments to give longer notice so that hon. Members of all parties could volunteer to serve on Committees? That would lead to meaningful deliberations rather than hon. Members doing their correspondence in Committee.
Mr. Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) is not mute in his constituency but a strong voice for his people.
Andrew Mackinlay: He cannot answer me back.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, he cannot answer back so I shall attempt to do it for him. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made an interesting point. He is a doughty defender of parliamentary rights and I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The Welsh Grand Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee have met outside the House. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be no reason why the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which will probably hold its last meeting of the Session next Thursday, cannot meet in Northern Ireland? It has

445
never met there but there should be no impediment to that happening. Is it necessary for me, as a Whip of my party, to table a motion to get a democratic decision that will make it possible to meet in Northern Ireland? Or will one party, which seldom participates in the Grand Committee, be permitted for ever o prevent that from happening?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in the case of the Welsh Grand Committee, which met outside the House—and, indeed, in Wales —several times, an Order was required to effect that. If he wants to pursue the matter, he would have to persuade the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the usual channels that meeting in Northern Ireland would be a sensible thing for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to do. I suggest that he raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Shona Mclsaac: People seem to be putting in bids for debates before the recess, so I shall make mine for the reintroduction of a Bill to ban hunting with dogs. We are getting perilously close to the recess and we have other important matters to discuss. I therefore suggest reintroducing the Bill shortly and considering all stages in one day. When does my right hon. Friend expect to make such an announcement?
Mr. Hain: I will make an announcement when I am ready to do so. There are two more business statements before the recess; we shall see what transpires.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I suggest to the Leader of the House that we have an early debate on the timetabling of business and, in particular, of Bills? He has been in the House a long time, as have I, and he will know that this Session has been pretty light. We have sometimes had early nights, and the debates have often been on subjects that were not particularly pressing, yet it remains a fact that many clauses of many important Bills went wholly undiscussed because of the timetable. That is quite wrong, and the House needs to look at the matter again. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Hain: Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's long experience in the House, I think that he will agree—as will others with longer experience than me—that, in the past, not every clause was always discussed, even before programming came in. On the contrary, I remember some Standing Committees in which, owing to all sorts of Opposition manoeuvres—some by our party, some by others—or to agreements with the usual channels, we would spend a ridiculous amount of time on one clause or another, then race past others. This has always been the case; it is not particularly down to the programming system or the timetabling consequences of it.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's wider point, one of the reasons this happens is that the House of Lords is a law unto itself. It has no proper procedures, and is in many respects anarchic in the way in which it conducts its business. It is very difficult for business managers to plan for the return of Bills from the Lords
446
for further consideration. That is why I have just announced a whole series of days for further consideration of Lords amendments.
David Winnick: Bearing in mind what the Solicitor-General said, which my right hon. Friend was listening to, would it be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week on the UK citizens in Guantanamo? So far, I have not heard a single Member of Parliament on either side of the House approve of what the United States is doing at the moment. Is it not necessary for the voice of Parliament to be heard very strongly? Whatever criticism there may be about those being detained without charge in Britain on suspicion of involvement in terrorism, they are certainly not being treated in the same way as those in Guantanamo. I saw for myself, with one or two colleagues, that whatever the situation at Belmarsh may be and however concerned those people are that they should not remain in prison, their conditions are very different indeed.
Mr. Hain: I have to agree with my hon. Friend. We are continuing to work to resolve the situation of the four British detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and discussions with the United States Government continue.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Leader of the House will be aware of concerns in my constituency and throughout the country about the health implications of Tetra masts. Can we have a full debate in Government time to consider in detail all the research and evidence, and to address the issue of imposing a moratorium on new Tetra masts being put up until the research into their health implications has been fully carried out and reported?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the health implications of these masts are very important and they are continuously borne in mind by the Government. We are monitoring the situation, and we draw on such fresh research as is available, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend may have seen the report in The Times today that the Department of Health is planning to abolish the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Even if that report is not accurate, clarification is now needed. Given the difficult but ultimately positive work that was put into creating the replacement system for community health councils over many years, will my right hon. Friend secure a debate on this matter so that Government policy can be clarified, and so that we may discuss how the interests of patients and the public in the national health service may be best served, and how patients forums may continue to be supported?
Mr. Hain: I can assure my hon. Friend that those reports are purely speculative. The Department's review of its arm's-length bodies is due to report later this month, and no decisions have yet been taken on this matter. The Government remain committed to giving

447
patients a strong voice, and to giving the public a stronger voice in the patient-centred national health service which is being driven forward day by day.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: On 18 June, the Environment Agency's consultation exercise on its proposals to amend the substitute fuels protocol closed. Many right hon. and hon. Members with constituency interests in the matter were not consulted, however. Will the Leader of the House approach his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that an investigation can be carried out into that consultation exercise? Will he also encourage his right hon. Friend to arrange for a debate in the House so that this important issue can be properly aired? Will he also note the increasing calls for a full public inquiry into the burning of recycled liquid fuel in cement and lime kilns?
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State will have noted the hon. Gentleman's points with some concern and interest. Obviously, I do not know the details, but on the account that he has given me, I would say that it is important that MPs are consulted on all these matters—or given the opportunity to be consulted, at any rate.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are 28 strategic health authorities in England, each of which has a different way of demarcating the gap between personal care and nursing care. Does he agree that it is desirable for the House to debate this issue, with a view to influencing the Department of Health so that the system can be clarified, and so that those of our citizens, both young and old, in the most tragic of circumstances, will not have to go to law to get the support that they need for their condition?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a sensitive area, and it has been a difficult one to manage for a very long time. The Secretary of State for Health is very exercised about it and is working continuously with other Government colleagues, local authorities and the health service generally to improve the situation. I know that he will take careful note of my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Can we have a debate on the performance of the Highways Agency? The Leader of the House will be aware of the terrible accident that took place in my constituency, because I drew it to the attention of the Prime Minister. In his reply to me, however, the Prime Minister failed to mention that the Highways Agency had taken more than two years to report on the A49. That is two years too late for the people who lost their lives in that accident.
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State for Transport will obviously take careful note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is obviously an important constituency matter for him and for the people who were tragically involved in that accident. I know that my right hon. Friend will want to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate as soon as possible on the findings of the Clywch inquiry, which came out in Wales at 12 o'clock today? Does he agree that this has been an important inquiry that will have far-reaching consequences, and that it shows the value of having a Children's Commissioner in Wales?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree that this shows the value of having a Children's Commissioner in Wales. Indeed, as a result of that pioneering step, the principle is being spread into England as well. The Children's Commissioner has made 31 important recommendations as a result of the dreadful case of child abuse at Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen, a school in south Wales, involving the appalling behaviour of John Owen, a drama teacher who was really a serial sexual pervert who indulged in repulsive and horrific abuse over an extended period. What was awful about the case was not only the suffering of the children concerned but the way in which those involved in the school and the wider educational establishment pretty well turned a blind eye to all the protests and complaints that were made. This is a very valuable, if disturbing, report to read, as I found out when I did so.
Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the genuine concerns expressed by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, and other trade unions representing workers in the construction industry. There are about 80 untimely and unnecessary deaths in the construction industry each year, and that is forecast to increase with the increase in the number of migrant workers who can neither speak nor understand English coming into the industry. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate on this issue? Thankfully, we do not have the same number of fatalities in the police or fire services or in the armed forces. If we did, there would be calls from Members and from our friends in the press and the media for immediate action. In my view, a life is a life, regardless of where we work.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a life is a life. That is why the Government are committed to improving health and safety at work, including on construction sites. I applaud the work that UCATT, the builder workers' union to which he referred, does in highlighting this problem. We will continue to work with it to try to solve it.
John McDonnell: May I ask the Leader of the House to bring forward a draft protocol or indicative guidelines for his colleagues on what would constitute the requirement for a written statement, an oral statement or a full debate? To use the example of the statement by the Department for Work and Pensions this week, he has told us that the important statement means that there will not be service cuts, job cuts or closures of jobcentres or advice centres. In fact, the written statement says that there will be 550 centre closures, and that there will be job cuts, because that is part of the Chancellor's 40,000 job cuts. He has also informed us today that there have been trade union consultations, yet we met the trade unions yesterday, and there have been no consultations. All this confusion

449
could have been clarified had there been an oral statement from a Minister who would have been able to respond to questions. Will he consider this matter urgently?
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State will have listened to and noted carefully my hon. Friend's points. He has continued properly to make represe nations on behalf of the unions and workers involved. I am sure that he will welcome this in two respects: first, we are devolving these jobs to the regions of England, out of the southeast and the London area, where jobs and job opportunities are more plentiful; and secondly, those jobs are going to the front line.
In respect of written statements and oral statements, we have adopted written statements, as everyone is aware, instead of planted questions, which was the tradition of previous Governments That is much more transparent, up front and clear. Obviously, the balance between written and oral statements is a matter for the Secretary of State to judge initially. Of course, if Members have any complaints, they are entitled to apply to the Speaker for an urgent question in the normal way.
David Cairns: My private Member's Bill, which would afford compensation to those people who have their gas or electricity supply switched against their will and without their consent, is unlikely to become law because of pressure on parliamentary time. In the absence of further legislation on this matter, can the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will continue to take a dim view of those utility companies that send door-to-door salespeople around the streets of our constituencies, hoodwinking elderly and vulnerable people into switching their gas and electricity supply, and getting away scot-free?
Mr. Hain: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to remind us that the practice continues whereby high-pressure salesmen are going around, preying particularly on elderly and vulnerable citizens, and seeking to bamboozle them with an offer that often turns out in practice not to have been as
450
advantageous as the one that they were getting. We must make sure that that is stopped. The Secretary of State will have carefully noted his comments.
Mr. Clive Betts: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I thank my right hon. Friend? Last week, at business questions, I drew to his attention the fact that the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber was holding up a major inward investment in my constituency. On Tuesday, just a few days later, there was an announcement that that obstruction had been removed, and that there will now be a £100 million investment by Polestar, creating 1,000 jobs. I thank him for any influence that he brought to bear.
Can we therefore have a debate on another success story? In March this year, in Sheffield, fewer than 10 people were waiting more than nine months for an operation. The target is that by the end of next year, no one will be waiting longer than six months for an operation. By comparison, only a few years ago, people used to come to my surgery complaining that they were waiting two years and longer, particularly for orthopaedic operations. It would be good to have a debate on that important subject, and I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House is not at the forefront of those who are asking for it.
Mr. Hain: It is interesting, as my hon. Friend points out, that that is not one of the Opposition day debates. The Government's policy of bringing waiting times down progressively to 18 weeks over the next few years is very exciting and is giving massive opportunity to patients and those in need of health services. In respect of his constituency matter, his experience over the last week is a great advertisement for the value of business questions, and for the power of Back Benchers to ask business questions and to change practice and policy, almost miraculously, within days.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Gender Recognition Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

Mersey Tunnels Act 2004

Ipswich Market Act 2004

ROYAL ASSENT

  Zimbabwe
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  [Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 339, on Zimbabwe, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5869.]
  1.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): It is the great misfortune of the people of Zimbabwe that Robert Mugabe's regime has no regard for human rights, the rule of law, or the responsibility of government to provide competent economic management. A comparatively prosperous country has been plunged into poverty by the recklessness of its ruling party. Members of the Zimbabwean opposition have been subjected to persistent violence and intimidation. And on the country's farms, regime thugs have subjected owners and workers, the great majority black, but also white, to a campaign of terror. Throughout, the Government of Zimbabwe have acted in defiance of the international community and have used every device to present problems of their own making as the fault of the former colonial power, the United Kingdom. Let me start by briefly recalling the context.
  As the House is aware, the Lancaster house conference in 1979 brought independence to Zimbabwe after a long and bloody conflict. One of the main issues at Lancaster house was land reform, and the agreement set out a clear pathway, based on justice and the rule of law, for land ownership in Zimbabwe to be extended. The British Government at the time made it clear that no one donor, including the UK. could pay for the entirety of such a process, but they did commit £47 million to land reform over the following years. It is a mark of the Zimbabwean Government's failure over that period that they handed back£3 million of that £47 million, because they had insufficient projects on which to spend it—a sign that until the late 1990s, the process, whose pace was dictated by the Zimbabwean Government, had been progressing at a relatively modest pace and with a low political priority. This coincided with years of growing prosperity for Zimbabwe.
  The idea that this was some kind of golden age for Mugabe's Zimbabwe is false, however. His brutality and desire to stifle opposition by any available means was also increasingly clear. During the 1980s, some 20,000 people were massacred by North Korean-trained soldiers in Matabeleland—atrocities that went largely unremarked by the British Government of the day. Those massacres were only ended when the ZAPU party of Joshua Nkomo was subsumed within Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF, beginning a virtual one-party state in Zimbabwe, which lasted for some 10 years.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Foreign Secretary is perfectly correct to place it on record that the British Government of the time did not make the protest that they should have done. But will he also put it on record that nor did the Opposition at the time?
  Mr. Straw: We have looked through Hansard, and the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but it was
  452
  the Government who had the responsibility—I am sure that a point will be made back to me in a moment. There were Adjournment debates about the massacres in Matabeleland, and the response was remarkably muted, not least because of the reassuring words that the House were offered. Speaking in 2002, Lord Howe said of that period that it was
  "a difficult situation for Mr. Mugabe to handle."
  At the time, in response to a debate initiated, I think, by a Labour Opposition Member, the then Minister of State in the Foreign Office, Malcolm Rifkind, said:
  "We recognise that the Zimbabwe authorities face a security problem in Matabeleland."—[Official Report, 25 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 606.]
  Perhaps they had faced a security problem there, but massacring 20,000 people is no response to a security problem in any civilised country.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way"?
  Mr. Straw: I should like to make a little progress.
  Serious opposition to Mugabe's rule emerged again in the late 1990s with the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai. The M DC's influence became clear in 2000, when a referendum on constitutional changes saw ZANU-PF's first-ever defeat in a popular poll. This time Robert Mugabe responded to opposition to his rule by seizing on the issue of land reform, breaking away from the pathway based on the rule of law which had been agreed at Lancaster house— by him—and beginning a policy of violent appropriation.
  So great was international concern at this that President Mugabe reluctantly agreed that his Foreign Minister, Stanislaus Mudenge, would meet a delegation of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Abuja in September 2001, under the aegis of President Obasanjo of Nigeria. I attended that meeting on behalf of the United Kingdom. After some very tough negotiations, we agreed a deal—between the six Commonwealth Ministers and the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister—to end the crisis. The text is available. The deal was that the international community would provide further money for land reform in exchange for a return to the rule of law in Zimbabwe. I, as it were, put a cheque from the British Government on the table.
  Mugabe, however, quickly reneged on the agreement, not least because international focus was rapidly moving elsewhere following the atrocities of 11 September, five days later, in New York and Washington. The farm invasions and human rights abuses that had preceded the Abuja meeting were swiftly resumed, and the abuses continue today. They form part of a wider picture of disastrous policies in Zimbabwe, which have brought economic ruin on a once prospering country: a man-made tragedy which Zimbabwe could and should have avoided.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for not giving way earlier, because what he has said strengthens my point.
  Not many Labour Members are now happy to defend the Government's stance on Iraq in public, although I am one. One of the points that is always thrown at us at

  453
  public meetings is that the Government were resolute in Iraq but lack that resolution in Zimbabwe. What are we going to do, apart from organising protests, to stop the genocide that is unfolding before us?
  Mr. Straw: I am deeply grateful for my right hon. Friend's support on Iraq, although I must add that he is in good and wide company. [Interruption] Yes, and deep. I shall offer him some counsel after the debate.
  What my right hon. Friend is displaying is, of course, frustration. But although what is going on in Zimbabwe is appalling, the present situation—in terms of human rights—is not as terrible as that of he mid-1980s, when the then Government sat on their hands. Nor is it as terrible as what happened under Saddam's regime, over 35 years, on any scale. We should be clear about that. We have not been able to do everything—and I shall
  deal specifically with what my right hon. Friend has in mind—but that does not mean that we have not been able to do anything.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Rather than making a comparison with Iraq, will my right hon. Friend consider western Darfur, where the international community has been extremely effective—hopefully, at least—in putting pressure on the Sudanese Government to deal with their humanitarian problems, to give the people protection and food, and to allow aid to go in while the political situation is being resolved?
  Mr. Straw: As I shall explain, we have done a huge amount to build up international consensus. There are limits to that, but if we had not worked by engaging fully with the European Union and the Commonwealth we would have been able to do far less, however loud our protests. I might add that one of the reasons why the full extent of Mugabe's economic policies is disguised is the extent, and relative efficiency, of the food aid that we are providing. That has not been the case in respect of western Darfur.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way once more; then I must make some progress.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Foreign Secretary rightly mentioned the massacre in Matabeleland in 1983. Some Conservative Members made representations to the Government, not least by tabling questions. I deeply regret the fact that the Government of the day did not act to deal with what was clearly happening, for whatever reason—in my view, a lack of moral principle. Will the Foreign Secretary now announce that additional action will be taken to help the poor people of Zimbabwe?
  Mr. Straw: I will set out the action that we are already taking, but I have no announcement to make about additional action. The action that we have taken was dependent not on a debate, but on a clear analysis.
  The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that he has been consistent in his representations about what has happened in Zimbabwe. Indeed, I have before me a
  454
  question he put to the then Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, on 22 February 1984. He asked a fine question; I am afraid he received a dead bat of an answer.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress. I may be able to take an intervention later.
  Let me spell out the facts. Three quarters of the Zimbabwean population are now living below the poverty line. Some 7 million people have required food aid in recent seasons, in a country which only a few years ago exported food to its neighbours. But despite the evidence of another humanitarian crisis in prospect for this year, the Government of Zimbabwe claim that international food aid will not be needed. That decision not to ask for assistance will make it difficult for donors to deliver an effective international response if and when food aid is in fact required.
  Alongside his disastrous policies, Mugabe's ZANUPF party continues to suppress all opposition to his rule. Both print and broadcast media in Zimbabwe are now virtually a Government-controlled monopoly. The judgment in the trial of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai has still not been handed down, although the trial itself concluded months ago.
  The Zimbabwean authorities also continue to devise new powers to stamp out legitimate opposition, such as detention for up to a month without trial, which could be used to suppress dissent and protest. According to a report issued by a South African-based non-governmental organisation last March, 90 per cent. of opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subjected to human rights violations since 2000: 16 per cent. have been tortured, 24 per cent. say that they have suffered assassination attempts, and three have died as a result of assaults.
  Mr. Gibb: In March this year, the Prime Minister made an important speech on global terror in which he, in effect, announced a new doctrine of intervention in cases in which states
  "oppress and brutalise their people",
  which he rightly saw as a future source of international terror. That was an impressive and important speech, but I am unclear about how the new doctrine applies to countries such as Zimbabwe, particularly in view of other international commitments in respect of our troops.
  Mr. Straw: I shall go through the things we have done, and the things we are not going to do, in a moment. If we are to deal with the Zimbabwe issue, however, we must avoid doing what Robert Mugabe wants most, and making this a bilateral dispute between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. That is at the heart of Mugabe's strategy.
  Of course the purpose of debates in the House of Commons is to ensure that Ministers are accountable and doing what the House wants, and there should be proper debate. But I urge those who feel that we have not done enough—I believe that we have done all we could reasonably do, and more—to think about the

  455
  implications of suggesting that there are things we could do that would not work, and would have exactly the effect that Mugabe seeks.
  I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has made the same point—that because of our policy of having had to carry out armed intervention in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the example he used, Kosovo, we should consider the notion of what amounts to armed intervention in respect of Zimbabwe. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to make it clear when they speak what they are asking for. We need to know whether armed intervention is on their agenda—that is fundamental to our having an effective debate. If they are not calling for armed intervention, the Opposition must accept that they are trying to score some points on this issue without having a clear strategy.
  I recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes put to me a series of points on Zimbabwe, saying that we ought to follow the example of Kosovo. After he had made those points, I wrote to him to ask whether he was proposing that the United Kingdom take military action against Zimbabwe. He wrote back to me to say that no, he had never suggested that. If that is the case, what on earth was the point of raising the example of Kosovo? The difference between Kosovo and Zimbabwe is that in Kosovo we contemplated and took action, whereas we are not contemplating taking military action in Zimbabwe, nor do we have any intention of so doing.
  Donald Anderson: Is not the danger of what the Opposition are saying that unrealistic expectations will be raised? There is no chance of any neighbouring country providing bases, and that is apart from the point that my right hon. Friend makes about this situation being construed as a bilateral dispute. Will he also confirm that there is no realistic prospect of the matter even reaching the agenda of the United Nations Security Council because of African opposition?
  Mr. Straw: Indeed, and I shall come on to that, but first it is worth my recording some of the points that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes made. In August 2002, he asked what the difference was between ethnic cleansing and state torture in Kosovo and Zimbabwe, and why the Government had been so keen to act in Kosovo and yet were so inactive on Zimbabwe. Given that we have done a great deal in respect of Zimbabwe apart from military action, the clear implication of that question was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was proposing military action in Zimbabwe. On 1 April last year, he said again:
  "We acted in Kosovo because of unacceptable floutings of human rights … The oppressed and persecuted people of Zimbabwe … see nothing post-colonial in asking us to intervene; rather, they see it as a moral obligation".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 209WH.]
  I have to say, however, that I have received no invitations from anyone in Zimbabwe, least of all the Movement for Democratic Change, for us to take military action.
  456
  In February, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we had to look at all the options. When I finally pinned him down, he said that he had not called for military action in Zimbabwe. Just to pick up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was raising, what on earth could the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes have been calling for if he was raising the Kosovo example except military action, given that the difference between the treatment of Zimbabwe and Kosovo was military action?
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, but it is quite obvious that he has so little to say about what the Government are going to do in Zimbabwe that he is fabricating a case to which he can then try to provide an answer. May I make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of occasions, that I have never suggested military intervention in Zimbabwe? I ask the right hon. Gentleman again this simple question, which is an important one in to ms of human rights: what is the difference between ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe?
  Mr. Straw: Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that where there is ethnic cleansing, there is ethnic cleansing. The really serious ethnic cleansing—given that he wishes to lower this debate to a partisan knockabout—took place when he was supporting a Conservative Government in 1985, when 20,000 died in what was plain ethnic cleansing. The then Government, far from taking military action against the Mugabe regime, applauded it and said, "Oh well, they've got a bit of a security problem."
  I shall just run through what we have done in respect of Zimbabwe, which might assist my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others. We have kept thousands of Zimbabweans alive by providing food and other humanitarian help. We are the biggest cash donor of all and have spent £67 million on humanitarian and food aid since 2001. We have helped Zimbabwe's many AIDS victims, and our programme to help those suffering and those left behind has involved expenditure of £26.5 million so far. There are more than 700,000 AIDS orphans in Zimbabwe. We are actively supporting those working for peaceful change in Zimbabwe: lawyers, trade unionists, civil rights activists, the free media and Members of Parliament. We have given asylum to those persecuted by Mugabe and allowed others at risk to remain in the United Kingdom for now. At the same time, we have borne down hard on illegal immigration with the introduction of a visa regime. We have helped the large community in Zimbabwe with ties to the United Kingdom by maintaining a full embassy and consular service to them.
  In terms of international action, we have hit Mugabe where it hurts through a travel ban and asset freeze on him and his henchmen. We know that they hate the ignominy and inconvenience that that brings them. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and others who have raised this point that we have been in the lead on sanctions against Zimbabwe. They were only going to be effective if we had international consensus. We could easily have put sanctions on Zimbabwe's political elite ourselves, but that would

  457
  have raised the question, "Well, so what?" If those people had then been able to travel to every other country in the European Union and to the United States, and had suffered no opprobrium from the Commonwealth, it would have been we who were mocked, not Mugabe.
  However, the effect of our engagement in the European Union, and of a great deal of effort, has been that we have got the other countries of the EU—initially 15 and now 25—many of whom know very little about Zimbabwe, and for whom it is not a particular issue because they have no history with it, to accept our case for sanctions against the Zimbabwe elite, in the face of quite strong African lobbying. I got those sanctions introduced in 2002, at a time when relations with Germany and France were difficult, and we got them tightened last year and extended this year. We have also persuaded the United States to introduce a similar embargo—
  Mr. Richard Spring: The right hon. Gentleman persuaded the United States?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, we did. We worked very hard with the United States, and I work very hard with Secretary Powell, to achieve that. Alongside that, we managed to get the Commonwealth to take tough action on Zimbabwe, which led initially to its suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth because it had failed to run its elections properly. Then, because of a further, tough decision in November 2003 by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, led courageously by President Obasanjo of Nigeria, the Zimbabweans decided to pull out of the Commonwealth altogether rather than continue to accept sanctions.
  In addition, we have established an arms embargo in respect of Zimbabwe, again throughout the European Union. That would have been easy for us to do, but ineffective. However, it is effective with 15—and now 25—European Union members, and it is hobbling the Zimbabwean military where it hurts.
  Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the sanctions that have been applied to some people to restrict their travel. When hon. Members from both sides of this House met some Zimbabwean opposition members, they asked us for a modest extension of the list of such people. Is my right hon. Friend saying that he just does not command the support among our European colleagues to achieve a modest extension to the list of people to whom thy travel restrictions should apply?
  Mr. Straw: We are always open to proposals. We obtained quite a substantial extension this year when the sanctions came up for renewal, and we would be happy to consider any future suggestions from my right hon. Friend.
  Kate Hoey: Is my right hon. Friend saying that on no occasion would this country feel that, as a country with a particular historical relationship with Zimbabwe, we could go a little further than the European Union? I am thinking particularly of the Ministers in the Mugabe Government whose children
  458
  are being educated privately in this country, while the children of the vast majority of Zimbabweans cannot even get to schools because Mugabe has closed them.
  Mr. Straw: I am not saying that there would be no such occasion. We go further than our European Union colleagues in many ways, and we are always open to proposals for extending bans, although it happens that the legal base for bans is different depending on whether we are acting bilaterally or through the European Union as a whole. I thought carefully about the issue of families when it came up. Generally, I think that we should target the real evildoers and decision makers rather than their families, but I accept that the House might have a different point of view on that issue.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con) rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I shall get on with my speech.
  Mr. Howarth: I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. He said earlier that one of the actions taken by the British Government was to provide Zimbabwe with food aid, but is it not the case that some 90 per cent. of such aid is not reaching the proper recipients? What can he tell us about that, and is he aware that according to the shadow justice Minister of the Movement for Democratic Change, David Coulthard, during the Lupane by-election people were being told that unless they voted ZANU-PF, they would not get food aid? What are the Government doing to ensure that the food aid given by the British people gets to the people of Zimbabwe who need it?
  Mr. Straw: We are aware that people have been intimidated by being told that unless they vote in a particular way, they will not get their food aid. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that 90 per cent. of food aid does not reach its intended recipients is wrong, according to the best information that we have. The World Food Programme monitors such aid very carefully and most of it gets to the intended recipients, but that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman's first point is inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence of people being intimidated and encouraged, as it were, to change their political approach in return for food aid.
  Sir Nicholas Wintertonrose—
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to deal with an issue that is central to this debate, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead raised earlier: the role of the international community, particularly the United Nations.
  We were able to take action in respect of Iraq because of its defiance of mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is familiar with the story. Also, we took action in Afghanistan in pursuit of instructions from the Security Council, and in respect of Kosovo, although there was a period when we were acting without direct mandate; that action was endorsed by the Security Council retrospectively.
  There has been no Security Council resolution in respect of Zimbabwe, and let me explain to the House why. We discuss Zimbabwe with the United Nations

  459
  very regularly—particularly with the UN secretariat and agencies—and it is fully aware of the situation. Its own programmes are very actively engaged in providing food and other aid.
  For three years, at the instigation of the United Kingdom, the European Union has tabled a resolution in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, drawing attention to the widespread violation of human rights by the Government of Zimbabwe. Regrettably, other African members of the UNCHR have used procedural motions to block discussion of those resolutions. That highlights the fact that many countries, including Zimbabwe's neighbours, see the situation differently from us. Exposing those differences in a body such as the UNCHR is one thing; but it is my belief that it would be counter-productive to do so in so high-profile an arena as the UN Security Council, as some Members have suggested doing. I am as certain as I can be that President Mugabe would dearly like us to seek action by the Security Council and then fail, as that would deliver him the propaganda coup of exposing divisions within the international community. Our view is that doing so now—to try but to fail—would put the cause of democracy in Zimbabwe back, not forward.
  I have spelled out the action that we have been taking, and that remains the case. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes makes some comment from a sedentary position, but there is a question that he must deal with. He will doubtless imply that what we need to do is to invade Zimbabwe, but we are not going to do so. If he is not suggesting that, he needs to say exactly what his proposal is and how it differs from what we have undertaken. In all the huff and puff that we have heard from him in the past three years, he has never come up with a single constructive proposal. Either we have already put what he proposes into practice, or it cannot be put into practice because of a failure to obtain international consensus.
  The second thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say is, "Take it to the United Nations." Of course we would take it to the UN if we thought that doing so would help. But our judgment is that, far from helping, taking it to the Security Council—still less to the General Assembly—and then failing would actually undermine the cause that we all seek: a democratic and free Zimbabwe. He might wish to address that point.
  Tony Baldry: Perhaps we can all agree on the fact that Zimbabwe is a test for Africa. There is no value in the New Partnership for Africa's Development if Africa itself is not going to try to sort out the problems of Zimbabwe. Can we not agree that Presidents Mbeki, Obasanjo and Museveni need to address this issue, which is primarily one for Africa? If they cannot address it, there is very little that can be done for Africa. All that we are doing through the European Commission, on international development and in terms of meeting the millennium development goals will be as nothing without that. So can we in this Chamber please agree that this is a challenge for Africa and our Commonwealth colleagues in Africa?
  Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman: it is indeed a test for Africa. However, the right hon. and
  460
  learned Member for Devizes is trying to suggest that it is somehow a test for this country or this Government. We are there to help, but as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) so wisely and shrewdly pointed out—I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes is listening—the idea that the United Kingdom, as the former colonial power, and in the absence of an African consensus to get to grips with a problem that stares it in the face, can take action beyond that which we are already taking is pie in the sky. That raises expectations beyond the point at which they can be fulfilled, but worse still, it feeds the Mugabe propaganda that we still hanker after exercising some kind of imperialist, colonialist power there, or that we still have it.
  Several hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East.
  Donald Anderson: I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point. When the Foreign Affairs Committee recently visited New York, we sought advice on this point in particular, not only in respect of our own mission but of many others. It was absolutely clear that there was no prospect of getting such action on to the agenda, so to suggest or infer otherwise is not only gesture politics but wholly ineffective and counterproductive.
  Mr. Straw: I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt).
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: If the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting did actually agree that President Obasanjo of Nigeria is to be in charge of talking to Mugabe regularly, how many times has he visited Zimbabwe since December and how many times per week is he in touch? It seems to us that things hay got much worse since December. What on earth can we do, given the circumstances?
  Mr. Straw: President Obasanjo has been very active and courageous on the issue of Zimbabwe as he has on so much else, including the deep challenges affecting his own country. But the responsibility for such matters lies not just with President Obasanjo; it also lies with other African leaders. The Prime Minister and I have had an ongoing dialogue with President Mbeki of South Africa and his Foreign Minister Nkosazana Zuma, and we have encouraged them to shift their position. We respect the view that they are taking but we do not altogether agree with it. However, in the end South Africa is the sovereign nation next door to Zimbabwe, and it is suffering worse then we are from the effects of mismanagement in Zimbabwe. But we have encouraged President Mbeki to continue with the private talks between the Movement for Democratic Change and ZANU-PF that he says have begun to develop. We have yet to see a positive, result, but if they produce one we will be the first to cheer.
  David Winnick: Mugabe is a notorious tyrant, as we all know, and he knows the loathing that Britain has for him. On the question of

  461
  consistency, is my right hon. Friend aware that when Labour Members repeatedly raised the issue of the police state under Smith in the 1960s and the action that was required, the then Conservative Opposition were totally opposed to tough sanctions, and argued time and again that sanctions were ineffective and should not be applied against the illegal regime? At least we are consistent in opposing every form of tyranny.
  Mr. Straw: I do indeed remember that, and the failure of Governments to take action at that stage against the regime of Ian Smith laid some of the foundations for the political instability that has followed.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Foreign Secretary knows that I entirely accept his good faith, and that I do not try to score silly points. He would surely agree that it is important for the Government to bring up all violations with the Zimbabwean representative in this country, the ambassador. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr.Mullin), about that, and received a letter saying, "I do not believe that raising this issue with the ambassador will lead to any change in Zimbabwe policy." Well, it may not, but that is no excuse for not highlighting violations. I am talking about the closure of Peterhouse school and the imprisonment of the rector, the headmaster, which is depriving black children of the opportunity to go there. That amounts to a real violation. Whenever such matters are drawn to the Foreign Secretary's attention, will he please ensure that the ambassador knows how we feel?
  Mr. Straw: I have not seen the exchange of correspondence, but I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point—and the answer to his question is yes.
  I have spelled out a list of 10 actions that are designed to keep Zimbabweans alive, to help its AIDS victims, to support those working for peaceful change, to give asylum to those persecuted by Mugabe, to help the large community in Zimbabwe with ties to the United Kingdom, to hit Mugabe where it hurts, to hobble the Zimbabwean military, to build and lead an international coalition against Mugabe and to make clear our readiness to help rebuild Zimbabwe.
  As I have already said, there are three things that we are not going to do. First, we will not impose economic sanctions on Zimbabwe since this would only hurt ordinary Zimbabweans. Secondly, as we have spelled out, we will not send in troops—for reasons that I hope that the whole House accepts. Thirdly—I invite the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes to take note—we will not play Mugabe's game by making this a "UK versus Zimbabwe" issue. We are stronger and he is weaker when we are part of an international coalition for change, not running our own isolated campaign.
  Before I conclude, I would like to deal with the issue of cricket tours. I know that hon. Members are concerned, as I am, both about the England tour to Zimbabwe this winter and about Zimbabwe's participation in the champions trophy one-day tournament in London this September, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has drawn the House's attention.
  462
  On 10 June, a sub-committee of the International Cricket Council recommended that Zimbabwe's test matches scheduled for the rest of this year should be deferred. That period covers the planned England tour. It happens that today, as we conduct our debate, the ICC is deciding whether to ratify the recommendation. Even if it does, let me make it clear that that would affect the test series in Zimbabwe, but not the one-day games to which the England and Wales Cricket Board is also committed. The Government's position remains clear: we do not have state-run sport in this country, nor would we want it. Decisions on cricket tours are rightly for the cricket authorities to take.
  On the visit of the Zimbabwean team to England, we do not believe that stopping Zimbabwean cricketers from travelling to the UK will advance our cause or the cause of the Zimbabwean people, any more than it would have been appropriate to have banned the Zimbabwean team from the Commonwealth games. They came over here and took part in those games. The EU travel ban is rightly targeted not at sportsmen and women, but at members of the regime.
  Kate Hoey: Is not the difference between cricket and other sports in Zimbabwe the fact that cricket, very specifically, has been used by Mugabe as a tool for developing his own political purposes? He is the patron—more than the Queen here—of cricket and he has abused that fact. That is why it is unacceptable to have a Zimbabwean team coming here in the name of the country and Mugabe. It is certainly not acceptable for them to come into my constituency to play at the Oval, surrounded by hundreds of Zimbabwean asylum seekers.
  Mr. Straw: Any visit here by the Zimbabwean cricket team is likely to engender very strong feelings and possibly peaceful protest, which is the inherent right of anyone living in a democracy. That is different from saying that we should ban the team from coming here. One of the tests of a Government in a democracy is whether they allow to take place all sorts of things with which they happen to disagree rather than agree. I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says about her constituency because I happen to live in it and I have been well represented by her over many years—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Especially on fox hunting.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, we could do with a bit of fox hunting in the backstreets of Lambeth, given the large number of foxes there. Leaving that issue aside—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): Yes, please.
  Mr. Straw: I hear my hon. Friend say, "yes, please". So leaving that aside, of course I am aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, but I ask her to take account of the fact that what people feel and what individuals do by way of protest is different from the issue of whether Governments should use their authority to stop people travelling.

  463
  I have set out in the debate all the actions that we are taking. I am extremely happy to listen carefully to proposals from both sides of the House about what further action we could take. We have never dismissed ideas or proposals for further action just because we have not, as it were, invented them. That is not and never has been my approach to government. So far as we can judge, however, I believe that, in the current circumstances, we are doing almost all that we could do.
  We support those in Zimbabwe who are working for the return of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. So, along with the rest of the international community, we are offering political and practical support to those who oppose the regime and are working for peaceful change. We stand ready to work with any Administration in Zimbabwe who have been democratically elected through a free and fair vote, and who are committed to respecting human rights and the rule of law and to addressing poverty.
  We recognise that such a Government would need the full support of the international community in rebuilding the country. We would expect to play an important role in any credible recovery programme, and we are already in discussion with other international donors—including the European Commission, the United States and the World Bank—to prepare contingency plans for rebuilding Zimbabwe's economy and institutions, once democracy has been restored.
  I am clear that, however long it takes, this great country will once again have a bright future as a democracy. Achieving that democracy will remain the focus of the Government's policy. We will continue to work with the broadest international coalition to apply pressure for change, while helping to improve the humanitarian situation of the Zimbabwean people. A return to democracy and to policies that help rather than harm the poor is the best hope for the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their once prosperous country. For our part, we will do all that we can to bring such a change about.
  1.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I welcome the debate, but I have to say that it is not before time. It is, in fact, the first time during the seven years of this Government that we have had a debate on Zimbabwe in Government time. I am nevertheless grateful for it, because I think that it is important.
  I genuinely hoped that the Government's belated recognition of the need to debate the issue indicated that they were at last beginning seriously to address it, but, having listened to the Foreign Secretary, I have to say that I am disappointed. He made a pathetic, complacent speech that brought no hope or comfort to the oppressed people of Zimbabwe. It was long on historical analysis and more than just short on action, given that he began by saying that he was not going to announce any further or new action. He was high on accusations of a historical nature and Aunt Sallies but low on answers and, indeed, on accuracy.
  464
  After those sever years I could indulge in a sort of "recherche du temps perdu", but it would serve little purpose because although Zimbabwe's problems are rooted in the past, they are very much current and in the future. Four years on from the last rigged parliamentary elections and two years on from the "stolen" presidential election, preparations for the next parliamentary elections are already being made. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), sitting on the Front Bench, seems to be surprised about these facts. If he had bothered to study what has happened in Zimbabwe, he might realise how serious the situation is. The problems are not only bad, but getting worse, and they must be urgently addressed.
  As the House knows, I have been talking about Zimbabwe a lot over the past two years, and I have sometimes been criticised for spending too much time on it. I make no apologies for that. Zimbabwe is not, as someone once admonished me, just another African country, on which we should not seek to impose our western values. Zimbabwe has enjoyed democracy and the rule of law. Its people have known prosperity, full stomachs and economic stability. All of that is now lost or under threat.
  Nor is Zimbabwe a far-away country of which we know little. It is a country that we know well, and for which we must still feel a sense of responsibility, even if it is only a moral one. We cannot say that it has nothing to do with us and that to seek to interfere smacks of neocolonialism. That is not what the dispossessed black farm workers told me when I met them in the woods outside Harare two years ago, and neither is it what the politicians and the many other victims of Mugabe's brutality told me. They believed that this country had a moral duty to act. They heard the Prime Minister announce as much on one occasion. They feel a sense of betrayal at what they now see as our inactivity.
  The simple fact is that, month after month, the situation in Zimbabwe is getting worse. It was bad enough when I was there. I saw some pretty horrifying sights—of ethnic cleansing, political intimidation and food queues. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—who cannot be with us today as he is in Darfur—visited Zimbabwe only a few months ago. The situation that he witnessed was far worse even than what I had seen. Quite simply, we are watching the birth of a failed state, the victory of crude despotism and the failure of the international community to respond sufficiently.
  I am baffled by the inertia with which the international community has responded to Mugabe's vile regime. The most recent International Crisis Group report appeared on 19 April. It stated that
  "the response has been inadequate and ineffectual at all levels",
  and that the policies of the US and the EU
  "do not begin to address the roots of the crisis."
  I repeat to the Foreign Secretary that I am not advocating a military solution. I am asking for the form of international action that the ICG and other bodies are also seeking. I shall come to that a little later.

  465
  It is worth reminding ourselves of the nature of the crisis in Zimbabwe, which can best be described as a series of deficits. The first is the democratic deficit. That began with the patently rigged parliamentary election four years ago; then, two years ago, the presidential election was stolen. At the time, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the Government
  "do not recognise the result, or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
  There has been a systematic undermining of the principles of free and fair election, and the ironically named Harare principle—as well as the principles of the Southern African Development Community—have been flouted. In the past years, dishonest voter registration has allowed Mugabe effectively to rig the voter register. There has been rigged vote counting, with ballot papers going missing. There has also been voter intimidation and bribery, and the physical persecution and even murder of political opponents.
  We now learn that voter registration for next year's elections has begun, without any independent supervision or verification. In one case at least, the sitting Opposition MP was not even told that the registration was happening until after it was completed. Mugabe has announced that he will have no observers in Zimbabwe for the election. The democratic deficit is almost complete.
  The next deficit is the rule of law deficit. Many opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subject to murder attempts, torture, assaults and arrest. A recent survey of Movement for Democratic Change Members of Parliament found that 42 per cent. claimed to have been assaulted in the past four years—most commonly, as it happens, by the police—while 24 per cent. said that they had survived assassination attempts.
  Because of the politicisation of the police and judiciary in Zimbabwe, there is rarely any legal comeback. Despite the immense courage of many Zimbabwean lawyers, the once proud rule of law in Zimbabwe lies in tatters. The independent judiciary used to be one of the pillars of democracy, but it has been severely compromised, and the Bench is now packed with Mugabe supporters. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was adopted before the 2002 elections and it requires journalists to provide detailed information about themselves. If they do not do so, they will not receive a licence for journalism.
  The law has been used to close Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, and to arrest people on the charge of "suspicion of journalism". The state now claims a virtual monopoly of written and broadcast media, and foreign correspondents, as we know, are a thing of the past. The Public Order and Security Act restricts freedom of association. The Government in Zimbabwe have used it to stamp out any form of activity or protest by opposition groups. The rule of law has been exchanged in Zimbabwe for the rule of tyranny and the organised mob.
  Another deficit is the law and order deficit. Mugabe has skilfully created a society in which his orders to kill, maim and destroy are easily carried out. His private militia—the so-called Green Bombers—are, quite simply, evil. The methods in which they are trained in the special camps to which they are often abducted
  466
  include systematised violence, organised rape and brutal abuse and humiliation. The first-hand accounts from some former members of the green bombers who have fled to South Africa are chilling.
  Then there is the economic and social deficit. Zimbabwe's economy is among the fastest-shrinking in the world. Unemployment has risen to more than 70 per cent. As recently as 1997, Zimbabwe was twice as rich as the median sub-Saharan nation, but now it is crashing. Inflation still rides high at over 440 per cent., gross domestic product has shrunk by one third in five years, and the black-market exchange rate still flourishes, despite legislation to outlaw it. At the official exchange rate, £1 is worth 815 Zimbabwean dollars. On the black market, £1 buys 7,000 Zimbabwean dollars.
  Now we hear threats of the wholesale nationalisation of agricultural land, even though current land seizures have already led to the collapse of Zimbabwe's once prosperous agriculture sector, with all the attendant consequences on food production.
  There is, of course, the humanitarian deficit. Zimbabwe has lived on food aid since 2001. Last year, 6.5 million people, more than half the population, depended on international help. Mugabe is now refusing help from the UN's World Food Programme. Regime officials say that Zimbabwe will have a bumper maize crop this year of 2.4 million tonnes—more than enough to meet domestic needs. People who believe that will believe anything.
  A report from the Zimbabwe vulnerability assessment committee—incidentally, that is a Government body—concludes that 2.3 million people in rural Zimbabwe
  "will not be able to meet their minimum cereal needs during the 2004–05 season."
  We all know why Mugabe lies. He knows that, by keeping the UN and aid agencies out of Zimbabwe, he can ensure that his regime controls all food aid. Mugabe thinks he can feed his people by doing black-market deals to buy grain and then tell the world that it is home grown.
  Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I will in a moment, but I want to finish this point.
  It is of serious concern that two American companies are in cahoots with Mugabe. Sentry Financial Corporation and Dimon Inc. are involved in the tobacco-for-maize scam. I hope that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) chairs, will investigate that scam as, surprisingly, our Government do not seem to know about it. On 24 June, Baroness Amos told the House of Lords:
  "I am aware of the rumours with respect to Zimbabwe selling tobacco in exchange for maize."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2004; Vol. 662, c. 1345.]
  The reports are not rumours, though: they are real. At least the US authorities are aware of what is happening, and the US Congress and Treasury are now investigating the two firms involved.
  Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing well with his description of the crisis. Is not another reason why President Mugabe and his regime have failed to recognise the existence of the crisis that, if they did so, they would have to recognise the total failure of their programmes?
  Mr. Ancram: When I was there, my impression was of a tyranny that was trying to oppress its people and to get the world to avert its gaze. I shall tell the House about one of the things that touched me most. I met some black farm workers who were living in the woods. They were destitute, lacking clothes, food or houses. Their children's schools had been closed. As I left, one said to me, "Please don't let the world forget us." That is at the heart of what we want to make sure that Robert Mugabe does not achieve: he must not make the world forget about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
  There are other huge problems in Zimbabwe. AIDS is rife: one third of the population has HIV. The Government's AIDS levy is failing to get through to the front-line services. Hospitals and clinics cannot afford even the most basic of AIDS testing kits.
  Sometimes I wonder whether the money is actually being directed to the fight against AIDS. A recent National Audit Office report on the HIV/AIDS strategy of the Department for International Development was highly critical. It found that DFID's country assistance plans do not address the issue of HIV/AIDS consistently and that many of them
  "failed to consider the effect of the epidemic on poverty reduction".
  I hope that the Minister will address that specific point when he winds up later.
  I turn briefly to cricket. We meet on the same day as the International Cricket Council meets to take a final view on the issue. Sometimes I am told that I should not try to bring politics into sport. In a sense, the Foreign Secretary was trying to suggest that that was what I was doing, in his attempt to make political capital out of the debate. I have not tried to bring politics into sport. This is not a question of sport versus politics. It is a question of morality versus money. Given the situation I have described in Zimbabwe, I cannot see how in conscience England's cricketers should be asked to play even one-day internationals in Zimbabwe this autumn. The tests have gone, but we are told that the one-day matches are still on. The Zimbabwe Cricket Union, whose patron—as we have been reminded—is Mugabe, has already played cynical and apparently racist politics with its own team selection. Anything that gives comfort to the ZCU or to Mugabe in terms of sport should be abandoned. The tour should not take place, full stop. The Government should clearly and unequivocally say so, and say so now. Unfortunately, we have once again had only weasel words from Ministers.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: My right hon. Friend has summed up the point very well, but does he recall that for the South African cricket team of 30 years ago, it was the racially biased opposition to the selection of Basil d'Oliveira that led to South African cricket being outlawed and boycotted? It was the racism element that caused that, and now we see racism in the selection of the Zimbabwean team.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. On occasions, I have been told that the issue is purely about sport, but if one listens to the former captain of the Zimbabwean team, Mr. Streak, it is clear the that there is much more to it. The sort of racist and discriminatory behaviour to which my hon. Friend refers has indeed occurred.
  The greatest deficit is in the international response. I have to say that it has is been lamentable. For a start, far greater pressure must be brought to bear on President Mbeki of South Africa. He must be told the bald truth that his policy of quiet diplomacy is dead and buried. What happened to his vain promise to President Bush last year that by June 2004 Zimbabwe's problems would be solved? The House will remember that promise. Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad is on record as saying again last week:
  "it is clear that we will not meet the June deadline".
  He can say that again, because as far as we know no talks are taking place. Mr. Pahad continued:
  "I have no other alternative to quiet diplomacy, so we will continue with quiet diplomacy."
  The truth is that quiet diplomacy has failed and we should acknowledge that. There are those in South Africa who courageously speak out on the matter, including not least Archbishop Tutu and opposition leader Tony Leon. We should listen closely to what they say and praise them for their courage in saying it.
  I have been to New York and asked why the United Nations does not get involved. The response, I have to say, is pathetic. I am fobbed off with the answer that because the Zimbabwe crisis is an internal or domestic problem, the UN cannot get involved—tell that to some 127,000 Zimbabwean refugees who are trying to get into Botswana each month. Is the UN blind to the refugees who flee over the border to Botswana, South Africa and Malawi, bringing economic havoc in their wake? And do the demolition of human rights, ethnic cleansing, or the suggestions of genocide by starvation not concern the UN? Why is it concerned about such problems in Darfur, but not in Zimbabwe? Come to think of it, the UN response has been to put both Zimbabwe and Sudan on the UN Commission for Human Rights. Is it surprising that the people of Zimbabwe feel betrayed?
  Then there is the EU and its much-vaunted sanctions, about which we heard much today. In all honesty, I have watched those sanctions in action and they are pretty toothless. The red-carpet treatment that Mugabe received in Paris a year ago was a disgrace. People in Zimbabwe ask about that when we talk about the sanctions working. It was an example of how the EU sanctions are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. That visit totally undermined the credibility of EU sanctions both internationally, and in Zimbabwe. There is a strong suspicion in Zimbabwe that some European member states tacitly wish to support Mugabe. When there is a need comprehensively to strengthen the sanctions, we hear that there are voices in the EU that are arguing that they should be abandoned—so much for a common EU foreign policy.
  The EU has a real chance of imposing real pressure on the Mugabe regime When will it accept its moral responsibilities and act effectively? The sad reality is that by the time the EU sanctions come up for review next year—by which time, the Foreign Secretary tells us, he

  469
  may have listened to further suggestions—Zimbabwe could well have become a failed state, with all the domestic and international implications of that. What defines a failed state? I shall give one definition:
  "In general terms, a state fails when it is unable … to control its territory and guarantee the security of its citizens; to maintain the rule of law, promote human rights and provide effective governance; and to deliver public goods to its population (such as economic growth, education and healthcare)."
  That is a good description of Zimbabwe today, but it is not my definition. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will recognise those words, because he used them in a speech in September 2002. I agree with that definition. He even offered a solution. He said
  "Experience suggests that the prevention of state failure depends on a scarce commodity: international political will. If we are to secure public and international support for action, "we"—
  I emphasise the word "we"—
  "need to make the case for early engagement much more strongly."
  I totally agree, so why have the Government failed to act decisively or even to take a firm lead? Why are they reluctant to lead from the front?
  Tony Baldry: The international community is making every effort in Africa with the New Partnership for Africa's Development. That is a covenant under which we provide increased development aid in exchange for Africa doing certain things—not least providing peer group review and pressure. None of that has happened yet in relation to Zimbabwe. There comes a point at which we need to make it clear to colleagues in the Commonwealth in Africa that they lave a responsibility and NEPAD cannot be a one-way programme in which we do our part and they do not reciprocate. International pressure on Zimbabwe has to start in Africa itself.
  Mr. Ancram: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I have made the point on several occasions in debates on Zimbabwe that the question of peer assessment of good governance depends on the credibility of those making the assessment. If South Africa and other countries tell us that they believe that what is happening in Zimbabwe is not bad governance, I question the value of their assessments. NEPAD is meant to be a contract by which the G8 provide investment in Africa in return for good governance. I would like to see much more leadership from the G8 in reminding South Africa and other countries that if they wish to benefit from NEPAD it is their responsibility to ensure that good governance returns in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Wyatt: If we cannot achieve what we want through NEPAD—transparency and so on—would it be a solution to have a joint committee of the G8 and NEPAD, so that we could see what happened on the ground?
  Mr. Ancram: That is a sensible idea. I shall set out in my concluding remarks some of the things that I think we should be doing and nothing that I shall say is inconsistent with that idea.
  The UK appears to have hang-ups about taking a lead. Christopher Dell, the newly nominated next US ambassador to Zimbabwe, has no such hang-ups. He
  470
  has experience in Kosovo, Mozambique and Angola. Last week, during his ambassadorial nomination hearing, he explained—and I say this with particular reference to what the Foreign Secretary said that I have said about Kosovo—
  "In Kosovo, I witnessed first hand how misrule by one man and his regime in pursuit of narrow political advantage devastated the lives of millions of his citizens, both Albanian and Serb, and I'm proud to have helped in the effort to bring about Slobodan Milosevic's departure from power by democratic means."
  Donald Anderson: By military intervention?
  Mr. Ancram: By democratic means. I do now know where the right hon. Gentleman gets his definitions from, but that did not strike me as military intervention.
  What Christopher Dell said is a clear message to Zimbabwe about America's position, which we would do well to emulate, instead of using the weasel words that we have heard again today.
  David Winnick: Is it not most unlikely that, without the United States, any action could have been taken in Kosovo? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as a genuine friend of the new South Africa that has emerged from apartheid, I am deeply disappointed that it has not taken action. I speak as one who, with all my Labour colleagues, always wanted the destruction of apartheid. It is in South Africa's interests to act, and it is extremely disappointing that it has not done so.
  Mr. Ancram: I agree. So much of what was achieved with the ending of apartheid, and in the 10 years since South Africa returned to democracy, is being undermined by the position that it is taking in relation to Zimbabwe. The legacy of Nelson Mandela, for whom I too have tremendous admiration, is being tarnished by the attitude now being taken to Zimbabwe.
  What would we do? I have a five-point plan, which I believe should now be urgently considered and pursued. First—to return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was saying—we must, if necessary by invoking the benefits of good governance in return for NEPAD aid, persuade South Africa and the other Southern African Development Community countries to insist on the SADC norms for the elections in March 2005. We must be prepared to criticise South Africa's culpable inaction in the face of Mugabe's evil.
  Secondly, the United Nations should join with SADC to produce free and fair parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe by supporting any SADC benchmarks that are developed to determine whether the process is credible. I want to see SADC and United Nations teams in Zimbabwe as soon as possible to observe the entire electoral process. United Nations personnel on the ground must be demonstratively effective in their monitoring of the elections and in their humanitarian advocacy. Mugabe must never again be allowed to select which countries can send observers.
  Thirdly, pressure should be brought to bear, not only by the EU but by the United States, to repeal the Public Order and Security Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and amend the Electoral Act.

  471
  Fourthly, there is an increasingly urgent need for EU and US-targeted sanctions to be revised and strengthened, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said in an intervention, to include the family members and business associates of key ZANU-PF figures. Freezing the assets of those who bankroll Mugabe would have an immediate and dramatic effect.
  Fifthly and finally, it is time the British Government tabled a resolution to send United Nations observers to Zimbabwe to monitor the fair distribution of food. This would at least internationalise the crisis. The Foreign Secretary argues, as he has in the past, that we would never get a resolution through the Security Council: perhaps not, at the first attempt—but he could then
  persist by, as he said, making the case for engagement more strongly, and shaming those who vote against such a resolution, until he succeeds. One thing is certain above all else: if he does not try, he will never succeed.
  For too long Zimbabwe has been the crisis from which the world has averted its gaze. South Africa has murmured about quiet diplomacy on the one hand, and feted Mugabe on the other. The EU has imposed targeted sanctions, which have then been more honoured in the breach than the observance, and the British Government have wrung their hands and walked by on the other side. The time of walking by is over. Zimbabwe cries out for international action, and we should take the lead in making sure that it gets it.
  2.24 pm
  Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a powerful speech. Certainly the description of the ills inflicted on Zimbabwe by its present leadership was powerful; much less powerful was the prescription. Each one of his five points can be examined and found to be vacuous or ineffective.
  We have already said that there is no prospect of putting the subject on the agenda for the United Nations. There is the precedent of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, where the Africans work as a bloc and prevent any such move. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly said, that must harm the fulfilment of the New Partnership for Africa's Development contract and the region as a whole. South Africa is losing out massively, perhaps by as much as £1 billion, and up to 3 million refugees are crossing the Limpopo border. I am not saying that we should do nothing, but we should not pretend that we can do things that we cannot, or invest money and effort in ineffective action that may make us feel better, but will not help the people of Zimbabwe in any way.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of the United Nations, but is not what he has just said a savage indictment of the UN? Although it is so transparently obvious to the entire world that a whole country is being destroyed, the United Nations turns its gaze away and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, walks by on the other side? What does that say about the United Nations?
  Donald Anderson: I agree.
  Mr. Howarth: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it then?
  Donald Anderson: We work within the multilateral framework and we try to persuade, as we have done already—but to pretend that the United Nations is likely to intervene is moonshine.
  I shall now set out the involvement of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Zimbabwe. The conclusions that the all-party Committee, containing the three main parties in the House, reached were unanimous and we tried to be as realistic and powerful as we could.
  First, I shall make a personal comment. I visited Zimbabwe several times in the 1980s. I helped form, and was vice-president of, AWEPAA, the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid. I confess now that I was blinded—perhaps very few, apart from the hon. Member for Macclesfield(Sir Nicholas Winterton), were not—in relation to actions such as those in Matabeleland. Perhaps we were dazzled by the hopes at that time. Zimbabwe seemed to be economically stable, was exporting food to its neighbours—now it has to use its scarce resources to import food from South Africa and Zambia—and there were high hopes of positive political development. My response to the Zimbabwe tragedy is anger at what has been inflicted on a cheerful and welcoming people, and frustration at what we in the international community have been able to do to confront that tragedy.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee has maintained a close scrutiny of developments in Zimbabwe, and of UK policy, for several years. We have been involved in an ongoing inquiry since 2001 and have produced three reports in the current Parliament and taken evidence on a number of occasions. Whenever possible, we have met visiting Zimbabwean leaders—obviously, mainly opposition leaders. When we visited South Africa in February, we also considered the way in which that country could have a positive impact on Zimbabwe, and made several comments and recommendations to that end.
  Our unanimous conclusions in our several reports include a condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the seizure of farms, the disregard for human rights and the corrupt elections. We have generally supported the actions of the UK Government in refusing to accept the results of the fraudulent 2002 elections, and in working within the Commonwealth, the UN and other multilateral agencies to put pressure on President Mugabe. We have urged the international community, and the UK in particular, to continue providing aid to the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe and to ensure, as far as possible, that it is not diverted for political ends, as will be the real danger with the parliamentary elections next spring.
  Mr. Wyatt: I confess that I have not read all three reports—I shall get a smack on the hand for that. When my right hon. Friend was taking evidence, was he able to take confidential advice from MI6? Are there surveillance pictures and photographs that show that food is being diverted, and have we ever presented them in the public domain?
  Donald Anderson: We did not. We had an ongoing debate with the Government on our access to intelligence, but I suspect that Zimbabwe is not one of the priorities for the intelligence agency.

  473
  In our report numbed HC813, we concluded that "Zimbabwe deserves better". On the EU and Zimbabwe, we unanimously said that President Chirac's invitation of President Mugabe to the conference in Paris the day after the EU sanctions expired was "deeply regrettable". We were highly critical of the hard negotiations over the renewal of sanctions in 2003 and said that the UK Government needed to be more robust with France. Fortunately, such horse-trading was not repeated during this year's sanction renewals.
  On the Commonwealth and Zimbabwe, we said that our Government were right to call for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. We said that Zimbabwe should not be readmitted to the Commonwealth
  "without a very substantial and verifiable improvement in its human rights record and major steps to re-establish democracy".
  On the future, we said that the United Kingdom Government must continue to act multilaterally with Zimbabwe through the United Nations and our African allies. We should not act unilaterally because of our colonial history and President Mugabe's ability to twist any actions that we might take and use them against us. We said that the United Kingdom must be ready to respond speedily to a change of regime in Harare and, of course, that we cannot assume that President Mugabe will carry on for ever.
  We published a report on South Africa and Zimbabwe earlier this year. We said that our Government and the South African Government have not seen eye to eye on the issue for some time. They share the same ambition—a return to democracy in Zimbabwe and its respect for human rights—but the South African Government have pursued a policy of quiet diplomacy that has produced no proper results. They have refused to criticise President Mugabe and have even gone out of their way to support him, as we saw at the Commonwealth conference and from the strong letter that President Mbeki sent afterwards, which led to Zimbabwe's walk out from the Commonwealth.
  Tony Baldry: The Foreign Affairs Committee said:
  "We conclude that if Zimbabwe's neighbours were fully to assume their responsibilities—for example, by imposing targeted non-trade sanctions similar to those already imposed by the EU, by some Commonwealth countries and by the United States—Mugabe's regime would be further isolated, his opponents would be encouraged and his days would be numbered."
  How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that our Commonwealth colleagues and others might take a policy of non-trade sanctions by neighbours forward? He has not specifically mentioned that powerful recommendation in his speech.
  Donald Anderson: It is clear that Zimbabwe's neighbours respond very differently. For example, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia has always acted as a cheerleader for President Mugabe. Indeed, alarming reports suggest that he might want to follow President Mugabe down the path of the expropriation of farms, which would not only damage Namibia, but have a deleterious effect on perceptions of southern Africa as a whole. Of course, the bravest of Zimbabwe's neighbours have been Botswana and Malawi, to an extent. However, there is no consensus among its neighbours on
  474
  the use of effective pressure, despite the harm that is being done. The greatest pressure can come only from its neighbours.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I have put this question to a Foreign Office Minister during Question Time. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that restricting or cutting off electricity supplies from South Africa to Zimbabwe might have an impact on Mr. Mugabe's Administration?
  Donald Anderson: It is clear that South Africa and its parastatal are owed much money by Zimbabwe, which is heavily dependent on South Africa for its energy supplies. Turning off the electricity would cause chaos, and the danger for South Africa would be that even more refugees would stream over the border. Perhaps the most powerful argument made by the politicians and others in South Africa to whom we spoke was that we in Europe could be fairly sanguine about the situation, but that they had to live alongside Zimbabwe. If the country imploded further, it would have awful effects on South Africa's economy and the refugee stream, even though up to 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe have already crossed the Limpopo into South Africa.
  We were given other reasons in South Africa for the country's continued support of, or failure to deal with, the regime in Zimbabwe. We were told about regional solidarity and that it was the practice of African leaders not to criticise each other. We heard about their shared history of fighting together in a struggle, although ZANU-PF was linked with the Pan Africanist Conference at first, and was not linked with the African National Congress until much later. We were told that, on land reform, Mugabe was seen as the only African leader actively trying to reverse the colonial legacy. We were told that the double standards of the west were tough on Mugabe, but not on such issues as third-world debt. Of course, we must also take note of the popularity of President Mugabe in the ANC. Additionally, we must consider the challenge to Mugabe from Morgan Tsvangirai, a trade union leader, and the possible implications for South Africa of a trade union leader from the Congress of South African Trade Unions challenging the South African Government. However, perhaps the most powerful argument is the domestic implications for South Africa of the implosion of Zimbabwe.
  We were also told that South Africa's views might have been shaped by its experience at the end of apartheid when two implacably opposed sides were brought together in private negotiations to build a consensus. Some South Africans honestly believe that the same situation can be brought about in Zimbabwe. There are rumours of secret talks between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change being sponsored by the South African Government, but I know of no serious evidence for that. It is true that South Africa possesses many possible levers, but it is reluctant to use them because of the danger of the further collapse of Zimbabwe into anarchy. Additionally, we are told that the west overestimates the influence that South Africa has on Mugabe.
  The Committee concluded that South Africa is
  "acting in the manner it sincerely believes to be the most effective and the most likely to bring about"

  475
  change, and that it shares the same goal as the United Kingdom. We urged our Government to work closely with South Africa to achieve a solution for Zimbabwe. We returned with a greater understanding of the South African Government's policies, but we were unconvinced that our interlocutors fully appreciated the damage done by Zimbabwe's actions to perceptions of South Africa, the South African economy and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which the hon. Member for Banbury mentioned.
  The South African Development Community has played a disappointing role on the resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe. It has put no pressure whatsoever on President Mugabe to reform, and could play a more useful role. As has already been said, Zimbabwe's neighbours are not assuming their responsibilities or putting pressure on the country.
  The 2003 session of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees saw South Africa coordinating an African group of members to block all debate on Zimbabwe. Such misplaced solidarity can only harm Africa as a whole, and it devalues the UNHCR.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes effectively chronicled the way in which the situation has deteriorated since we produced our report. There have been greater problems with the economy, government corruption, inflation and unemployment. Direct foreign investment in Zimbabwe has declined by 99 per cent. over the past three years. There is a chronic shortage of foreign exchange and last December, the International Monetary Fund initiated procedures for Zimbabwe's compulsory withdrawal from it.
  The human cost is appalling. Life expectancy is 34 for men and 33 for women. Officially, about a third of the adult population is HIV-positive. President Mugabe has forecast a bumper harvest this year, but Mr. James Morris, director general of the World Food Programme, has expressed astonishment at that, saying that an increase from 980,000 tonnes to 2.8 million tonnes would be quite unprecedented. Obviously, the regime is not prepared to admit the crisis, as that would be an acceptance of the total failure of its agricultural policies. Political deterioration has already been mentioned, and there is a danger of the problem spreading to neighbouring countries including, worryingly, Namibia.
  The image of Zimbabwe affects South Africa and the region as a whole. I have commented on the UN's role, and there is no serious prospect of the issue being taken up by the Security Council. To argue otherwise would be misleading. The Select Committee urges the Government to work closely with South Africa to achieve a solution, and we are pleased that the Prime Minister has made Africa a key theme not only of our presidency of the European Union in the second half of next year but of our presidency of the G8. In conclusion, it is sometimes said that individuals cannot make a mark in today's societies, but southern Africa disproves that. On one side of the Limpopo, President Mugabe has control, on the other side, President Mandela was once in power. One exalted his people, the other debases his. The people of Zimbabwe, the region and, indeed, Africa as a whole are the losers.
  2.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), and I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as their reports are important to the House and always inform our debates.
  In the past few years, we have debated Zimbabwe more than a dozen times in Westminster Hall, and we welcome the opportunity to put our views on the record in the main Chamber fiber. Those debates and today's contributions have documented the terrible decline of a once wonderful country, which, we hope, will enjoy a return to good times. It is hard to comprehend that a country that could once feed itself and many others is suffering from desperate food shortages, but that does not make them any less serious. Some factors are beyond anyone's control, but the heaviest responsibility falls on Robert Mugabe and his henchmen, who have wrecked Zimbabwe's agriculture and undermined external efforts to alleviate the problem. Land reform, which was agreed on independence, has been undermined, and land grabs by state decree and violence have further wrecked the economy. The process has reached its logical conclusion with the announcement that all land will be nationalised and existing landowners must apply for leaseback arrangements.
  All those tragedies play into a desperate economic situation. Zimbabwe has the unpleasant distinction of having the world's fastest shrinking economy. Unemployment is rampant, and on some estimates income per capita is less than $250 per annum. Inflation is astronomical, and it was ironic to hear Gideon Gono, on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, talk with pride about his intention to reduce it to below 200 per cent.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Gideon Gono. Why was that gentleman, who is closely associated with Mr. Mugabe, allowed to come to this country?
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, to which I shall return in due course.
  Mr. Gono and other members of the regime have taken it upon themselves to talk up the Zimbabwean economy, but opposition leaders argue that although statistics are rapidly outdated they always get worse. We need therefore not believe the reassurances of Mr. Mugabe and his team. The economy's underlying weakness is exacerbated by money laundering and corruption, and individuals' economic capability is horribly ruined by the spread of HIV/AIDS. UN experts estimate that a quarter to a third of adults are HIV-positive; 1.5 million people are infected, more than half of them women. It addition, it is estimated that the consequences affect as many as 165,000 children under 15.
  Other African countries suffer from those terrible problems, but Zimbabwe's predicament is homemade, as state control and corruption are at the heart of the disasters facing the country. Where that strategy is not sufficient for the regime to retain control, every dictator's trick is used to limit freedoms and achieve ZANU-PF's aims, including undermining press

  477
  freedom, which was highlighted by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), limiting the independence of the judiciary, and the many well documented attacks on the opposition. In addition to legal and quasi-legal measures, the Government make wholesale use of the army and militias to do their dirty work. Amnesty International documented more than 1,000 cases of torture in its most recent human rights report, and drew particular attention to the horrendous practice of extra-judicial killings by the military.
  Everything is geared towards the maintenance of power by President Robert Mugabe. Few believe that he won a free or fair election last time, and many rightly fear that he has already undermined the prospects for a proper parliamentary election next year. There are extremely worrying reports that in many constituencies voter registration was completed in the past few weeks, as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes said. In many instances, registration took place on a single day following the publication of a newspaper notice. As has been said, Zimbabwean MPs themselves were unaware of what was going on.
  It has been suggested that progress has been made with plans for a revision of electoral law. For example, there will be transparent ballot boxes to prevent them from being stuffed with votes. There will be local counts, and the ballot will take place on a single day, which ought to be an improvement on the rational counts that took place over a number of days in which boxes mysteriously disappeared or materialised en route to the count. However, if we are tempted to view that as progress, we can divine Mugabe's true intentions from his decision to forbid the attendance of election observers from countries that are outside his circle of friends. That is part of a consistent undermining of democracy, further illustrated by the harassment of opposition politicians and the politically motivated trials of the leader of the MDC.
  As Zimbabwe has crumbled, the rest of the world has been powerless, and we must consider whether that is by choice or design. Like many others who have spoken this afternoon, I believe that the heaviest responsibility lies with the neighbouring states, particularly South Africa. It is clear that with the necessary will President Mbeki could influence the position in Zimbabwe. It is a complete mystery why he chooses not to do so. Whatever the source of his loyalty to Robert Mugabe, surely the suffering of the Zimbabwean people and the devastation in Zimbabwe should encourage him to act.
  More broadly, the New Partnership for Africa's Development boasts of a peer review mechanism at the centre of its activities. All recent meetings of that group have failed to take on the instance of Zimbabwe. Likewise, the African Union, a welcome development for the whole of that continent, is to have a summit of its leaders in the next few days. From the draft agenda that the African Union is touting, it does not look as though the issue of Zimbabwe will be tackled.
  Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that were a white regime in Zimbabwe inflicting on its people what is currently going on, there would certainly be far more action nationally and internationally to do something about it, but where blacks do that to other
  478
  blacks, the world seems to lose interest? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a case of horrendous double standards?
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. We in Britain and in the west must be a wee bit cautious about preaching to others about double standards. I am trying to make a speech in a colour-blind way, if I may.
  Beyond the regional players who ought to have an influence on Zimbabwe, the record has been extremely patchy. Perhaps the only small success has been in the Commonwealth, whose suspension of Zimbabwe led to great concern in that country and a great deal of hurt to the president himself. The fact that the suspension was maintained 12 months later was very welcome. The fact that Zimbabwe then chose to leave the Commonwealth shows the strength of the action that had been taken.
  We have always supported the European Union's travel ban, arms embargo and the embargo on equipment that might be used for internal repression. We also believe that the assets freeze is an important feature of those sanctions. We support the fact that the sanctions were renewed in March this year, but what is the outcome of these measures so far? Precious little, it seems. I should be interested to hear from the Minister when he replies what assessment he and his colleagues have made of the effectiveness of the embargoes. If he could provide the information, the House would find it useful to know what assets, if any, have been frozen here in the United Kingdom.
  The Foreign Secretary spoke, properly, about the extension of the travel ban, but we should not lose sight of the modesty of the numbers involved. The numbers affected have risen only slightly, from 79 to 95, which contrasts with New Zealand, which has a list of 133. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the list in New Zealand includes the name of Gideon Gono, who has such a central role in the Zimbabwean economy, yet was allowed to travel through the UK in the middle of June, attending events at the high commission or embassy, according to one's preference, in Birmingham and Oxford, quite apart from the Financial Times interview that I mentioned earlier.
  The limitations of the existing travel ban are clear. We support the use of targeted sanctions but find it hard to believe that only 95 people in that country can be linked closely enough to the regime to be forbidden EU travel. Likewise, it surely makes a mockery of the system, such as it is, when the families of those already named are still free to travel to the UK, although I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that his decision not to argue for the extension of the ban to children was a finely judged one. I hope he will listen to the concerns expressed in the House today.
  The cricket tour is a source of proper concern. I shall make some brief points in passing. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not believe that any tour should go ahead to Zimbabwe in the current circumstances. Despite all the difficulties, we welcome the England and Wales Cricket Board's confirmation that players who, after reflection and as a matter of conscience, do not wish to travel because of the situation there will not be forced to do so. We also accept that the Government cannot and should not ban English and Welsh participation in the tour. That would set a dangerous precedent.

  479
  It is clear that the International Cricket Council must be engaged and challenged to rethink its rules on permissible grounds for cancelling cricket tours. That will not be easy, but given the cross-party consensus at least on this small aspect of the problem and on the unacceptability of the existing situation, there should be scope for a cross-party initiative and approach to the ICC on behalf of all the parties represented in the House.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may not know, but apparently the president of the ICC, Mr. Ehsan Mani, has said that England has promised to fulfil its tour this November in Zimbabwe. Has he any comment to make on that?
  Mr. Moore: I am not sure that the announcement that the ECB will fulfil its tour changes much. Everyone in the House wishes that that tour would not go ahead, but our Government should not be in the business of banning tours and instructing sportsmen and women where they can pursue their sport.
  Away from the cricket fields, the build-up to next year's elections in Zimbabwe places the onus on the international community to build and maintain the pressure on the Mugabe regime. The UK is in a key position, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East. We have the imminent presidency of the G8 and will have the presidency of the EU in the period likely to follow the Zimbabwean elections. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has put his credibility on the line with the creation of the Africa Commission, which we have supported.
  Recognising the primary responsibilities of the southern African countries, we should use those diplomatic opportunities next year to persuade them of their lead role in tackling Zimbabwe. Beyond that, we should not constantly fall hook, line and sinker for the post-colonial guilt trip. We should extend our targeted sanctions. Here I take issue with the Foreign Secretary. We believe that such is the scale of the problem represented by Zimbabwe that we should seek to force the pace in the United Nations. I accept that at present there is precious little prospect of getting a resolution through the Security Council, but we should not shrink from forcing the issue and revealing who is standing in our way. If we do not start, we cannot hope to succeed.
  The issue of Zimbabwe remains one of the greatest foreign policy challenges facing this country and many others. It is hard to imagine the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We owe it to them to do everything possible to change the conditions in which they live.
  2.59 pm
  Kate Hoey: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), as we have spent many hours debating the subject in Westminster Hall over the past two years. I, too, welcome the opportunity to hold a debate on the Floor of the House.
  I shall not go over the detail of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Many hon. Members have reported on that. We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for
  480
  Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and others who have visited Zimbabwe. I visited the country about a year ago. We have seen that decline in Zimbabwe affecting every area of national life. I saw for myself the way in which it was affecting ordinary people. I also saw the black farm workers who had nowhere to live, not being fed by anyone, in complete despair, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I saw how the medical care had collapsed, the massive unemployment and the rampant inflation. All of that stems from one single cause. It is all very well saying that there are many other related problems in Africa, but the single root of the chaos that we are seeing now in that country is the determination of Mugabe and the ruling ZANU-PF to cling on to power at any price. That is why the focus of today's debate has to be on the need for free and fair elections. Zimbabweans need and deserve the right to elect a Government of their own choice and to be able to vote out those who fail them.
  How do we get those free and fair elections? We saw what happened in 2000 when the people courageously rejected Mugabe's proposed constitutional changes in the referendum. Having been an election observer myself in Angola, I am probably one of those whom Mugabe was referring to when he said last week at the summit of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of nations held in Mozambique, that he would not allow former imperialists to monitor forthcoming parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe.
  For anyone concerned with human rights and democracy, that vow to bar election observers or to choose where they come from, is deeply disturbing, but it is predictable, and it is what we have all come to expect from him. Far more disturbing is that when he told the assembled leaders of the ACP nations, "We will invite all of you, but we will not allow erstwhile imperialists to come and judge our election," there was sustained applause. Mozambi que's President Chissano told a news conference after the summit that Mugabe's message had elicited a lot of sympathy. Sadly—I am genuinely sad—that reaction is predictable from so many of the African leaders.
  None of us should be under any illusions about the cunning and expertise of Robert Mugabe. He is certainly not a fool when it comes to manipulating world opinion or singing a tune that will please his audience. Members will perhaps know how different his promises and rhetoric are when he addresses an international audience in English compared with his pronouncements in Shona for his audiences in the rural areas of Zimbabwe that ZANU-PF has turned into no-go areas. There are no-go areas not only for the opposition MDC, but even for the humanitarian missions of the UN. We must say clearly today that we are dealing with one of the most ruthlessly callous regimes imaginable.
  The Government of Zimbabwe have refused to co-operate with the UN crop assessment team, and, days after the officials went into the fields to begin to calculate the annual food harvest, ordered it to stop its work. The order blocked UN and EU preparations to provide the food aid that it is reckoned will be needed for more than 5 million people later in the year. The cancellation was ordered because another year of serious food shortages looms after the drastic fall in production caused by the Government's land seizures. I saw for myself the empty grain silos and fields, and the desolate workers.

  481
  Mugabe's Government did not want the UN team gathering figures that would show harvests falling far short of their massively inflated claims. The Agriculture Minister, Joseph Made, said that the UN team was in the country without his approval, although The Guardian reported having seen a letter dated 30 March from his own ministry inviting the UN World Food Programme officials to estimate the country's food aid needs. Three weeks ago, as has already been said, James Morris, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, who is also head of the World Food Programme, had to call off a planned visit to Zimbabwe because neither Mugabe nor a single Government Minister was prepared to see him.
  All that behaviour shows that there is only one answer to getting rid of Mugabe and solving the problems of Zimbabwe, and that is for the international community to act and to act decisively. My friend, Eliza Mudzuri, who many Members present have met when he was here recently and who was elected the executive mayor of Harare in 2002 by a massive majority, even in what were flawed elections, is visiting the United Nations in New York. One of the messages that he hopes to get across is that it is no good just saying that the people of Zimbabwe must find a solution to their own problems. His own removal from office shows that where the people of Zimbabwe make a democratic choice that threatens the regime, the democratic will of the people is simply overridden.
  The solution to the Zimbabwe crisis now has to lie in a partnership between the people of Zimbabwe and the international community. Here again, I want to express my real anger at the way in which South Africa still takes the lead in blocking action on investigation into human rights by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. How much longer can the entire membership of the AU or the ACP nations be hoodwinked into falling in behind President Mbeki? The mood among the young activists inside Zimbabwe is growing more and more restive. They feel that the only way of making the international community take the crisis in Zimbabwe seriously is to resort to violence. The strength of the opposition in Zimbabwe and of civil society is that they have been peaceful. They have been battered and tortured, but they have been peaceful. Such violence among the people, particularly the younger elements, must be avoided at all costs.
  After four years of failed promises and failed deadlines, it is no longer possible to see the South African Government as any sort of impartial broker of a solution to the crisis. We remember the weasel words resorted to by the South African observer mission that President Mbeki sent to monitor the presidential elections in 2002. From all it had seen, it was blatantly clear, as the observer mission's leader said, that he could not describe the elections as free and fair, but he managed to give the deeply flawed process his bosses' required seal of approval by claiming that they were legitimate. Legitimacy in this context, of course, is simply a legal nicety.
  The MDC recently issued a document called "Restore", which sets out clearly its minimum standards for the restoration of genuine democratic elections in Zimbabwe. The principles are based on the Southern African Development Community's parliamentary forum election norms and standards. It is not asking for
  482
  anything new or special; it is simply asking for what the SADC has agreed. In any normal country, no one would bat an eyelid at what it is demanding. But it is a tragedy that today, only months away from parliamentary elections, most Zimbabweans see them as an almost impossible dream. For all the fine words and communiqués of the ACP nations and the SADC, they show no signs of calling the Government of Zimbabwe to task on those very basic requirements.
  Those requirements include measures such as restoring the rule of law, ending all political violence, disbanding the youth militias, ensuring that police and security forces are impartial and non-partisan in conducting their duties, and establishing an independent and impartial electoral dispute court to hear and swiftly resolve all election-related disputes. All the messages that have come from Mugabe in the last week are just a smokescreen; none of the changes is really about genuinely making a free and fair election possible.
  The MDC's second demand is for a restoration of basic rights and freedoms; to revoke those aspects of the Public Order and Security Act that curtail the right of citizens to move, assemble and speak freely, measures that are even more severe than those that existed under Ian Smith. Often people ask why, if people in Zimbabwe feel so strongly, they are not out on the streets. But when they go out on the streets they are beaten and shot, and we do not hear about it because very few journalists there are allowed to report freely. Women in Zimbabwe have been leading a great struggle at the grass roots level in all sorts of ways to keep their families together. I and other Members have had the privilege of meeting Jenny Williams from an organisation called Women of Zimbabwe Arise. Over 70 of its members were arrested, detained and beaten up just because they went on a peaceful demonstration in Bulawayo. While such things are happening there is absolutely no chance of a free and fair election, and we need an independent electoral commission. We must restore public confidence in the electoral process. We have seen with the recent by-elections that it is almost impossible for the MDC to hold a proper campaign because the youth militia are sent in weeks before a by-election and people are not allowed to move about or do anything. I saw such practices myself in last year's council elections. In order to stop people submitting papers to allow them to stand in those elections, the town hall, as we would call it, was ring-fenced by ZANU-PF militia. No one could submit their papers, and the election was therefore declared a great victory for ZANU-PF. We must ensure that that situation changes.
  All the non-state-controlled daily newspapers and broadcasts have been closed. Without a free press, it is almost impossible to hold a free and fair election. Even with election observers drawn from Westminster, which is unlikely, or Namibia, the opposition cannot win the election if the people of Zimbabwe are denied a forum in which to exchange ideas and read about what is happening in their country. Many hon. Members have campaigned on behalf of The Daily News, and its staff and journalists, many of whom have become our friends, our heroes. Its closure was a nail in the coffin of free speech for many Zimbabweans, and although many of the journalists were killed or tortured, the world did not hear about it.

  483
  Like other hon. Members, I want to mention cricket, which we, as a country, can do something about without rocking the boat or upsetting Mbeki. Cricket is close to my heart, because on 14 September the Zimbabwean cricket team may play at the Oval in Lambeth, which is home to many Zimbabweans, who will be out in their hundreds to protest if the match goes ahead—I do not want it to go ahead.
  The extent to which cricket in Zimbabwe is used as a tool by the ZANU-PF regime has been misunderstood and underestimated. Mugabe's lackeys are trying to impose political control over team selection and other aspects of Zimbabwean cricket. It is clear that the policy is about the domination and elimination of all opposition to the Government-backed board, and the silencing of dissent is instrumental in that—people who are likely to protest about the regime do not get picked. Mugabe is the patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union; cricket teams are politically vetted; and the regime clearly sees the maintenance of sporting links with the outside world as an important seal of approval. There are few enough ways in which British people can show our solidarity with the majority of Zimbabweans, who loathe Mugabe and all he stands for. To welcome his politically selected team here, and to see ZCU officials, who collaborate with the oppressors, hobnobbing at the Oval is more than I can bear thinking about.
  Ministers have the power to refuse or revoke visas, and such a simple step is the least we can do to show solidarity with the pro-democracy activists in Zimbabwe. The British high commission in Harare refuses visas to Zimbabweans every day. Recently, two journalists travelling as guests of British Airways were refused visas because it was felt that they might not return to Zimbabwe. Let us not hear any more nonsense that we cannot refuse visas. We can simply say, "We will not give you visas. You are not coming to play cricket in this country in the name of a dictator who has stolen an election."
  Mr. Bellingham: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be easy to add some of the henchmen who run the Zimbabwe cricket board on to the list of people against whom smart sanctions have already been applied?
  Kate Hoey: One or two people in the ZCU should be subject to the same restrictions as the small number of people who are already on the list. I have no time for those who claim that such a move would play into Mugabe's hands and make the dispute one between Mugabe and Britain, because the current situation is a bilateral dispute between freedom and oppression.
  Mr. Wyatt: Has my hon. Friend taken into account the journalist Mihir Bose, who was born in Bombay and is now domiciled in London? When he went to Zimbabwe to report on cricket, he was stopped and had to return to the UK. He says that that is categorical proof that the cricket team is a ZANU-PF instrument. It is no longer possible for our Government to sit on the fence.
  Kate Hoey: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even if Mihir Bose did not possess the technical press card to cover
  484
  that sporting event, journalists who arrive late can usually obtain such documents, but Mihir Bose was not given the slightest bit of support by the ZCU. When well-known cricket journalists arrive in any other country, they are helped and supported. The Mugabe regime was silly to take such action, because, until that point, Mihir Bose had said that the Zimbabwe cricket team should tour. When Mihir Bose returned from Zimbabwe, he made it clear that no one, particularly cricketers, should have any truck with the regime. I want an answer from tho Minister on cricket, and it is not good enough to say "We cannot do it." We stop people obtaining visas all the time, sometimes for spurious reasons, and I am sure that we can find a reason to stop visas in this case.
  I shall address a point raised by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. The Government cannot ban cricket and say, "You are not going to tour. We are taking your passports off you", but nobody has asked for that. We are asking the Government and the England and Wales Cricket Board to get together and clearly state, "We are not touring, and we are telling the International Cricket Council that we are not touring. We do not want Zimbabwean cricketers to come here." We should follow that simple, straightforward policy.
  Many of my constituents are poor. and, through their taxes, they pay to feed millions of people in what was once the bread-basket of Africa. I am not surprised that some of them ask why they should pay for food aid to a country that uses force to prevent skilled farm workers from cultivating some of the most productive land in Africa. It should be a condition that all food aid we provide to Zimbabwe, directly or via the European Union, is distributed only by agencies operating entirely independently of the Zimbabwean Government. To those who say, "That means ordinary Zimbabweans will suffer", I say that ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering already. Zimbabweans would rather that the crisis were moved on, because it must come to an end. We are postponing a crisis by continuing to allow aid to go in while not making it clear that it should not be used for electioneering purposes and bribery.
  As was mentioned earlier, more must be made of the link between development aid from this country and the stance on good governance and human rights of nations in the region. Inward investment to the region is never likely to pick up while sores such as the Zimbabwe crisis are allowed to fester. We must help African nations to take responsibility for what happens in Africa, and we will not get them to take responsibility while we continue to bail them out whenever a problem arises. The result is that development efforts supported by our aid programme are constantly undermined and Africa's long-term goal of self-sufficiency is compromised.
  The New Partnership for Africa's Development foresaw a link between aid from the developed world and the delivery of good governance and human rights by African nations. We need to hold African nations to that not only as part of NEPAD, but simply as a basic precondition for providing aid. We need to spell out in no uncertain terms that applause for Mugabe's wild rants and expressions of solidarity with his regime will mean an end to support for development projects. A solid basis of democracy, free elections and free expression are the fundamental requirements for sustainable development, and there is no point in

  485
  pouring in the aid. Unless there is support for those principles from the region, we are simply pouring our money down the drain and my constituents are paying for that. Even if they are not willing to embrace the higher moral principles at stake, surely straightforward self-interest in terms of aid, investment and economic stability should persuade the leaders of the SADC countries that Mugabe must be shunned.
  An abiding memory of my visit to Zimbabwe is the feeling of fear and violence that has become a normal part of everyday life. As I heard someone say the other day, people ask what is wrong when the police do not beat them up. With torture and brutality having been meted out on such a scale, there is almost no need to use it any more; many of the people are already cowed into submission.
  In March this year, I hosted a meeting here with other Members to present a report issued by the Zimbabwe Institute, which is based in South Africa and which found that 50 of the Movement for Democratic Change's 59 MPs and 28 of its parliamentary candidates had personally experienced human rights abuses in the past three years at the hands of the security services and supporters. That is just the tip of the iceberg. If an elected representative can be beaten up, tortured, disappeared or even killed, how can the ordinary person in the suburbs or rural areas believe that they can possibly stand up to this regime?
  That is why for free and fair elections to take place there needs to be a clear undertaking that human rights will be guaranteed by the international community not only during an election campaign, but for a good six to nine months in advance, and for long afterwards. People are genuinely afraid that Mugabe and his henchmen will resort to violent reprisals even after they lose power. We need to plan for that now; otherwise there can be no hope of a lasting and peaceful transition to democracy and reconstruction in Zimbabwe.
  Only yesterday, Zimbabwe's Parliament passed new detention laws. They are the most repressive in the country's history, yet Mugabe is dressing them up as part of his so-called campaign against corruption. The laws extend the amount of time prisoners can be detained under security legislation without an appearance in court from 48 hours to more than three weeks. Many hon. Members will have read the gruesome accounts of what can happen to people who are detained even for brief periods by the Zimbabwean police. These new measures do not bode well for the safety of opposition activists during the forthcoming election campaign.
  I want to mention Gideon Gono, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Ministers made it clear that they felt powerless to prevent him from coming into the country because he was not on the EU list, which is designed to exclude those engaged in abuse of human rights. His role as private banker and provider of funds both for the regime and for the Mugabes' private shopping trips is now well known, but Ministers may not be aware of his involvement in the victimisation of students at the university of Zimbabwe. Student activists have been at the forefront of the struggle for human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe, and they have long borne the brunt of the brutality handed out by state security agents. Security guards at the university of Zimbabwe are better paid than the police. Many
  486
  graduate upwards from the ranks of the police and can be every bit as brutal as the special units that specialise in repression. As chairman of the university council, Gideon Gono was complicit in the banning of students who dared to raise their voices against the repression of the state and their violent treatment by the university security guards. Given Mr. Gono's record in the abuse of human rights and freedom of expression at the university of Zimbabwe, I appeal to the Minister to give an undertaking that next time he applies for a visa to come here on a fundraising trip for the Zimbabwe regime his request will be turned down.
  Like the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, what struck me most about the people I met in Zimbabwe—members of civil society, torture victims, displaced farm workers, white farmers, and many others, including Morgan Tsvangirai—was that when they discovered who I was and where I had come from, they said over and over again, "Don't let people forget us, and please tell people how it is." This is what is happening, and we need to do more.
  3.24 pm
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who has taken a courageous and principled stand on the issue of Zimbabwe over many years. She put her life in danger by going there a year ago to find out for herself precisely what the situation is.
  As many hon. Members know, I have taken a deep interest in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Rhodesia over very many years—in fact, for all the 33 years in which I have sat in the House of Commons. I say quite openly that I have a dream, to use the words of Martin Luther King. I am determined to see a democratic and peaceful Zimbabwe in the central part of central southern Africa. I want to see peace, stability and prosperity restored to the people of Zimbabwe. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) in his place, as he chairs the all-party group on Zimbabwe with great distinction and puts a huge effort into the meetings and into obtaining people who have a positive contribution to make to the subject of Zimbabwe.
  Interestingly, in 1979 I visited Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as it was then, as a guest of the interim Government of Bishop Muzorewa. While I was there, Bishop Muzorewa and his Government team—including the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, the Honourable Ian Douglas Smith; General Walls and his team of Ministers; and Mr. Sithole, Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe and Chief Chirau—flew to the United Kingdom to take part in the Lancaster house talks. My visit was to look at the progress that was being made in education and health provision for the whole population, and to look at the way in which development was taking place to provide better farming and agriculture for all the people of the country.
  As has been said by many hon. Members, huge progress was being made at that time, and it continued for a few years. Tremendous progress was made in reform of and investment in education, health, infrastructure and housing. That set Zimbabwe—Rhodesia-now Zimbabwe—apart from many other

  487
  countries. It was prosperous; many people know that it was the bread basket of central and southern Africa, supplying food to many surrounding countries.
  Perhaps, however, it would be appropriate to come up to date. On 25 June, in the Cape Times, a South African newspaper, Basildon Peta reported from Johannesburg:
  "In an unprecedented move, dozens of the ruling ZANU-PF Members of Parliament walked out of Parliament (Harare) in protest against a bill that empowers police to detain corruption suspects for up to a month"—
  the hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to that—
  "without trial. Opposition Movement for Democratic Change MPs remained in their seats.
  This effectively thwarted plans to bulldoze the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill through Parliament.
  ZANU-PF normally rubber-stamp Robert Mugabe's proposed legislation. ZANU-PF MPs fear that if they allow the regulations to become permanent law, many would be targeted as Mugabe seeks to win the hearts and minds of the urban electorate through his much-vaunted anti-corruption crusade."
  That shows not only the deep problems that the ordinary people and Opposition Members in that country encounter but the concern that Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party feels.
  Meanwhile, as some hon. Members know, Mr. Roy Bennett, the popular Member of Parliament for Chimanimani, dared to raise in Parliament the brutal military seizure of his prosperous farm, Charleswood, in spite of several court orders upholding his ownership of the farm. His employees—hundreds of black Zimbabweans—were driven out through violence, rape and torture. After prolonged, repeated and sustained taunts and provocation by Government Members of Parliament, he cracked, lost his cool and pushed one of his persecutors. That is precisely what Government Members of Parliament and others wanted. Mr. Bennett has been pursued by a country-wide hue and cry to drive him out of his country—Zimbabwe—completely. A mob of some 3,000 howled for his blood through Harare, roughing up white Zimbabweans on its way to wrecking the headquarters of the Opposition party in the capital.
  As previous speakers have said, 90 per cent. of Opposition Members of Parliament and officials have reported harassment, torture and burning of homes. Helen Anderson, whom some of us know, has published accounts of the ravages and tortures that Mugabe's so-called green bombers inflicted. Last month, the Zimbabwe Government closed a third independent newspaper—The Tribune—and they control almost all the printed and electronic media. They already vet telephone conversations.
  As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey knows, the Zimbabwean Government are now legislating to control internet communication and thus suppress all criticism that may go beyond its tightly controlled borders. The extent to which internet control is technologically practicable is questionable, but it spreads fear and stifles communication. People in Zimbabwe think twice before writing freely to friends who remain in the country lest they endanger friends and relatives who may be suspected or accused of having contacts in the supposedly hostile western world.
  488
  As some of us know, the huge Kondozi farm at Odzi, on which thousands—I mean thousands—in Manicaland depend for their livelihoods, has also been seized. Apparently, the Minister for Agriculture coveted the income of the farm, which sold produce to supermarkets in South Africa, Europe and the United Kingdom. Its seizure left thousands of employees destitute in the winter bush without food or shelter.
  I regret to say that commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe is at a turning point. Of the 4,500 commercial farmers who were on the land in 2000, probably fewer than 500 are now fully or partly operational. So far, some 6,897 farms with a total area of almost 12 million hectares have been gazetted for resettlement.
  The Commercial Farmers Union offers a note of hope in saying that it believes that there is a strong positive element within ZANU-PF that wants a return to productivity in agriculture and in the economy as a whole. However, the union is equally aware that a strong element is intent on continuing the third chimurenga, in its literal sense, and probably extending it beyond its land-based origins to embrace other sectors of society and of the Zimbabwean economy.
  The Zimbabwe Government have also legislated to prohibit sales of maize, the staple food, to anyone except the official grain marketing board. They claim that the country is about to reap a bumper harvest and therefore needs no outside help. Of course, the Government turned out the three teams from the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme, but not before they had established that, despite more favourable weather conditions, the harvest would be worse even that that of last year. After the seizure of the commercial farms, surely the need for food aid remains if millions are not to suffer hunger, malnutrition and, in many cases, slow death through hunger-enhanced AIDS. The percentage of people in Zimbabwe with AIDS has already been highlighted in this debate. The mayor of Mutare attempted to buy maize for the destitute through his Christmas cheer fund, but was refused by the grain marketing board.
  The Zimbabwe Government are, as we know, quietly importing maize and evidently hope that, with their own stockpile, they will be able to feed their own supporters through the crucial general election period next March. No provision at all appears to have been made for the minority Matabele people, who largely support the Opposition. They vividly remember Mugabe's massacres of their people in the early 1980s by the North Korean-trained fifth brigade. I think it was the Foreign Secretary himself who pointed out that some 20,000 Matabele people lost their lives at that time. I pay tribute to the BBC and its journalist, Fergal Keane, for the "Panorama" programme that they produced a little while ago to highlight what had happened at that time, along with the fact that the British Government—yes, I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, a Conservative Government—failed to do anything about it. This country should be ashamed of its lack of action at that time.
  In pursuit of the objectives relating to farming that I have mentioned, the Commercial Farmers Union and most of the citizens of Zimbabwe expect that people's individual, constitutional and property rights should not be violated or abused by the Government. Similarly, the principles on which commercial agriculture is

  489
  founded should not be abandoned if the future productivity of the agriculture sector is to match or exceed that of the past, which is what the country needs if it is to regain its position and prosperity, and feed its own people.
  The principles of security of tenure, law and order, and viability and sustainability are internationally recognised, and were historically the basis for the thriving national economy of Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe's economy is to be revitalised, this vital set of principles should be adhered to, and their application extended over the years to embrace as much of the productive farmland of the country as possible.
  There is no time to describe the creeping destruction of Zimbabwe's schools, both public and private, or the decay of medical and hospital services. With high unemployment currently running at some 70 per cent. and hyperinflation that has risen as high as 600 per cent., it is hardly surprising that official figures published by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe suggest that 3.4 million people—about a quarter of the population—have fled Mr. Mugabe's rule. About 1.1 million Zimbabweans live in the United Kingdom; another 1.2 million have fled to South Africa, and more are going. Another 100,000 have taken refuge in Australia, almost on the other side of the world, and a further million are scattered throughout other parts of the world.
  It is not surprising that Mr. Gideon Gono, head of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, has toured this country to persuade the Zimbabwean community to use a new Government service when they send money home to their relatives, rather than the black market means that are currently available. That, of course, will inflate the Mugabe Government's cash-starved foreign exchange coffers, but, surprisingly, it appears that he legally evaded the UK sanctions intended to keep high-profile supporters of Mugabe's regime out of this country. The Times on 11 June quoted the South African Sunday Times as alleging that Mr. Gono is the controller of a slush fund in the state-owned Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe, which has dealt illegally in foreign currency and handed out funds to the ruling party bosses, including the Mugabe family.
  Reports that Zimbabwe is buying fighter jets from China while her people face starvation are denied by China—I dealt with this question on the Floor of the House a week or two ago, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it. Does he have any evidence that Zimbabwe is buying fighter aircraft and military transport trucks from the People's Republic of China? Certainly, the drying-up of European sources of military spares through sanctions is inevitably driving Zimbabwe to look east and elsewhere for help, although it faces no military threat from any quarter whatsoever.
  Will the Minister comment on a document that, it is said, his Department is investigating, which is dated 8 June and headed, "Solution to the White Problem"? The proposal is to drive out most of Zimbabwe's remaining 50,000 whites before next year's parliamentary elections. The document was reportedly drawn up by advisers to the director general of Mugabe's Central Intelligence Organisation, and leaked to the British embassy in Harare and a newspaper. It is said to propose a phoney threat of white sabotage, and staged support for an imaginary British and opposition-sponsored terrorist movement. It is alleged that such a
  490
  programme of ethnic cleansing would produce an unparalleled exodus of terrified white Zimbabweans, but that it would achieve little reaction from Britain or anywhere else. In that situation, the opposition in Zimbabwe would collapse, and Mr. Mugabe would be left in complete control.
  Will the Minister comment on the so-called "Zimbabwean Community in the UK", which is allegedly a Birmingham-based asylum fraud linked to the Mugabe regime? I ask him to examine it seriously. Police and immigration officers are investigating an organisation set up with national lottery money to help immigrants, after claims that it forged documents and provided false life histories for 1,000 Zimbabwean asylum seekers. Detectives have also reportedly been given information allegedly showing that Albert Matapo and his wife Grace, founders of the "Zimbabwean Community in the UK", have provided national insurance numbers and false passports to help immigrants get jobs.
  Finally, does the Minister recall the visit last year of somebody for whom I have the highest regard and respect, the heroic Zimbabwean archbishop, Pius Ncube, who visited the UK to draw attention to Mr. Mugabe's crimes against humanity, and against the people and interests of his country? Sadly, the impact of the visit of this distinguished cleric was limited, as he was subject to a media blackout, apparently at the request—I say this with much regret and some reservation—of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. It appears that the bishops' overseas development agency did not want him to achieve the publicity that his visit merited, because, apparently, CAFOD unfortunately includes many former admirers of Mr. Robert Mugabe. It is a matter of some regret that our own Prime Minister, who shows considerable interest in Africa and is clearly deeply concerned about the problems in Zimbabwe, was not able to find time in his busy diary to meet the archbishop.
  I pay credit to the Prime Minister, however, for telling me that I was free to take members of the Zimbabwean opposition to see him at No. 10 Downing street. I shall take advantage of that in due course, when opposition members are able to obtain visas to come to this country and present their case. The hon. Member for Vauxhall spoke of the problems that they encountered when trying to leave Zimbabwe. I hope that the Prime Minister will be in a position to meet not just me, but those representatives.
  Zimbabwe is only one of the United Kingdom's overseas problems, but Britain has a unique and unprecedented responsibility. It was this Parliament, under a Conservative Government, that granted Zimbabwe independence and brought Robert Mugabe to power. I remind the House that a United Kingdom Government promised, to outlaw all intimidation during the 1980 election; but then—again, I am deeply ashamed of this—the Government and their representatives proceeded to ignore hundreds of affidavits testifying to the sustained intimidation that finally ensured Mr. Mugabe's outright victory.
  Despite the recommendations of the acting governor, Christopher Soames—who suggested to the Foreign Secretary at the time that certain areas should be taken out of the election because of the levels of

  491
  intimidation—the Foreign Secretary refused to allow the exclusion of those areas. As a result, Robert Mugabe came to power.
  Mr. Bellingham: That was Peter Carrington.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Yes, it was Lord Carrington. I know what happened for a fact, because the chief executive of Cheshire county council, Sir John Boynton, was returning officer for the election in Zimbabwe. Many representatives of the Cheshire constabulary were also there to monitor the election, and ensure that it was free and fair. The views that they expressed on their return to this country suggested that in many areas it was far from free and fair.
  We cannot allow things to go on as they are. Some action must be taken. I suggested to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee with great distinction, that switching off electricity might be a way of concentrating the minds of the people of Zimbabwe and perhaps securing action to bring about the removal of Mr. Robert Mugabe. I do not want to bring any additional suffering to the already long-suffering people of that country, but I believe that, given our special responsibility, we must do something to save them from Mugabe and bring about his removal.
  3.48 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Foreign Secretary. As I am supposed to be at a meeting of Borden parish council early this evening to discuss a problem relating to speeding in Oad street, I may not be here at 5.30 pm for the winding-up speeches—and my own speech will be amazingly quick.
  I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for his kind comments about my chairmanship of the all-party committee. I can tell him that it is impossible to ban the internet, although I will not say why. It is possible for Mugabe to do many things, and he will close down some parts of the internet; but he will not be able to close all of it down, which is a relief.
  I want to make one or two comments following on from the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). There is a cultural deficit, which he said nothing about. Although Hitler burned the books in the libraries and Stalin and Khrushchev banned music, or allowed only a certain type of music or art that they liked, we should remember that out of that came such things as the fantastic works of Solzhenitsyn and many fine musical compositions, as well as samizdat, the system by which photocopied works were smuggled out. In Zimbabwe, however, there is an absolute cultural deficit: there is no music, art or literature. That is a terrible shame.
  I took on the founding of the all-party group because I have constituents who have farms who had come to me in tears to ask me what on earth I was going to do. A reasonably good constituency MP tries to take some action when that happens, and it seemed to me that we needed a focus in the House.
  492
  A point has been made about the United Nations. I have received a comment on that, which says that it is "unlikely" that the subject of Zimbabwe
  "would be brought to the Security Council, unless the members of the Council perceived the situation in Zimbabwe as a serious threat to the stability of neighbouring countries."
  It is said that the number of Zimbabweans moving out of Zimbabwe to South Africa, Namibia and Malawi is a problem, but I can tell the House that President Mbeki's brother, who lectured the all-party group about a month ago, said that his country welcomes the coming of the Zimbabweans because they include dentists, nurses, doctors, farmers, skilled plumbers and builders who are making a phenomenal difference to the economy in South Africa. We have to bear that in mind, coming from a man who has close knowledge of those matters in South Africa. Only if there were a large exodus of refugees to Malawi especially its northern part, would there be a serious problem for the area.
  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster are keen to hold our Government to account over Iraq, and rightly so; however, I wish that they would also consider their statements, comments and positions on Zimbabwe. They have a particular opportunity, even now at this late stage, to come together to make a statement to President Mugabe, who was trained in a Jesuit college, apparently pretends to be a Catholic of some sort and has caused huge problems to Archbishop Ncube. Why could not the Christian churches come together to go to Zimbabwe and produce an official report? Why can they not discuss the matter? It seems improbable that they could not do something about the position. We need them to stand up and be counted.
  Some 20 years ago, I was a head of history at a school, where I taught world history. I used to teach on the Foreign Office and give a lecture called, "The Foreign Office: a disaster abroad." I used to tell my students, "Look at Palestine on the one hand and, on the other, the creation of modern Israel. Look at the Saudis: we backed the wrong family. Look at Persia: blow it, we backed the wrong family. Look at South Africa: for far too long, we backed the Afrikaners. We even got it wrong in Rhodesia." There were many more examples.
  If I were giving that lesson today, I would be discussing a real dilemma that we are not being honest about and on which we are not taking any sort of leadership. Since 11 September, the world has changed. If we look at the institutions that pretend to represent us in the world—the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation—we see that they are by and large run by the west. They skew votes and use vetoes. It is very hard for a country to get its own way in the WTO unless America wants it to and the UN is skewed in our favour. The UN was born out of the first world war through the League of Nations, but the other institutions were born out of the second world war. Since 11 September, I would say, they are almost redundant, and we have not challenged the institutions that purport to represent us. It is no wonder that the African bloc uses the United Nations to block us continually over this issue. Would not we do the same? After all, we created the system. They are doing their damnedest to make sure that it does nothing.

  493
  We ask why the UN cannot do anything, but what or who could? Let us consider the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe is not in the Commonwealth, so what on earth can that organisation do? President Obasanjo is supposed to be going to Zimbabwe, but he does not seem to have gone there very often since last December. In reality, the Commonwealth is powerless. It might be good for the Commonwealth games and the odd Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, but what does it really do?
  In a sense, we have left only the EU and the G8, and we should focus on the latter. It is terrible to think that, in a year's time, we might still be confronting this issue, but next year we will hold the presidency of both the G8 and the EU. It is not too late to put Zimbabwe on the agenda for the G8. It is a scar on our conscience and no one can disagree about how bad the situation is. It is the Palestine of Africa and what is going on there is terrible. I hope that the Minister will think about using the G8 as a way to solve this problem.
  I wonder whether we should make use of the technology that enables intelligence surveillance from space. I have three prisons in my constituency. I have also discovered that pictures are taken of fields to check whether rape or wheat is being grown so that that information can be checked against the common agricultural policy regulations. In the same way, it would be possible to check whether Mugabe is telling the truth about the food. Why do we not take such pictures and put them into the public domain? What would be wrong with that? Why do we not expose the hypocrisy and allow people to see the evidence?
  The Secretary of State said earlier that certain things are going on in readiness for a post-Mugabe situation, but what things? What is going on? All economists agree that, if Mugabe were to die next year or to stand down—what a miracle that would be—it would take Zimbabwe at least 10 years to recover economically. It is no good waiting for next year or the year after. We need to act now and to corral the goodness inside and outside Zimbabwe in order to put in place the necessary systems, investment and training. It surely is not beyond the wit of Britain to take that lead. I want far greater investment in the people of Zimbabwe who are in this country to prepare and train them for when they return.
  Sport has obviously been a big part of my life. I once played on the wing for England; fortunately, it was the left wing. [Interruption.] I am glad somebody got that one. The International Cricket Council is registered here but, cleverly, it is also registered in Monte Carlo for tax purposes. I employed a solicitor and a Queen's counsel to try to get the ICC's constitution from Lords, but I was refused five times. That happened because the constitution contains clauses on the aims and objectives of international cricket. I see that the Minister is looking at me, so perhaps I might ask him a favour. So that I can stop paying money to my solicitor and QC, will he ask Malcolm Speed, chief executive of the ICC, to send him the aims and objectives and the complete constitution of the ICC?
  The Football Association of Wales had a problem recently, involving the late registration of a Russian player, and it went to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne Why is the case of Zimbabwe not being argued out in the only international court of law for port? Let us take
  494
  Zimbabwe there, get the constitution and issue the writs. The Government could do that, and we could stand up and be counted in that way, instead of being so lily-livered about sport as a whole. I hope that the Minister will address this issue.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: Given that the hon. Gentleman has paid so much money for legal advice, perhaps I might offer him some for nothing. The Select Committees of this House have the power to send for witnesses and papers. He might seek to persuade one of them to send for the constitution of the ICC.
  Mr. Wyatt: That is a cracking good idea. I will do that, as well as ask the Minister, in case he is not supplied with it.
  I have to put this carefully, but I am an expert in laundered money—in the sense that I try to find out where laundered money goes. Some of us have been to Zurich and spent a whole day at UBS looking into where Mugabe's money might be. May I tell the Minister that we spent a most interesting day with UBS? We went there because the bank had the money of Abacha of Nigeria: $5.8 billion of his money was deposited, eventually, at UBS in Zurich.
  We talk about numbers and hear of more than 75 people being banned from coming here and now it is 90-odd. However, I know that UBS had more than 800 leads about Mugabe's money, traced through 800 different people and companies. If we really think that banning 75 or 90 or 93 or 101 is going to help, let me stress that we should go and see what the diligent forensic lawyers and other people in UBS have done. Thus my second request to the Government is for a one-day conference on laundered money in Zimbabwe. I have spent some time with the Financial Services Authority, three of whose people came to see me. I have spent some time with our security people. I have talked to our high commission in Malaysia, because President Mugabe takes so many trips to Kuala Lumpur and he may be using money there. As far as we understand it, it is all cash and very difficult to trace.
  In the light of some of our successes in respect of some African leaders—I am thinking of Hastings Banda, Moi or Abacha, whom I have already mentioned—when billions and billions of dollars were being laundered, I cannot believe there is no prospect of the same success with Mugabe.
  I am just wondering out loud, but if I were Mugabe, I would loan my army to the Democratic Republic of the Congo for as long as I could because I would get paid for that army. However, I am going to get paid in diamonds. Where are those diamonds? Who trades those diamonds in Holland? How do they get there? We need to do more work on laundered money. Is it true that Mugabe traded the diamonds for oil from Libya? Now that we have a convention and good trading relationships with Libya, did the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary ever ask whether the oil was being turned off or whether the diamonds were being swapped? Is it true that there is now no more oil? If there is no more oil, where are the diamonds? Where are they being traded? That is the key.
  I have talked to Transparency International, as the Minister knows, because we have had this debate before. People are beginning to think that the money is being

  495
  traded through Cairo. I do not have the evidence for that, but it is something that is being said on the street. Can we bring the banks together to sign the international convention on money laundering? We really can do more and it is up to the G8 to do it. I would ask us to do much more than just say that we are trying.
  There are one or two things that I would like us to do. I would like us to take that wretched honorary knighthood away from Mugabe because it besmirches the whole honours system and is a disgrace. I do not understand whether nothing has happened because the monarch does not like the impact on the Commonwealth: she is Queen of the Commonwealth and it embarrasses her. I would have thought that even the royal family would understand that Mugabe's knighthood has to go—and it could go tomorrow. Would it not be wonderful if it did? I know that it is just a small token, but it is one of those things that I think we should get rid of.
  When I worked for the African National Congress in the 80s, I worked for 10 years raising funds here in London as a part-timer interested in South Africa. Eventually, with the help of Donald Woods and one or two others, we decided to send an eminent person to visit South Africa. That was the turn of the screw for the Afrikaans Government. I know that we have asked this before and that we have said that we must let President Obasanjo do this, but it seems to me that we are not getting very far. Is it not possible to get, say, a Maori archbishop from New Zealand together with a black Catholic priest from Boston? Is it beyond the wit of man to find eminent people in the world who have no political attachment to Great Britain and to make an eminent visit? If Mugabe bans them, he bans them, but at least we should make the effort, present the argument and get the people together. The Archbishops of Canterbury and of Westminster could do that for us, and I hope that we will have another go.
  People who are close to foreign affairs know that, in matters such as this, we always turn to Norway for intervention. That has happened in connection with the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the problems in Palestine. Have we tried Norway on Zimbabwe? Is there a way for us to open talks through an independent country that has huge integrity, and which people trust?
  If talks are under way, I take all that back, yet my sense is that we have lost the urgency to do anything about Zimbabwe. However, Norway represents a chance—as would Canada, although the fact that it is a Commonwealth nation might pose a problem. Could not Norway help the G8 countries convene a meeting to look at a post-Mugabe society in Zimbabwe? That meeting could plot some of the brickwork—I hate to say road map—that would be needed. It could try to work out what could be done, how much might be needed, and how we might trade with Zimbabwe. As I have said before, we cannot stand still and do nothing.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). Given everything that he has
  496
  done in the cause of helping the people of Zimbabwe, perhaps the right thing to do would be to transfer Mugabe's knighthood to him. That would amount to the just deserts that we would all like to accord him.
  This debate has been extremely interesting. I have not been able to participate in these matters as often as I should like, but I want to pay tribute to all those who have kept the torch alight. They have tried to draw to the attention of the House and the people of this country the terrible evil of the regime over which Robert Mugabe currently presides. In that respect, I want to single out the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who have been trenchant and consistent in their campaigning.
  My interest arises from the fact that I visited the country then called Rhodesia in 1967, when I was at university. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) was also present, and we went as guests of the Anglo-Rhodesian Society. No one who visited the country at the time could fail to recognise how fantastic it was. It was stunningly beautiful and had so much potential: the country was on the go and on the move. Of course it had its political problems, and I dare say that Labour and Conservative Members might disagree about the politics of that time, but the strong impression was that a dialogue was under way. There was much more freedom of expression in Rhodesia than there is today in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
  In 1957, Harold Macmillan spoke about the winds of change sweeping through Africa, but he could not have foreseen the veritable tempest that was to follow. The ordered and increasingly prosperous societies left behind as the colonial powers scuttled out of Africa gave way to an appalling wave of violence and economic incompetence. The carefully crafted, Westminster-style constitutional arrangements were soon torn up as the democratic legacy gave way to dictatorship, corruption—and the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was very eloquent about that—chaos and the abandonment of concern for human rights.
  What I have described happened in Nigeria, Uganda, the Congo, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana—and, of course, in Zimbabwe, the former Southern Rhodesia. That is an appalling catalogue of failures.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Was not some of the violence that occurred due to the post-colonial tendency of the west and the east to use Africa as a surrogate for their conflict?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. What he describes was a factor in what happened, but I do not think that it was the only one. We know that communist countries, and the Soviet Union in particular, sought to undermine western interests in those African countries. Many of those who came to power in the newly independent countries received training from the Soviet Union, so it was hardly surprising that they sought to implement Stalinist-style regimes—although at the time the rest of the world was quietly giving up the communist way of life.
  Mr. Mullin: What about Mobutu? Was he a Soviet agent?
  Mr. Howarth: I do not suggest that the entire continent was subverted by the Soviet Union: I was merely agreeing with the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Perhaps the Minister should have a word with his hon. Friend.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: As my hon. Friend considers the history of Zimbabwe—Rhodesia, as it used to be—in the 1960s and before, will he comment on what President Gumede from Matabele, who was President when Bishop Muzorewa was Prime Minister, said to me—"If the western world would allow us to sort out our own problems, we would get it right. As it is, we're going to get the wrong answer."?
  Mr. Howarth: Those were prophetic words. Life was very difficult at the time and a strong anti-colonialist stance was popular, especially among Labour Members. I do not entirely blame the colonial powers for wishing to remove themselves from Africa, because that was the way things were going. I merely make the point that those societies were ordered, and what followed was a disappointment. I was an international banker before I became an MP and I saw at first hand the appalling corruption in Nigeria. It was desperate to see so much money being siphoned off and denied to the people. Nigeria had so much going for it, including tremendous agricultural and industrial potential,but it was all squandered.
  One country that has so far survived the storm is South Africa. It owes its survival in large measure to the personality and strength of one truly remarkable man—Nelson Mandela. I probably would not have said that 15 years ago. In fact, I freely admit that I would not have said it, but I do now. He has set a magnificent example, and it is a great shame that it has not been followed as widely in the rest of Africa as I would wish. Thankfully, some countries that have suffered lately are showing signs of improvement.
  Today's debate has been characterised by a consensus across the Chamber about the level of evil of the Mugabe regime, and the violence and abuse that it visits on its own people. I shall not repeat that catalogue, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has described it. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and other hon. Members also set out the problems.
  I do not know how many other hon. Members have heard Alastair Leithead's recent broadcasts for the BBC about life inside Zimbabwe. He has obviously taken some risks to make them, but those who have spoken to him have taken even greater risks. He has lifted the veil and no one can still be in any doubt about the brutal nature of the regime. That nature is encapsulated by the words of the Foreign Affairs Committee in a report on Zimbabwe. It refers to the Mugabe regime's
  "use of torture, beatings, rape and starvation against its own people, and the threat which it poses to the prosperity and stability of southern Africa".
  What an indictment of a country from our Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Alastair Leithead's reports make the point that those who are suffering most are the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. We know that the white farmers are
  498
  suffering: they are being beaten and dispossessed of farms in which they, and their families before them, have invested their entire lives to grow food not only for the people of Zimbabwe but for the rest of southern Africa. They have had a terrible time—but things are even worse for the ordinary Zimbabweans.
  As the Archbishop of Bulawayo said:
  "They"—
  that is, the Government of Zimbabwe—
  "have a plan here to starve people to death for political ends—to get everyone aligned to their party at all costs, which is absolutely diabolical and vicious".
  I referred earlier to the remark by David Coulthard that in the recent by-election at Lupane, those who did not vote for ZANU-PF did not get the food. Such behaviour is disgusting. An aid worker says:
  "Children are dying from starvation. We had children fainting and not able to even walk to get food as they were too weak. This country has been brought to its knees and it is slowly dying. All we are doing is holding our finger in the dam trying to stop the final disaster—but it's coming".
  There is incontrovertible evidence that Zimbabwe is a country where the people are crying out for help. Why should we tolerate that? There are three reasons why we should not. First, this is our concern. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we have historic ties with Zimbabwe. As the colonial power, we handed over a country in which our citizens continued to play a part in both Government and the economy, and thousands of our kith and kin—to use that old expression—remain there. The Government have seen it right to intervene in Sierra Leone and the Congo, so I find it curious that Mugabe is allowed to get away with what amounts to genocide and the destruction of his entire country.
  Secondly, there is a steady exodus of asylum seekers. We have heard about the people streaming out into the surrounding countries. I dare say that, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said, many of those are qualified people who will be well received in the neighbouring countries, but I must also point out that whereas in 1994 there were 55 applications for asylum from Zimbabweans in the United Kingdom, in the last four years there have been 14,000. People are streaming out of the country. Only recently, in my Aldershot constituency, I met a Zimbabwean applying to stay in the United Kingdom, and I have just been able to write and tell him that he will be able to stay. This country has an interest, because if the result of Mugabe's tyranny is that all those people are streaming out not only into the surrounding countries but into the United Kingdom, that is a matter of concern for us.
  Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall also said, we are paying for all that. Our constituents are paying for the rather futile attempts to help the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said in the debate in Westminster Hall on 9 March:
  "the Department for International Development has given the country £62 million in humanitarian assistance since the crisis began in 2001, and it provides further funds to help tackle HIV/ AIDS"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 387WH.]
  That is a lot of British taxpayers' money going into that country.

  499
  The Foreign Secretary said earlier from the Dispatch Box that once democracy had been restored we would be paying even more to put things right—and by then, the country will be in ruins. I believe that the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said that that would take 10 years even if we could put things right today, so if things changed in two years' time, how long would it take to restore the country to normality?
  It is clear that we must do something. The Foreign Secretary said that we had to avoid "playing into Mugabe's hands" by pitching ourselves against the rest of the world, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes rightly said from the Front Bench, in this case, quiet diplomacy has failed.
  It is an indictment of other countries that they are unwilling to support the United Kingdom in concerted action to save the poor people of Zimbabwe when what is happening to them is transparently obvious. It must be in the interests of the neighbouring countries to join us in taking action.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) said that it was clear that South Africa had a great deal to lose from the complete implosion of South Africa, and that is true. Perhaps skilled people are currently well received by neighbouring countries, but if Zimbabwe continues to implode, a stream of people without such qualifications will develop, which will become those countries' problem. It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), but in the spirit of consensus that is clearly breaking out in the Chamber today, I concur that we ought to give things a try. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes is to be congratulated on his five-point action plan to try to get something done. We owe it to the people of Zimbabwe, both black and white, to end the tyranny of President Mugabe's Government.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the cricket. The Foreign Secretary said grandly that it would be quite improper for the Government to intervene and that the private sporting body should make the decision on the matter. Those of us who are concerned about the problem, such as the hon. Member for Vauxhall, might like to take a leaf out of the Leader of the House's book. When he was masquerading as a Liberal, he brought about the Government intervention that stopped the South African cricket tour of 1970 by threatening to flash mirrors in batsmen's eyes and a load of other measures that were then called "direct action". I set up something called the Hain prosecution fund, so I am intimately familiar with the matter. Given that the Leader of the House was able to push the then Government into action, I am sure that he will be able to give advice on how we may be able to prevail on the Government to take proper action on the cricket tour.
  I wish to raise a further issue in my capacity as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Overseas Service Pensioners Association. The Minister knows that we have a longstanding interest in the plight of the public servants who stayed on in Zimbabwe after the handover of power that followed the Lancaster house agreement in 1979 and 1980. I associate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) with my comments. He is unable to be in the Chamber because
  500
  he is engaged in important "warfare" work elsewhere in the country, but I know that he strongly supports the cause.
  Some 1,200 people in this country should be in receipt of pensions from the Government of Zimbabwe. The pensions dried up in February 2003 and those people are seriously suffering. Even if they were paid, given the rate of inflation in Zimbabwe about which we have heard, such money that they would receive would not compensate them properly for a lifetime of public service to the people of Rhodesia and then the people of Zimbabwe. I am sorry that the Foreign Office has written to say that it has no duty of care or responsibility for those people who are genuinely suffering. I put it to the Minister and the House that if those people had not agreed to stay on and act as public servants to ensure that there was continuity of government and proper administration of the country following the handover of power, things might have been very different because the country could have been handed over to people without the qualifications or experience to run it. We owe a debt of gratitude to those public servants for what they did.
  Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the police and many other public servants who stayed on after the unilateral declaration of independence remained loyal to the Crown and built up pension rights? Now, however, everything has been lost.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I make no apology for raising the matter, as it is unfortunate that the Government, who accept that they have a duty to provide food aid to men, women and children who are being starved by Mugabe, do not think that they have a duty to people on whom they were dependent for delivering the agreement struck at Lancaster house. Even if a trust was not implied—the Foreign Office rejects that argument—Her Majesty's Government were the legal Government at the time of the handover to Zimbabwe and, as the holder of pension contributions, owe those people a duty of care worth much more than just the remittance of those pensions. My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne wrote to the then Government on 20 December 1979, referring to "full safeguards and remittability", but remittability is only part of the issue of the safeguarding of pensions.
  The Government owe these people a debt of honour. It would not cost a huge amount, but if they accept that they have a duty to the victims of Mugabe's terror regime, I hope that they will step up to the mark and accept that they have a duty to discharge towards people who did not work for profit in the private sector but were public servants who sought to serve the people of Zimbabwe and played a critical role during the transition. That debt ought to be repaid by the Government.
  4.26 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to have the opportunity to convey to the House my constituents' concerns about Zimbabwe, where the situation is appalling, as Members on both sides of the House have said. There are worsening attacks on press freedom and horrific human rights abuses directed at ordinary members of the democratic opposition, who should be able to challenge the regime. We have heard worrying statistics that 90 per cent. of opposition MPs

  501
  have been subject to human rights abuses, 16 per cent. have been tortured, and three have died after being assaulted.
  We might hope to look forward to next year's parliamentary elections, but the prospects are not good, as by-elections in April and May clearly showed that conditions in the country are not conducive to free and fair elections. If there is anything that we can do either as parliamentarians or by applying ministerial pressure we should do so to make sure that in those elections people enjoy the right to express their views. The international community does not yet have the powers to represent ordinary people. Members will be aware that people in Zimbabwe do not support what is going on. It is for Africa to deal with the problem but, distressingly, it lacks the political will to do so at a time when it is at the forefront of many international debates. African countries would raise objections if the issue were raised at the UN Security Council, so there is a genuine test for the New Partnership for Africa's Development and the new Commission for Africa. If we cannot focus on turning the situation around in Zimbabwe, UN resolutions and other procedures should be adopted to protect ordinary people.
  I recognise that the Government have taken action on Zimbabwe. It is clear that our food and humanitarian aid is keeping many people alive in that country, and we are the biggest cash donor. I should like to push for more aid to and support for Zimbabwe. I should like to call on the Government to do more and to set a timetable to spend 0.7 per cent. of our income on international aid, but I can see why Zimbabwe does not make a good case for that. I understand why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development wants to spend money only on humanitarian aid there. To do more might be seen as support for the Mugabe regime. However, there is no reason why we should not set a timetable to achieve the goal of spending 0.7 per cent. of our income on international aid. Unfortunately, there is so much poverty in the world and so much that we could do that there is a clear case for us to do so.
  For Zimbabwe, we need to concentrate on providing food aid and helping the AIDS victims, which I am pleased the Government are doing, particularly looking after the 700,000 AIDS orphans. I am pleased also that we have done more to support those who are bravely trying to stand up to the Mugabe regime—the trade unionists, lawyers and civil rights activists. When representatives of those people from Zimbabwe were here in Central Lobby, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development met them and spoke to them. They very much appreciated his presence.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that we give asylum to those persecuted by Mugabe. Yes, we do give them asylum, but as constituency MPs we all know of such people who would like to have their family members join them in the UK, but they cannot. That gives the lie to the claims made about how easy it is to come to this country, and shows how difficult that is, which is not the impression that one gains from most of our newspapers. The study of individual cases would make clear the asylum and immigration policies that we run.
  502
  I am pleased that, working with the European Union, we have imposed restrictions, particularly the travel ban and assets freeze, on Mugabe and some of his close colleagues. That supports the case for working with the EU on such issues. The more international support we can get for those policies, the greater the impact we will eventually have on Zimbabwe. If we adopted an isolationist stance, we would not achieve as much.
  I am concerned about the general position. My work with heavily indebted poor countries leads me to deal with a number of neighbours of Zimbabwe. Through those contacts I hear of the plight of ordinary people there. Other hon. Members have mentioned that members of the Zimbabwean regime say that food aid is not needed, yet according to non-governmental organisations, including the Zimbabwe vulnerability assessment committee, an estimated 2.3 million people will need food aid this year. How can those such as Mugabe, supposedly representing his people, say that everything is fine, when he knows that by doing so he will delay the arrival of food aid, should it be needed? It seems that it will be much needed.
  I turn to the reasons why we should do more with our international partners. When we had a visit from the Zimbabwe high commissioner I met him and some of his colleagues to express concern about the horrific human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe. I was appalled by the response that we got. Every criticism that we, as parliamentarians, made of the Zimbabwean regime was flung back in our faces, as though every problem in Zimbabwe was a result of its colonial history and of what British Governments in the past had done. Even when we said that, for all the wrongs of colonialism, there was no way that one could associate the torture and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe now with its colonial history, they did not listen. That brought home to me how vulnerable Britain is in terms of leading the protest on Zimbabwe. I could see how the Mugabe regime might relish some of our criticism and want to use it as ammunition in their own country, and how Mugabe might say, "This is the big old colonial power coming back to have another go at my people, but I, the great ruler of Zimbabwe, will stand up for you." That is a real and huge danger. I was disappointed that there were not more parliamentarians at the meeting to push the case, but those of us who were there did do so. The response that we got was frightening, but it showed how, in trying to get Zimbabwe to change, it is fundamental to get the neighbours on board; to get Africa on board. They are the only people who will make Mugabe and his regime change.
  That does not mean that we can do nothing. That is why the Government are trying to get those partners on board. It is probably not helpful if we are seen to lead the protests, but we need to encourage others to lead the way on this. This is undoubtedly a serious issue, and I urge the Government to do everything possible to put pressure on Zimbabwe and to get others to do so. Several Members have made good suggestions that I hope the Government will address, both in replying to the debate today and in determining policy. I am pleased that we were among the first to introduce targeted measures, such as the arms embargo in 2000, and that the EU played a big part internationally with measures such as asset freezing and travel restrictions, which have

  503
  recently been renewed with the number of people prevented from travelling being increased. However, I urge the Government to do more wherever possible.
  Ultimately, this is about the ordinary people in Zimbabwe who are being let down by the international community. They are suffering under Mugabe's appalling regime and if we can do anything more to help them, we should do so.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I agree with the criticism made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) of the Zimbabwe high commissioner to London, Simbarashe Mumbengegwi. He wrote me one of the most supine, absurd letters that I have ever read in my life. He lives in a different world altogether.
  We have seen the total disruption of the rule of law, the totalitarian state is now complete and tyranny is fully entrenched. Many examples of that have been given today, in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I also recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) in his very good speech.
  I should like to refer to one or two of the most appalling incidents in this sad and tragic country. A human rights lawyer called Gabriel Shumba, a thoroughly upstanding member of Zimbabwe society, who had often spoken out about the wrongs in that society, was called on to defend an MDC Member of Parliament who had had certain threats and accusations made against him. While he was consulting his client he was seized by armed police and held in a prison cell, then he was removed, shoved into a yellow vehicle with his head covered in a black hood and taken away to an unknown place. He was thrown down three flights of stairs, stripped naked, shackled by his hands and feet and abused and assaulted for many hours. He eventually sought asylum in South Africa, from where he bravely speaks out on behalf of the many different Zimbabweans who have sought asylum abroad and who want to return to Zimbabwe one day.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield spoke at some length about the agricultural and farming sector in Zimbabwe. He was right to do so, because that part of the productive capacity of the country has been subject to premeditated destruction. Previous debates on Zimbabwe in this House and in Westminster Hall have been dominated by events in the agricultural sector, and I do not want to add to those points today, except to comment on one aspect of that appalling situation that has not received any coverage in the press here.
  Zimbabwe recently made international news by announcing the nationalisation of all land. What did not make the news, however, was the Acquisition of Farm Equipment or Materials Bill, despite the parliamentary legal committee in the Zimbabwe Parliament's unanimous declaration that five clauses of that Bill are unconstitutional. All opposition MPs walked out of Parliament in protest when it came to a vote, but the Bill was passed. The Bill allows the state compulsorily to
  504
  acquire farm equipment and materials, and it forbids farmers from selling, dismantling, removing or destroying their property, which obviously includes tractors, ploughs, irrigation equipment, machinery, seed and fertilizer. That is just one more step on the way to the absolute breakdown of the rule of law.
  A number of hon. Members mentioned the situation in Zimbabwe's schools, which affects not only the small number of white people in Zimbabwe, but many millions of black people. A couple of months ago, the Education Minister ordered the closure of all private schools. He said that those schools were racist, and that they threw out African pupils by hiking up their fees, but he did not say that 90 per cent. of pupils in Zimbabwe's private schools are black—virtually all Zimbabwean Ministers and civil servants send their children to such schools. Those schools may well survive, but they have not been allowed to put up their prices. A number of them are still closed, and they are suffering serious difficulties.
  Ms Keeble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of private school fees, because the Zimbabwean Government have also increased state school fees. Does he agree that they should examine their polices for educating children?
  Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I agree with her 100 per cent. The House has reached a consensus this afternoon, and one encouraging aspect of the debate is that few of the disagreements that would have arisen a few years back have come up today.
  What more can Her Majesty's Government do? I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who rightly states that not enough has been done. On smart sanctions, the net should be widened to cover the children and relations of the 79 people who have been targeted already. Indeed, if a small country such as New Zealand can target 140 individual Zimbabweans, why can Europe not target more than 79?
  What about the business associates of the regime who come to this country? The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) mentioned the governor of the Zimbabwean central bank, who came here with impunity. That man has blood on his hands and is closely connected to the regime, so why is he not on the list of smart sanctions?
  Mr. Mullin: The EU sanctions list includes 95, not 79, people.
  Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for putting me right. I got the figure of 79 from an e-mail from someone in Zimbabwe, but it is clearly out of date. I am glad that it has been extended, but it is still far short of the figure of 140 that was targeted by the New Zealand Government.
  On next year's elections, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall that it is vital that international monitors are put in place well in advance. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey suggested that an eminent persons' delegation should go out to

  505
  Zimbabwe as soon as possible to prepare the way for a proper monitoring process to oversee those elections. That is a good idea.
  One of the recent by-elections took place in the seat that fell vacant on the death of Vice-President Simon Muzenda. When one considers the catalogue of abuses and outright criminal events that occurred in the run-up to that by-election, it is staggering that the Movement for Democratic Change managed to get any votes at all. In fact, its candidate ran the ZANU-PF candidate very close, despite the raiding and firebombing of its offices and the removal from the register of the names of some 7,000 of its supporters. In the event, the winner, Air Chief Marshal Josiah Tungimirai, polled only 1,000 more votes than the MDC candidate. That shows the level at which abuse of the electoral process is still going on; it is therefore vital that independent observers are put in place in very good time.
  As we have heard, South Africa has a pivotal role to play in this, and I believe that it needs to have pressure put on it by the United States. Many US companies are based in South Africa and a huge amount of US aid goes into the country. South Africa's locus is pivotal, and I would have thought that the US could use its position to address that fact. South Africa can also play a role in increasing the number of targeted non-trade sanctions that could be effective against Zimbabwe. I agree with the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey that we can make more imaginative use of our position in the G8 to ensure that Zimbabwe is right at the top of the agenda.
  On cricket, I agree with the comments of other hon. Members; indeed, I intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes to that effect. The cricket world accepted South Africa for many years, despite the apartheid regime and abuse of human rights in that country, on the basis that the team was selected on fair grounds. But when the South African Government intervened directly in the English team selection of Basil d'Oliveira after he made his brilliant 158 not out at the Oval in the last test of the series, and the British Government were told that he would not be acceptable as a tourist in an English cricket team, we pulled out of that tour and sporting sanctions were applied to South Africa.
  What we are seeing now is outright racism against the Zimbabwe cricket team. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall pointed out, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is an adjunct to the Mugabe politburo, and racism is involved in the selection of players. The situation has got completely out of control. I sometimes despair at the supine attitude of the International Cricket Council. As the hon. Lady said, the Government must take more interest and start to get a bit tougher. It is no good their saying that it is entirely a private matter for the England and Wales Cricket Board, then standing back and doing nothing whatsoever about it.
  The Prime Minister said, in his great speech at the party conference three years ago, that he would
  "make Africa a major personal priority and a priority for the Labour Government."
  Several suggestions have been made today about how he could ensure action on that. I strongly believe that the Prime Minister will be judged on progress in Zimbabwe.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to consider an issue that is not on everyone's radar screen. He knows that a British subject, Simon Mann, was arrested in Zimbabwe
  506
  a few weeks ago for suspected mercenary activity. He went to Zimbabwe approximately a month before he was arrested, held meetings with Zimbabwe Defence Industries and put in an order for various weapons, mainly hand guns. Zimbabwe Defence Industries led him to believe that he was allowed to purchase those weapons but he was arrested a month later. Of course, I do not condone what has been happening—Simon Mann is normally well able to look himself—but he is in prison in Zimbabwe. He has apparently been tortured and starved. He is a British citizen and the Government should take a close interest in his basic human rights. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider that carefully.
  I am worried that, after the expression of severe anger, marching and demonstrations by those who oppose the Government in Zimbabwe, people have turned to despair. To some extent, they have been paralysed into inaction. The demonstrations have stopped and there is a terrible fear of violence, torture and terror. Many good people in Zimbabwe have been crippled by despair and are sitting back and saying that they can do no more.
  I conclude with a quote from a marvellous book, "Beyond Tears", by Cathy Buckle, which alludes to a Nazi victim in 1945:
  "First they came for the Jews
  and I did not speak out
  because I was not a Jew.
  Then they came for the Communists
  and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
  Then they came for the trade unionists
  and I did not speak out
  because I was not a trade unionist.
  Then they came for me
  and there was no one left
  to speak out for me."
  We have spoken out in the House this afternoon. The Government must do their bit and speak out for the people of Zimbabwe.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly. I have a great sense of deference to all the other hon. Members who spoke today because they are clearly more closely involved with Zimbabwe than I am, although I feel strongly about it, and I do not pretend to have their extensive knowledge of or contact with the country. However, I want to make some specific points.
  I do not defer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and his description of modern African history. Both sides in the cold war used Africa as a place where they had surrogates to fight that war. One could go through almost every country in Africa and find some mischief by right and left. For example, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary helpfully mentioned Mobutu and events after the murder of Lumumba. The Congo has experienced possibly the worst violence of the past 10 years. Approximately 3.5 million people have died, yet that has hardly registered on western political screens.
  We have to be consistent in our view of what goes on in the world and treat terrible regimes and events with equal dislike and action. We cannot single out one

  507
  specific regime because we feel more strongly about it for various reasons. Events in the Congo, where 3.5 million people died, have been especially appalling. Several Congolese refugees have come to my constituency and I know from them what has been happening there.
  Idi Amin in Uganda was the west's preferred dictator. When he replaced Milton Obote, it was perceived to be beneficial to the west. What he did thereafter was quite appalling, and the only benefit for this country was that the Indian population was driven out of Uganda and many of them came to Britain. They have made a fantastic contribution to our society ever since. Many in my constituency—and, indeed, in my birthplace, Leicester—have made a great contribution. Idi Amin's was, however, an appalling regime with which the west acquiesced, because he was seen as the west's preferred kind of dictator at the time. We have to be consistent, however: we must condemn all appalling regimes and do everything we can to try to overcome them and replace them with democratic and civilised regimes.
  I have a number of Zimbabwean refugees in my constituency, several of whom are connected with or active in the Movement for Democratic Change. Some are active politicians, but I will not mention their names, for obvious reasons. I have been pressing the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to be more agreeable to allowing their families to obtain visas to come to Britain, because those politicians feel that, although they are prepared to risk their own safety and their own lives, they do not want to risk the safety or the lives of their families.
  Those politicians' families are being intimidated, harassed and threatened, and if we could be more amenable to allowing them at least to take temporary refuge in Britain until the present regime in Zimbabwe has gone and there has been a return to a more democratic and civilised society, it would free those politicians and activists in the MDC to become more active and to feel less intimidated than they are at the moment. We heard from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that some of them have been cowed to the extent that they are no longer as challenging as they might be. I want to see Zimbabwe return to the path of democracy and freedom, but with the Opposition there so cowed, might we have to wait until Mugabe dies? Even then, some of his henchpeople might carry on if they held sufficient power.
  We need to see some opposition in Zimbabwe, and we must do what we can to support the MDC activists and politicians. If that means helping them by allowing more of their families to come to Britain, at least temporarily until the Mugabe regime disappears, we ought to do that. I have had correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister about this, and I have met him to discuss a particular case. I hope that he will take note that I still feel strongly, not only about that case but about all the people who are suffering similarly in Zimbabwe. If we can help in the manner that I have described, it might help to engender more active opposition there, because people will feel freer and less threatened and fearful for
  508
  their families, even though they are brave enough to stand up on their own behalf. I urge my hon. Friend to give serious thought to what I have said.
  4.57 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I apologise to the House for being out of the Chamber for some time after the opening speeches, but I was chairing a Committee elsewhere. I am glad to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution, although it will not be quite as brief as the admirable contribution of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). He spoke with fervour and feeling, and I hope that his colleagues on the Front Bench will respond positively to what he said.
  I remember being in the House one evening in 1979, when the late Ian Gow came to me and said, "Would you mind coming to the boss's room and cheering her up a bit? We're going to watch the handover in Zimbabwe." I duly went to the Prime Minister's room. My wife happened to be with me at the time—there were about a dozen of us altogether—and we sat there with Margaret Thatcher watching the small television set that she had in her room. We saw the immaculate Christopher Soames, who had gone over there as governor, and the handover was a most impressive sight. After it was over, I said, "Thank you, Prime Minister, for letting us watch this with you. This is an amazing achievement for your Government, so early in its period of office", or words to that effect. She gave me a steely look—she was quite good at that—and said, "Don't you be so sure. You wait and see how it all works out." Those were prophetic words.
  The handover had to take place, Lord Carrington and others handled it with consummate diplomatic skill and it was a great achievement. What has followed, however, has borne out something of what Margaret Thatcher said. Certainly. no one who has taken part in this debate—I have had a briefing on some of the speeches—has not been appalled by the evil tyranny that we have seen unfold over the last few years.
  During the Foreign Secretary's speech, mention was made of the massacres in Matabeleland in the 1980s, and it is true that, with one or two notable and honourable exceptions, people did not speak out. I was not one of those who spoke out particularly at that time—I wish I had known more, and I wish I had done so. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I spoke out at the time of Bosnia, and I am very glad that we did. We played a small part in changing the Government's and the Opposition's policy. It is crucial that as we look at Zimbabwe now, we speak out and urge our Government to speak out a little more.
  I do not for a moment cast any doubts on the integrity of Her Majesty's Ministers on the subject of Zimbabwe. I do not for a moment question their good faith. I am sure that everyone who has taken part in this debate, including both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister who will wind up, can unite in deploring the tyranny and evil. We are at one. I want to take it a stage further, however.
  First, we must remind ourselves constantly of just how evil this regime When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I received on its behalf, with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), who is not here

  509
  today, a delegation from Matabeleland. The stories that we were told by those brave men—of the sterilisation of their women, of the food that they were not allowed to have, of the appalling visits in the night, and of all the other things that one associates with a tyrannical police state—were terrible. A few months later, I was invited to meet the Roman Catholic archbishop of Bulawayo, who is also a man of enormous stature and dignity. He has spoken out with a bravery that few of us would be able to emulate. Thank God that he is still there, and long may he remain there. Again, what he told us about the nature of that regime, and of the supine attitude of some other clergy there, who ought to speak out and do not, was salutary.
  More recently, something has come to my notice in a personal capacity that I want to mention briefly in the House. One of my great friends and contemporaries when I was a schoolmaster many years ago, Dr. Alan Megahey, went out in 1983 to be the rector of Peterhouse, which is one of the foremost schools in Zimbabwe. At that stage, it educated boys—and now boys and girls—both black and white, and by the time that Alan Megahey left, the majority of the pupils were black. Robert Mugabe had paid the school a visit, given out the prizes and said what a wonderful institution it was. A few weeks ago, Alan Megahey's successor was briefly put in jail, and the school was threatened with closure. Of course, the same has happened to private schools, to which my hon. Friends have referred, throughout Zimbabwe.
  I sent some documents to the Foreign Secretary and I had a reply a few weeks later from the Minister who is sitting on the Treasury Bench. His reply was in most respects impeccable. I shall quote what I approve of. He said he condemned the arrests, and that Ministers were dismayed that they had taken place
  "despite a court order nullifying the Government of Zimbabwe's decision to close the schools … It is appalling that head teachers such as the current Rector of Peterhouse have received such treatment at the hands of the Mugabe regime. Our Embassy in Harare has kept a close eye on this issue … It is tragic that a school which has done so much to foster multi racial and multi gender education in Zimbabwe"
  —I do not much like the syntax, but the sentiment is admirable—
  "may now be forced to close as a result of Mugabe's policies. As Dr Megahey's memo makes clear, if the school is not permitted to remain as an economically viable institution, it will have to close. This will be just as damaging for black Zimbabwean pupils, staff and their families as for white."
  That is all is splendid stuff, but then the Minister writes, and I referred to this briefly in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary:
  "You suggest we make representations to the Zimbabwean Ambassador. The Government of Zimbabwe is fully aware of our views on its human rights abuses, which our European partners and we have condemned on numerous occasions. I do not believe that raising this issue with the Ambassador here will lead to any change in Zimbabwe policy."
  I am afraid I saw red. I immediately wrote back to the Foreign Secretary, on 18 June, marking the letter for his personal attention. I make no complaint about the fact that after a fortnight he may still not have seen it. The Foreign Secretary is a busy man and a decent man. He has a lot to do. The Minister, too is a decent man. He has campaigned vigorously on a number of issues, not always with my total agreement but always with my complete admiration. This is nothing personal.
  510
  I wrote that I was disappointed by the Minister's response:
  "I entirely accept the Government's good faith"
  and said that I had "a high regard" for the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, but continued:
  "But surely the fact that you do not believe that raising this issue with the Ambassador will achieve very much is no adequate excuse for not raising it. The more that Zimbabwe knows that we disapprove of its Government's actions across a whole range of issues the more it will become isolated, especially if we give publicity to our disapproval. I … would be grateful if you would have another think about this one".
  When I intervened on the Foreign Secretary, he replied that I had a good point. I hope that we will never—merely because we think we will not achieve anything—not tell the Zimbabwean ambassador in London that we deplore action of this kind. The actions of a repressive, tyrannical regime should always call for comment and condemnation from a civilised Government in a civilised country. I very much hope that following this debate the Foreign Secretary or the Minister will tell the ambassador precisely what he thinks of that sort of action. We must do more. As I said, it is not a question of good faith. It is not a question of saying that the Government are soft on Zimbabwe, but we must do more within the limitations that constrain us. Of course we cannot send an army to Zimbabwe, and of course we should not impose general sanctions that would further depress the living standards of people who are already living in dire poverty and penury as they suffer from a man who can perhaps be compared only with Papa Doc for the way he treats people. I think, though, that there are things than can be done. Let me make one or two suggestions, some of which I know have already been mentioned.
  That list of 95—not 79—is not long enough. Anyone who is associated with those people should not be allowed to benefit from the way in which they are behaving. I want an assurance that all the assets of such people will be frozen. I want an assurance that those who send their children to school in this country, while denying children in Zimbabwe an opportunity to go to places such as Peterhouse, are not allowed to do so. I want an assurance from the Minister that anyone with any connection with this brutal regime will treated as an outcast and a pariah, not allowed into this country, and not allowed to benefit in any way, directly or indirectly.
  I want more than that. I want the Foreign Secretary to give this issue a higher profile. I want him to invite to Carlton house all the African ambassadors and high commissioners, and I want him to tell them just what importance this Government attach to the Zimbabwe issue. I want him to tell them that although we have always been glad to help African nations in need and want to continue to help them, they themselves have a moral responsibility not to allow that cancer to develop further in the south of their great continent.
  There must be some real, plain, tough speaking of that sort. Some feathers will be ruffled, but so what? That should be a preliminary, and in addition a conference to address the issue should be convened by the British Government, to which Heads of State and Heads of Government should be invited. We have seen a country that was in many ways one of the most prosperous, fertile and potentially rich nations on the continent of Africa reduced in effect to a dustbowl, its

  511
  people poverty stricken and ruled by a regime that imposes the most appalling conditions on them. We have seen that develop during the past 25 years, since independence was granted, and we have a moral duty and obligation to point to that constantly and to do everything that we can to convince the other African nations that if they want Africa to emerge as a continent that is light and not dark in every part, they must recognise that in a world where democracy should be the norm, dictatorship cannot be tolerated.
  It is important that the Government up the rhetoric. There is a place for rhetoric.
  Mr. Mullin: There has been rather a lot of rhetoric in this case, though.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister may say that, but while I do not criticise his good faith, intentions or credentials, I repeat that I think that more could be done to highlight the appalling nature of the regime and to try to motivate others in Africa to do something about it.
  My plea to the Minister is that he will be reinforced by the consensus that has clearly been apparent throughout this debate, and recognise that people of all political persuasions on both sides of the House are united in their condemnation and in their desire to support Her Majesty's Government in taking a tougher stance. The Government will have our total support in that, and I speak as one who has not flinched from supporting the Government over the Iraq war. I have constantly given my willing support on that, because I believe that what the Prime Minister has done has been both honourable and right. I now ask the Government to behave in respect of Zimbabwe with the same resolve, courage and determination that they showed over Iraq. Surely that is not too much to ask, and if it brings a new consistency to Government foreign policy in their attitude towards repugnant, vile dictatorships, that will be a bonus. I hope that we will get an encouraging response in that vein from the Minister when he winds up.
  5.14 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I apologise for not being here earlier; I had constituency business to deal with, as I pointed out in a note.
  I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate and I want to talk in particular about some of the humanitarian issues, rather than the political ones that have dominated the debate thus far. On my first visit to Zimbabwe, just after Mugabe came to power, I was left with two very compelling impressions. The first was the enormous optimism of people who had just regained control of their country and the excitement about the new Government and—at that point—about Mugabe. The second powerful impression was left by the big massacre that was taking place in the south of the country, and by the accompanying famine. What was happening in the south was being overlooked. The rest of the world was turning a blind eye to it.
  I visited Zimbabwe for the second time last autumn. The decline, the complete loss of optimism about what was going to happen and the despair at the course taken by the Zimbabwean Government was one of the most
  512
  horrifying changes that I have ever witnessed in any country. The loss of agricultural output and the economic decay was astonishing and disastrous, and the impact on the people was appalling. To see starving people in Africa used not to be the norm, but it has certainly become so in Zimbabwe.
  The political problems are now of a complexity that is hard to get a handle on. I agree completely with those who have said that the forthcoming elections will be crucial. Monitoring them will be important and I suspect that it will be extremely difficult. However, this is not just about the regime of one man. The regime is heavily institutionalised and, whatever happens, the institutionalisation of violence—particularly that affecting young people—is going to take a very long time to unpick. If things to go well in the election, it will still be important to deal with Zimbabwe afterwards virtually as a post-conflict society, because of the regime's impact over the past 18 to 20 years.
  We need to look much more closely at what is happening to the population and not only deal with the situation now, but prepare for dealing with it for a long time to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) referred to Amin. Interestingly, although Uganda is now held up as a model of good development, economically it has only just got back to the point that it had reached before Amin came to power. I suspect that, even if the Government of Zimbabwe were to change tomorrow by some complete miracle, very long-term support and assistance would be needed to enable the country to rebuild to the position even of just a couple of years ago.
  One issue that tends to get overlooked is the extent of hunger and the need for food. Last year, there was a big debate about whether the needs in the horn of Africa or in southern Africa wore the greater. When I visited Zimbabwe, I was told that, although many people suffered from much more acute hunger during the big Ethiopian famine of the 1980s, back then some 20 per cent. of the population were being supported by food aid. However, now some 50 per cent. of the population in Zimbabwe are being supported by food aid. That is an absolutely remarkable dependency level and such support will be needed for the foreseeable future.
  I also pay tribute to the work of the non-governmental organisations in trying to meet food needs. They have helped to set up a distribution network for food aid running across the country, which has provided a remarkable service to the people of Zimbabwe. A further problem is that Mugabe is now looking forward to what will happen in the elections. That will mean real pressure being put on the NGOs, which may be unable to fulfil the task, so the problems of the general population in Zimbabwe may become acutely worse.
  The NGOs are already coming under real pressure from the regime and have great difficulty in speaking either about what is happening or about the needs of the community. As the Minister will know, the assessment programme has been stopped and Mugabe says that he has enough food. The international community challenges that, but there is the problem of what will happen to people who need food now.
  That problem is compounded by HIV/AIDS, which now affects about a third of the adult population. When I last visited Zimbabwe, I was interested in finding out

  513
  about the work being done on HIV/AIDS, particularly the support provided for orphans, of whom there are about 800,000. The Minister knows that our own country would struggle to cope with a problem on that scale and I am sure that he is well aware of the pressing difficulties experienced in trying to contain the problems arising from the numbers of HIV orphans in Zimbabwe.
  I recently tabled a question to the Secretary of State for International Development about the projections for the harvest in the coming year in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me, but if I recall correctly, it is estimated that the harvest will be about 75 per cent. short of meeting the actual food needs of the country. If so, the shortfall will have to be made up through imports, which the Government of Zimbabwe say will be provided. We are told that there will be no hunger problems, but I am sure—and the agencies on the ground are sure—that the Zimbabwean Government estimates are wildly optimistic and that there will be real hardship at the time of next year's harvest. If I recall the seasons rightly, that will be about the time of the election.
  I am sure that, from now until the election, the Zimbabwean Government will use their own food aid ruthlessly for political purposes and continue to put pressure on the NGOs that are struggling to meet real food need. The organisations have a difficult space within which to work, but by and large they operate free of political bias. The consequences for the general public will be disastrous. Everything will be done to ensure that Mugabe gets the result that he wants in the election.
  I know that the Minister and the Foreign Secretary have encouraged "suggestions, suggestions". I ask them and their ministerial colleagues to look more closely into the possibility of increasing the pressure, particularly in respect of the need for NGOs and other agencies to have greater security and space within which to operate. In looking for a model to follow, they might like to reflect on the sort of action taken in respect of western Darfur.
  The UK Government have, rightly, been at the forefront of providing assistance to Zimbabwe, in terms of food and support for work on HIV/AIDS. The question is not whether we are prepared to offer international aid, but how effectively it can be deployed. The Government of Zimbabwe want to control the provision of food aid, for political purposes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will work with colleagues, in the UN and the rest of the international community, to provide extra space for the agencies that provide the assistance to operate in, and to ensure that the aid is provided without political bias. I hope that he will also ensure that the distribution systems set up by NGOs such as the World Food Programme and its partner agencies continue to operate, as about half of Zimbabwe's population need to be fed.
  In addition, I hope that the Government will look at the longer-term strategies to make sure that support programmes in connection with the food crisis and other service needs in Zimbabwe remain in place, regardless of what happens at the political level.
  My visit to Zimbabwe last year was among the most horrifying that I have ever experienced, in Africa or anywhere else. It was uniquely clear that the hardship suffered by the population—the hunger, the catastrophic sickness levels, the hospitals that lack
  514
  nurses, medicines and doctors and which routinely refuse to treat HIV/AIDS patients—were entirely the result of decisions by the Zimbabwean Government. It is exceptionally important that the international community makes the point that that Government must make space for the provision of basic humanitarian services.
  Other pressing needs have to do with the abuses of human rights and the forthcoming election. However, I support the work done by this Government, with the Governments of South Africa and other nations, to bring pressure to bear on the Government of Zimbabwe with a view to securing change in that country. In particular, the hope is that elements in ZANU-PF will start to realise that they cannot continue to act as they have been acting, and that they must reach an accommodation with other parties at some point. In that way, we can ensure that there will be free and fair elections.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I thank all those who have contributed to this afternoon's debate. Everyone is concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe, which is one of the great tragedies of Africa.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was the first of many speakers to allude to the many statistics showing the terrible breakdown that has occurred in Zimbabwe in respect of production in agriculture and manufacturing. He rightly spoke about the collapse of education services and presented a catalogue of horror in the country that used to be described as the bread-basket of Africa.
  The right hon. Gentleman also discussed the damage done to South Africa, which has not understood fully the various problems that the situation in Zimbabwe has caused it. The catalogue of depressing statistics and background information was added to by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). That underlines the concern felt in this House for the tragic plight of the people of Zimbabwe.
  I pay unreserved tribute to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). Over and over again, she has highlighted this matter in a very personal and impressive way, both in this House and in various other ways. She talked about the collapse of medical support in Zimbabwe and the tragedy of dispossessed black farm workers, and about Mugabe's horrific desire to cling to power at any price. She was also entirely correct to highlight the absolute necessity for Zimbabwe to have free and fair elections. She also highlighted the difficulties of the press in operating in the atmosphere that exists in that country and the need for proper, validated election observers. She also talked about—correctly, in my view—refusing visas as a way of dealing with the proposed cricket tour.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who for many years has been a wonderful example of interest in and commitment to the people of Zimbabwe. He talked about the tragic destruction of education infrastructure and housing, about torture and human rights abuses, and the way in which the sale of maize—a staple diet of the people of Zimbabwe—has been brought under political control. My hon. Friend is right to talk about

  515
  the tragic situation that obtained in Matabeleland 20 years ago. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but it does no credit to the Government of the time that they paid insufficient attention to what was happening as that tragedy unfolded. I know that my hon. Friend was one of the few people to highlight that issue and, in retrospect, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.
  The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) made the good point that the Churches should get together, visit Zimbabwe and report on the situation. He talked about it being the Palestine of Africa and about the need for a one-day conference on money laundering and Zimbabwe. All those points were well made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has also taken a keen interest in Zimbabwe. He talked about the corruption, violence and human suffering. He was right to say that we have a responsibility and a special interest, given our historic ties to Zimbabwe. He was also right to point out that a pension problem has arisen for those who worked in that country's civil service.
  The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) expressed great concern. She mentioned the huge and increasing number of people in receipt of food aid, which is another manifestation of the tragedy of Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned an issue that has been insufficiently highlighted—the acquisition of farming material and equipment. We have heard about land nationalisation, but that has disappeared from view at the moment. The compulsory acquisition of that material and equipment is an abuse of the rule of law. My hon. Friend also talked about the need for independent monitors and observers of the election process and about the racism involved in the selection of the Zimbabwe cricket team.
  The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) talked about the need for consistency in our approach to the appalling regimes in this world. He also mentioned the Zimbabwean citizens and politicians who live in his constituency without their families, and the difficulties that they face. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) urged the Government to speak out against what we all know to be an evil regime. He talked of the need for the Government to be in regular touch with the Zimbabwean emissary to convey our disapproval of actions undertaken by that Government. He also talked correctly of the need to deal with the cronies of the regime and their families if they benefit in any way from coming to the UK.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was right to raise the humanitarian issues and what will happen post-Mugabe. A massive reconstruction effort will be necessary and we all need to think about that. She was also right to say that people weakened by lack of food and starvation are especially prone to developing HIV/AIDS.
  The debate has expressed a universal view of great concern about the Zimbabwean tragedy, but I must make one point about that. We have had many debates on the issue, especially in Westminster Hall, in the past
  516
  few years. Over and over again, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has put forward specific ideas to address the situation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) did the same when he was shadow Foreign Secretary. Time and again, we have made specific and clear suggestions, and I thought that it was astonishing that the Foreign Secretary should say this afternoon that at no time have we made constructive suggestions about how to deal with the matter. My right hon. and learned Friend put forward a clear and whole policy agenda, as he has done time and again. It was demeaning for the Foreign Secretary to suggest that nothing but rhetoric has come from the Opposition, when we have tried to put forward specific suggestions on so many levels. His speech was flimsy and wholly inadequate.
  There is anxiety about the skimming off of EU aid by the Mugabe regime, and I hope that the Minister will address that matter when he winds up. The European Communities Court of Auditors report for 2002 shows that no less than 89 per cent. of EU aid money provided for humanitarian purposes such as tackling AIDS and poverty in Zimbabwe has been creamed off by Mugabe and his cronies—a process that has been facilitated through a simple exchange rate scam. The audit estimates that Mugabe and his family, and those close to him in the regime, made something like £100 million. That is an outrageous sum, an abuse of aid and a total travesty.
  Will the Minister respond on that subject? That appalling state of affairs has provoked criticism even from normally stoical EU officials.? In late February, one of them said:
  "It is an absolute scandal. Taxpayers' money is going straight into the pockets of gangsters."
  I hope that the Minister will provide some information, because when the report was published, the Secretary of State for International Development launched an investigation. We welcome that, but it is important that we find out exactly what has happened. If the suggestions are true, what representations has the Minister made to the EU to change its aid delivery mechanisms? This episode is an outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money. Aid from the EU and the US sustains millions of Zimbabweans, and we want the people who need the aid, not members of the Mugabe family, to be helped.
  Many good and encouraging things are going on in Africa. There is good economic growth in many of its economies, and political change in Kenya; there are many success stories. Sadly, however, the tragedy in Zimbabwe drowns them out and pushes Africa's successes out of the limelight. Zimbabwe casts a cloud over Africa's reputation.
  It is therefore incumbent on the Government to make plain to other African countries the cost that Mugabe's regime imposes on them—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). In the United Kingdom, and in the west in general, we must play our part in helping Africa to help itself. We must work to open our markets, provide debt relief and encourage inward investment in African countries that offer attractive opportunities. We must realise that in a globalised world, we cannot escape the consequences of

  517
  instability or failed states even if they are halfway round the world. Economic consequences and the impact of refugee movements affect us all.
  There are organisations that seek to act as a bridge between Africa's nations and the so-called west. The Southern African Development Community and the New Partnership for Africa's Development are two such organisations, which seek to bring together the need for aid and development with the need to deliver good governance. If they are truly to fulfil their potential and be internationally respected, they must be prepared to demonstrate that the peer review mechanisms designed to tackle members who breach their objectives and rules function effectively. The rules and mechanisms must be effectively applied to countries such as Zimbabwe.
  The Government have several tools at their disposal to bring change to Zimbabwe. One is the diplomatic weight and pressure that the African Union and SADC could be persuaded to exert against Mugabe. Yet sadly, the Government's impact in that respect has been disappointing. For far too long, Mugabe's neighbours have done too little; it is unlikely that he would still be in power if those nations had adopted a proactive approach to his regime.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes told us, in last week's debate in another place Baroness Amos said that SADC had made repeated attempts to apply pressure to Mugabe. However, Mugabe still gets a respectful response at every SADC conference. Baroness Amos mentioned Bakili Muluzi, the former Malawian president who, wearing his SADC hat, declared that the Zimbabwean elections in 2002 were free and fair. We have read similar comments by the president of Tanzania. A further example of the problem, if one were needed, is that during the UN human rights conference, the southern African nations, led by South Africa, combined to block a motion banning obvious and well documented human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.
  In February 2004, the EU instructed its representatives in SADC countries to warn those countries' Governments about their policies on Mugabe. In every case, the Governments responded by downplaying what is going on in Zimbabwe. For four years, an endless series of British diplomats, Ministers and representatives called on those same Governments, discussing the situation in Zimbabwe in restrained terms. They reported back stating that the leaders whom they met now understood the issue better and recognised that Mugabe's rhetoric did not represent the true state of affairs. However, will the Minister tell the House how the recent series of meetings were responded to? In addition, can he tell us whether, in the Government's opinion, those SADC countries have taken up their responsibilities to seek to influence the course of events in Zimbabwe—after all, refugees from Zimbabwe are all over southern Africa?
  NEPAD is a partnership between the developed and developing world. Its framework enables African countries to receive aid and inward investment from the developed world on the condition that they follow good governance and respect the human rights of their peoples. However, the NEPAD countries have so far been able to exert little influence over Mugabe. Indeed, on several occasions, they have thwarted the diplomatic initiatives of others. Regional pressure could achieve so
  518
  much more than the Governments in the west could ever hope to do, so a two-pronged approach would be desirable. The west working in partnership with Zimbabwe's neighbours is what is needed if change is to come in Zimbabwe, so the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was good. However, sadly, we have yet to see action from Zimbabwe's African neighbours, and without their help, Mugabe can be safe in the knowledge that change will not come about.
  It is clear from the debate and the ever-growing catalogue of injustices, murders and deprivation in Zimbabwe that the Government's policy towards the country has failed. The outlook for next year's elections is ominous because few optimists expect anything but a Mugabe victory.
  May I take this opportunity to offer the Government some constructive suggestions on how their Zimbabwean policy may be strengthened? They must take southern African leaders to task for their support of Mugabe. It is still the case that they cheer for Mugabe at SADC conferences while receiving our overseas aid, which undermines what NEPAD stands for. Their influential clout and leverage to challenge Mugabe over his policies is not being utilised, so I encourage the Minister to be publicly open and frank with our African friends about the importance of the role that they can play.
  The Government should embargo all companies that support or work hand in hand with the ZANU-PF regime, such as the Dimon company to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes referred. I also encourage the Government to examine US regulations that forbid deals with certain Zimbabwean counterparts, because such legislation could perhaps be introduced in the UK. We have heard about extending the travel ban on Cabinet Ministers to include their families and other prominent regime figures. It is far too easy for ZANU-PF bigwigs to move funds around the world via their children and dependents.
  It is also worth noting that Zimbabwe owes South Africa and Mozambique millions of dollars in back payments for imports of electricity and fuel. I echo the words of the brave Zimbabwean archbishop Pius Ncube, who advocated South Africa switching off electricity supplies to Zimbabwe. Such a policy would have an immediate impact, as it did when a previous South African Government threatened and took that action. Opponents would argue that the measure would hit the poorest hardest, but that is not the case. It would create a short-term major difficulty, but power cuts happen at the moment and there is a lack of supply. Frankly, the sooner the regime is brought to heel, the better. Even raising the matter would indicate intent, so I am sorry that the Government have thus far failed to do that.
  We must ensure that Mugabe is thwarted and prevented from winning next year's elections through corruption, manipulation and violence. If he is victorious and retains power it will be increasingly difficult to break his stranglehold over his people, and we must never forget the tragedy that continues to unfold in Zimbabwe. The key is the SADC norms and standards for free and fair elections.

  519
  In conclusion, the UK, acting with the US and the EU, clearly has a part to play, but there are occasions when we must speak openly to our friends in Africa—Archbishop Tutu, Tony Leon and others have done so—many of whom are in receipt of aid funded by the British taxpayer. It is in their interests, as it is in the interests of everyone who wants Africa to prosper, to tackle that blot on the reputation of the entire continent.
  5.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had a good debate, in which thoughtful and sensible points were made by Members on both sides of the House, who described graphically the penury to which that once prosperous country has been reduced. My hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) both have first-hand experience of Zimbabwe, having visited it fairly recently.
  There is, of course, no significant difference between the parties. Members on both sides of the House want a return to democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, and we all want effective international measures to achieve that end. We all agree—at least I think we do—that such measures should be carefully targeted so as not to make the lives of the ordinary, innocent citizens of Zimbabwe, who, goodness knows, have suffered enough, any more difficult than they already are. Where there is perhaps a difference—and I should like to address this at the outset—is over the suggestion that Britain should take unilateral action against Zimbabwe and its Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] If hon. Gentlemen would contain themselves—
  Mr. Bellingham: It is difficult to do so when the Minister makes such remarks.
  Mr. Mullin: It is not at all difficult to contain oneself, is it Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must not have sedentary interventions that turn the debate into a general conversation. If Members wish to intervene, they should do so in the usual way.
  Mr. Mullin: Admirably put, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As I said, if there is a difference between us—perhaps there is not—it concerns the suggestion that Britain should act unilaterally against Zimbabwe and its Government. If only we did so, ZANU-PF would suddenly come out with its hands up, and everything would be all right. I am afraid that life is not like that.
  Mr. Spring: Where does the suggestion of unilateral action to which the Minister alluded come from? No one in the Chamber this afternoon has suggested that the United Kingdom take unilateral action, so I do not understand what he is talking about.
  Mr. Mullin: Members have spoken today about adding names to lists and so on. The suggestion has certainly been made in the past, and Government
  520
  Members have attended many debates on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall where demands for unilateral action have been made.
  From the outset, the Government have taken the view that if we are to be effective we must act in concert with our friends and allies in the international community. [Interruption.] Well, if we do not disagree, that is fine, but that is a revelation to me, as I have been under the impression for some time that some Members have a different view about what should be done.
  Kate Hoey: For the sake of clarity, it is important that the Minister differentiate between calls for unilateral action and the UK taking a lead in trying to move things forward. That is completely different from what he has suggested.
  Mr. Mullin: Offering leadership is exactly what we have been doing. Working through the EU, we have agreed a Europe-wide arms embargo, an assets freeze and a travel ban on leading members of the regime. The list of those subject to the assets freeze and travel ban is reviewed every year and. as hon. Members will know, this year it was extended from 79 to 95 names. We are always willing to consider new names when the list comes up for review. A number of hon. Members have made suggestions which we will certainly bear in mind.
  We also work closely with the American Government, who have a similar policy, and at Abuja last year we worked with our friends in the Commonwealth to ensure that Mugabe remains suspended, despite pressure from some quarters that he should be readmitted to the Commonwealth. In fact, he chose to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. That was his choice, not ours. For our part, we look forward to welcoming a democratic Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth in due course.
  We make no apology for that approach. We believe it to be the right one. Yes, it has its frustrations. Yes, it is sometimes necessary to compromise, but at the end of the day it is far more effective than the alternative. Those who advocate a unilateral approach need to recognise, first, that they risk placing in jeopardy the carefully constructed international consensus on Zimbabwe, and secondly, that a unilateral approach would play straight into the hands of Mugabe and his cronies, who would like nothing better than to portray the situation as a dispute between themselves and the former colonial power.
  I draw the attention of the House to an article by the journalist Andrew Meldrum that appeared recently in The Spectator. Mr. Meldrum wrote:
  "Mr. Mugabe is impervious to criticism from Britain."
  In its most recent report on South Africa the Foreign Affairs Committee reached a similar conclusion. It said:
  "The United Kingdom's status as the former colonial power in Zimbabwe makes any attempt to influence the situation in the country on a purely bilateral basis very difficult."
  Hon. Members should bear that in mind when urging us to add names bilaterally to our travel ban list or to act unilaterally against sporting tours. Far from hurting Mugabe and ZANU-PF, we could play into his hands.
  It is an unhappy fact that although Mr. Mugabe and his cronies have not proved, to put it mildly, very successful at feeding their own people or managing their

  521
  economy, they have proved surprisingly successful at convincing some of their fellow African leaders, even some of the more enlightened ones. that the main cause of their difficulties is a dispute over the land rights of a handful of white farmers. Naturally, we rebut such nonsense wherever we come across it, but it is a factor that we have to take into account in our dealings with other African states. Opposition Members would do well to bear that in mind when sounding off in public on the subject. What plays well in certain parts of the home counties does not necessarily go down well in the places that matter if we are to achieve peaceful change in Zimbabwe.
  Let me deal with some of the specific points raised by hon. Members.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only a short time left and I was about to address the points that he made in his impressive speech. He suggested that as a matter of course we should always make representations to the Zimbabwean ambassador in London. He has slightly greater faith than I have in the efficacy of representations to that gentleman, but our high commission in Harare regularly makes representations on all the issues that both the hon. Gentleman and I care about, and the Foreign Office regularly issues statements underlining the Government's position.
  The hon. Gentleman said, and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said as well, that we should always be frank with our African friends. I agree, and we are.
  Mr. Spring: Not in public.
  Mr. Mullin: Yes, we are, in public. I shall come to that in a moment. In the course of my year in this job, I have bent the ear, on the subject of Zimbabwe, of just about every President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, high commissioner and ambassador of an African country who has passed through my office or whose office I have passed through, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done the same when meeting African statesmen.
  In South Africa last year—it attracted a little bit of publicity—I said publicly, exactly as I think the hon. Member for West Suffolk would want me to say, that there is no point in African Governments signing up to lofty sentiments about democracy and the rule of law if, the first time a hard case like Zimbabwe comes along, they bury their heads in the sand. I have said that publicly repeatedly, including in South Africa, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we are doing some of the things that he would like us to do.
  The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) contained the usual quota of irrelevant huffing and puffing, but at the end it contained a number of serious suggestions.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested SADC norms for elections, and we agree with him. Discussions with SADC are ongoing on that point. He talked about getting the UN and SADC to monitor free
  522
  and fair elections, and we agree. We want the UN there, and we are talking to it about that, but it needs to be invited, and only the other day the regime threw out the UN crop assessment team, so we should not be under any illusion about the practicalities of that. He called for the repeal of some oppressive laws, and we agree with him on that. But we cannot change Zimbabwe's laws; it has to do that itself. He called for a travel ban on business men bankrolling the regime. If he or anyone else has evidence of particular business men bankrolling the regime, we would be prepared to consider that and add their names to the travel ban and asset freeze list. He talked about moving a resolution at the Security Council even if it meant defeat, but we do not think that would be a good idea. He asked about US companies involved in a maize-for tobacco-deal. We are aware of the allegations and we understand that the US State Department is investigating whether the sanctions have been breached.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about the EU and the Court of Auditors. I understand that the figures used in the report were purely speculative notional savings, that the real amount affected was small, and that no humanitarian aid was involved since all purchases were made outside Zimbabwe. In any case, the problem no longer exists since the parallel exchange rates no longer exist.
  The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) asked what estimate we had made of the effectiveness of the existing measures. The arms embargo we judge to be effective. For example, reports show that the Zimbabwe air force's Hawks are grounded, presumably for lack of spare parts. The travel ban has undoubtedly proved a problem for leading members of the regime and has also inflicted some ignominy on them. The assets freeze has had only limited success; the amount of money frozen is relatively small. If we could find more, we would freeze it. However, the arms embargo, the travel ban and the assets freeze are more effective for being Europe-wide rather than bilateral.
  The International Cricket Council has this afternoon confirmed that Zimbabwe will not play in test matches this year, but will continue to play the one-day cricket, so its position has not changed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we will not ban people from playing cricket here or British citizens from playing cricket in Zimbabwe. At the end of the day, it is a matter for individuals and for the cricketing authorities. Whether British cricketers tour Zimbabwe is a matter for them. The Government have made it clear that we would prefer them not to go. We have said that repeatedly. [Interruption.] No, we will not put a unilateral ban on British citizens going to play cricket. In this country we have freedom of travel.
  I am aware that I have not been able to deal with a number of points in the short time available, and I will write to those hon. Members whose queries I have not addressed and I apologise for not reaching their points. I hope that it is clear from what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have said today that Zimbabwe is a high priority for the Government. Far from dragging our feet, as some have alleged, we are in the forefront of international efforts to achieve a return to democracy. Outside Britain—dare I say it, outside Wiltshire—that is widely recognised. Mr. Mugabe has

  523
  certainly noticed, even if the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes has not. Alongside our friends in the international community we will continue to work for the return of democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, and in the meantime we will continue to do what we can to relieve the suffering of those in need. The ZANU-PF nightmare will not last forever and when the end comes we will be in the forefront of efforts to rebuild that tragic and beautiful country.
  It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

  Speed Restrictions
  6 pm
  Hugh Robertson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Anna Peschek, a constituent of mine and pupil at Invicta Grammar school, Maidstone, Kent, and 91 other constituents.
  The petition states:
  That reckless drivers endanger lives in rural areas where speed restrictions have not been applied.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate steps to effect a drastic reduction in the speed of traffic through rural villages.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Post Office Closure
  Mr. David Amess: The announcement of the closure of a further five post offices in Southend, West has widespread despair in the community that I represent, which contains the greatest number of people aged between 100 and 112 in the country. The petition contains 500 signatures and was organised by Mr. R. Patel.
  The petition states:
  Many are concerned about the proposed closure of the Earls Hall Parade branch of the Post Office, Earls Hall Parade.
  The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons urge the Government to do all in its power to prevent the Post Office from closure.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Tariq Dergoul
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
  6.1 pm
  Ms Oona King: I have sought to raise this issue in Parliament since my constituent, Tariq Dergoul, was released from Guantanamo Bay earlier this year. Tariq's detention took place during the war on terror, and in that context I shall quote Johan Steyn, a Lord of Appeal:
  "Democracies must defend themselves. Democracies are entitled to try officers and soldiers of enemy forces for war crimes. But it is a recurring theme in history that in times of war, armed conflict or perceived national danger, even liberal democracies adopt measures infringing human rights in ways that are wholly disproportionate to the crisis."
  This debate revolves around the values that the Prime Minister reaffirmed yesterday—freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Those values hinge on rights, and two of the most important rights in this country are that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that everyone has the right to a fair trial. Today is a historic day on which to hold this debate, because even Saddam Hussein, a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of people and perpetrated genocide against the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and the Shi'a in southern Iraq, has been given the right by the new sovereign Iraqi Government to stand trial, and that trial will be fair and accord with due process. The right to trial was not accorded to my constituent, Tariq Dergoul, the Tipton three, the other ex-detainees who were released without charge or the current prisoners, who continue to languish in Guantanamo Bay.
  I begin with Tariqi's story. In his own words, he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He travelled to Pakistan and then Afghanistan, and admits that he had an ill-conceived entrepreneurial idea to buy property, which was falling in value after the attacks on 11 September, in the area. Whatever happened to Tariq Dergoul, everyone agrees that he had been seriously injured before the Nothern Alliance, which gave him medical treatment, picked him up and sold him to American agents for $5,000. He was taken to Bagram for a month, Kandahar for three months, and then on to Cuba.
  Tariq says that in Bagram, when
  "they found out I was British, I was put on a stretcher bed in a room. An American interrogator in civilian clothes came and said, 'You are going to help us. I am your ticket out of here. Tell us what we want to hear and you can go home.'"
  He continues:
  "The second day I was put in a cage. There were seven or eight cages in a row. The cages were big with about twenty people per cage and there was a toilet which was half a barrel at the back … The conditions were absolutely freezing and very icy and there was very loud machinery going on all the time so you could not hear people speak … I was interrogated five or six times in the first week and twenty or twenty-five times in all… I was in extreme pain from the frostbite and my other injuries. I was very weak and could barely stand… I kept asking for medical treatment"—
  but the medics refused it. He continues:
  "In the interrogation, interrogators were constantly putting to me that I was with Osama Bin Laden and that I was in Tora Bora. They put me under very great pressure and I was in pain and frightened. In the end I agreed with them that I had been in the

  525
  Tora Bora mountains but I would not agree to say that I had been fighting or that I had met Osama Bin Laden. At this time I did not even understand the significance of the place Tora Bora."
  He goes on:
  "One of the things that frightened me very much when I was in Bagram was that I saw the way in which other people in adjoining cages were being treated. They all appeared to be Afghans. The guards with guns and baseball bats were outside the cages and were pointing guns at them and they were made to assume squatting positions for hours at a time. If they fell over out of exhaustion, the guards would go in and beat them until they lost consciousness. They called it 'Beat Down' … Another thing I saw in Bagram was two or three people hung by their hands with bags over their heads. They were in a room opposite the cages. There was also the noise of gunshots and people screaming … I really thought the guards would kill me."
  He continues:
  "After Bagram I was taken to Kandahar … I was constantly taken to interrogation … I was hooded … some of the time … during interrogation. I was interrogated at least three or four times a week for up to seven or eight hours a day."
  He says that he eventually received the medical treatment that he had been asking for. However, the operation to amputate his toe
  "was done by a trainee medic who was told what to do by a doctor. I was still conscious while the operation was carried out (I had no sensation in my feet) and someone was asking me questions."
  They were interrogating him while the amputation took place.
  He goes on:
  "After three months in Kandahar I was flown to Guantanamo Bay … I was … chained with the three piece suit around my arms, legs and waist. I had goggles on my eyes … I couldn't see or hear anything … There were constant flashes with people taking photographs."
  He continues:
  "After I arrived in Guantanamo Bay I started to become religious and to put my faith in Allah which got me through the experience. I was interrogated many times".
  He says that he was also interrogated by British interrogators, and says:
  "I told the British interrogators on at least five times occasions every detail of what was going on in Guantanamo Bay, including the beatings.
  Later the American interrogators did things that upset me. They threatened to send me to Morocco and Egypt where I would be tortured. They played US music loudly during interrogations. They brought pictures of naked women and dirty magazines and put them on the floor. One of the interrogators … grabbed the Qur'an with his feet up on the table and read it like … a magazine. He made jokes about the Qur'an."
  He continues:
  "In later interrogations, I was … chained to a ring in the floor, for at least six and sometimes as long as ten hours with no access to sanitary facilities. The interrogators left the room for hours at a time. I had to go to the toilet on the ground. The guards on the other side of the mirror could be heard making jokes … During interrogation, if you moved from a sitting position or closed your eyes, they would take the chair away and make you bend your legs to sit cross-legged. They would then tighten the chain so there was no slack and you couldn't bend to the left or the right. This happened in very many interrogation sessions. I would get cramp and start screaming. The guards would swear at Muslims and curse Allah and the Prophet Mohammed."
  526
  The descriptions of Tariq's interrogations are extremely long and detailed, and often end with the extreme reaction force arriving.
  Tariq said:
  "When the ERF were called, they were always accompanied by someone with a video camera."
  People will realise the significance of that in the light of events at Abu Ghraib.
  Let me summarise Tariq's situation. He was denied medical treatment for three months. His arm had already been amputated; some of his toes were amputated and he suffered many of the treatments that Amnesty International has documented. He describes many instances of that. For example, he said:
  "One time they put me on the floor and jumped on me. I was knocked out and lost consciousness as a result of being beaten. When I woke up there were voices and it was dark. I was on the floor in the same cage with my head against the toilet."
  He stressed:
  "The main thing is they wouldn't let you keep clean. For months and months, they wouldn't let you have soap. These were the camp rules. They were enforced by the people in command. When they took all your stuff away, they would say, 'It's camp rules. If you don't give it to us, we will attack you."'
  Again, that is significant in the light of General Miller's involvement in running the regime at Guantanamo Bay and his subsequent transfer to Abu Ghraib. We have seen vividly recorded pictures of the torture that took place there.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is well aware of the United Nations convention against torture. It is worth pointing out that we have signed it and, as signatories, we have agreed the following definition in article 1:
  "'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed".
  Article 2.2 states:
  "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
  That brings me to one of the British citizens who remains in Guantanamo Bay, Moazzam Begg. He has asked the United Kingdom to register a complaint on his behalf with the United Nations Committee against Torture. I know that the Under-Secretary met a delegation from the Guantanamo commission on human rights recently. Will he let me know whether the Government can register the complaint at the UN Committee against Torture? If he cannot do that now, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
  The debate revolves around whether torture and detention without trial are acceptable. After reading much of the material and evidence that is currently available, I conclude that the American Administration believe that torture may be justified. Indeed, in August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al-Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified." That tallies with the report by General Antonio Taguba about Abu Ghraib. It states that abuse there began when General Miller arrived with 30 colleagues for a visit last September and instituted the system that he had already created at Camp Delta.
  General Lance Smith, deputy chief of US central command, recently told a Senate hearing that some of the 20 techniques that Miller authorised were banned in Iraq because there, unlike Guantanamo Bay, prisoners were supposedly protected by the Geneva conventions. The techniques include sleep deprivation, binding in uncomfortable positions and the use of excessive heat or cold. Tariq described them to me in vivid detail. He experienced or witnessed them all. All the evidence—including new allegations that the American Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as the person at the top of the command structure, was aware that both physical coercion and sexual humiliation were taking place in Iraqi prisons—points to the fact that the US Administration are willing either to tolerate or actively to promote torture.
  Amnesty International has called on the coalition leadership to send a clear signal that torture will not be tolerated in any circumstances, and that the Iraqi people can now live free from such brutal and degrading practices. I would hope that the same would be true for all detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Let us remember that those people have not been charged, which brings us back to the fundamental right of people to have a fair trial, to hear the evidence against them and to have access to a lawyer.
  Amnesty has called for a
  "fully independent, impartial and public investigation into all allegations of torture",
  and I certainly support that. If Iraq is to be the stable country that we hope that it will be, human rights must be a central component. Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International, has said:
  "If the administration has nothing to hide, it should immediately end incommunicado detention and grant access to independent human rights monitors, including Amnesty International and the United Nations, to all detention facilities."
  The letter from Amnesty, containing the request for a public investigation, was also signed by Desmond Tutu and many others, and I certainly endorse that plea.
  That is pertinent to the case of Moazzam Begg. His father has requested the British Government to do everything that they can to allow him to visit his son, whose physical and mental health has deteriorated dramatically. He has also asked whether he could be accompanied by the leading forensic psychiatrist in the field, Dr. James McKeith. I know, having spoken to the Minister and to the Foreign Secretary, that the British Government are working hard on these issues, but the fact remains that our citizens are not being given the right to see a lawyer and have not had the right to medical treatment. Article 3 of the European convention on human rights bans torture and inhumane and degrading treatment.
  The final issue that I want to raise is the situation facing ex-detainees who return here. As the Tipton three found out when they returned home, and as Tariq has discovered, there simply is not enough help and support available. In fact, the Tipton three believe that there has been none. They have received death threats and have passed on more than 30 of them to the police, who said that they would be investigated. However, to date, that has not happened, and I hope that the Minister will be
  528
  able to pass on a request to his Home Office colleagues to ensure that it does. Instead, the Tipton three have been subjected to Richard Littlejohn writing in The Sun the day before yesterday that the "Tipton Taliban are home". So, they have received no trial from the Americans, yet they now face a trial by media here.
  Tariq's situation is equally grave. He has had terrible problems finding housing because he was considered to be "intentionally homeless". It was not his intention to be detained, abused and tortured for two years. I remain extremely concerned about his situation, and I would be most grateful if the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea could use its discretion to prevent his return to Tower Hamlets, where his case is well known and where he and his family have been threatened. His disability living allowance has also been refused because he has not been resident in the UK for the requisite number of weeks in the last year, but that was because he was being held against his will in Guantanamo Bay.
  The Kafkaesque nightmare for Tariq and the Tipton three continues, even though they are now, in theory, free from all that. As for Moazzam Begg and the others, their situation remains extremely grave. I thank the Minister for the work that he has done on this matter, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the time that he has taken to discuss it with me in private. For the record, however, it seems to many people, including me, that the Americans use "torture lite". For the full-calorie version, they ship prisoners to Arab countries. None the less, what they are using is torture, and it still kills people.
  My constituent's story exposes both the method and the madness. The method is sadistic, illegal and immoral, and it is mad for intelligence services to use the product, which is unreliable and inaccurate. I trust that the British Government will uphold our obligations under international conventions and end the legal and moral black hole that has wrecked Tariq Dergoul's life.
  6.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend has raised an important issue and many people will share the concerns that she expressed. Perhaps I should start by outlining the Government's record on the welfare of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the considerable efforts that we have been making to try to resolve their situation.
  As I mentioned in March, the last time that we debated Guantanamo Bay, we have done more than any other Government to look after the interests of nationals detained there. From the outset, we have actively encouraged the United States Government to resolve the matter. We have conducted intensive and complex discussions with the US Government about the British detainees since their detention. We have held more, and higher level, talks with the US than any other Government who have nationals detained there. We have actively pursued the resolution of those cases.
  The Government's position, reported frequently to Parliament, has been that the detainees should either be tried fairly in accordance with international standards or be returned to the UK. Last July, we expressed publicly our reservations about the US military

  529
  commissions and the US Government suspended legal proceedings against two of the British detainees who had been designated for trial by the commissions. Those proceedings remain suspended. Subsequently, after a lengthy series of discussions with the US, led for the British side by the Attorney-General, we concluded that the military commissions process would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial according to international standards. Therefore, we requested that the nine British detainees be returned to the UK.
  As my hon. Friend is aware, we successfully secured the return of five of the British detainees, including her constituent, Mr. Dergoul. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained in his statement to the House on 24 February, we agreed with the US Government to continue discussions about the remaining four. Those discussions continue. The Government will work to resolve the situation of those four.
  Throughout the past two years, we have also been very conscious of the importance of safeguarding the welfare of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. No Government have taken more interest in the welfare of their nationals than the UK's. We were the first to visit our nationals detained there, within days of their arrival, and have seen them more often to check on their welfare than any other Government hale in relation to their nationals. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay seven times, most recently in March. On each occasion, a report on the condition of the detainees has been given to their families and to Parliament. We will continue to keep them informed of the detainees' circumstances and of other related developments.
  My hon. Friend has given a graphic description of the alleged conditions in Bagram air base in Afghanistan and in Kandahar. I regret that I am not in a position to comment on those. As regards living conditions in Guantanamo Bay, however, detainees are housed in indoor accommodation with individual sleeping, toilet and washing facilities, and air ventilation.
  Ms King: Some would say that the air ventilation was used as a method of torture.
  Mr. Mullin: Yes, I am aware of the allegations made about the misuse—alleged misuse—of the air conditioning.
  The detainees are able to practise their religion and have access to reading and writing materials. In addition to checking on the overall living conditions, we have raised individual health concerns of the detainees with the United States authorities, who have addressed them. We will continue to do so as necessary. Our visits have found that medical facilities at Guantanamo Bay are of a high standard. We have also pursued other welfare issues with the US authorities, such as delays in mail and lack of exercise. As a result, we have been able to secure improvements in the conditions of the British detainees. For example, they are now being given more time to take exercise.
  Ms King: May I make an import ant point? They were not allowed to practise their religion freely; their prayers were interrupted regularly. Prayer time was used to search the cells, and they feel strongly that their religion was under attack throughout their detention.
  Mr. Muffin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on record.
  We do have outstanding concerns about the conditions of detention of some of the remaining British detainees, which we are actively pursuing with the US authorities. The families are aware of that, and we are keeping them informed of developments. It would not be appropriate or helpful to say more about the personal circumstances of the remaining detainees.
  I am of course aware of the allegations of mistreatment made by Mr. Dergoul and the other British men formerly detained at Guantanamo Bay, who returned to the UK earlier this year. Mr. Dergoul has alleged that he was beaten by the immediate reaction force, a riot control unit in Guantanamo, and that the beatings were taped. Other British detainees who have returned to the UK have written to President Bush to say that they were systematically abused in Guantanamo.
  During every welfare visit by British officials to the British detainees, the detainees were given the opportunity to express any concerns about their treatment. None of them alleged that they were beaten at Guantanamo Bay in the way that some have now claimed. I might add that none of the men has approached the Government about the issue since their release. We do, however, take all allegations of abuse seriously, so we have raised the allegations with the US. The American authorities have told us that they have no reason to believe that these British detainees were abused; however, at our request, the US is examining the allegations in detail. I understand that they intend to respond to them fully—which includes the question of whether the work of the immediate reaction force was taped.
  At the same time as respecting the need to resolve the British detainees' circumstances and look after their welfare, we have had to respect the need to pursue the fight against international terrorism. It is important for us to remember the context in which the detentions took place. The attack on 11 September was the most appalling terrorist attack ever: more than 3,000 people died on the US mainland, including 67 British citizens. Following the attacks, thousands of individuals believed to be al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters or their supporters were detained. The majority were released in Afghanistan, but those whom the US deemed to pose a substantial risk were sent by the US to Guantanamo for detention and questioning about their knowledge of al-Qaeda. As a result, valuable information has been gained that has helped the international community to fight terrorism.
  I repeat that the welfare of British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay has been, and remains, a priority for the British Government. We will continue to work to resolve the situation of the four British nationals who are still there.
  The hon. Lady asked me some questions about Moazzam Begg. I will respond to her in writing later.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.

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

Elder Abuse
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Health Committee, Session 2003—04, HC111, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6270.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
2.30 pm
John Austin: I apologise at the outset for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chair of the Health Committee. All those who serve on the Committee and hon. Members generally will recognise that my hon. Friend is passionate in his concern for vulnerable people and has demonstrated that in both his political and professional career. He is very sorry not to be here, but he has an important speaking engagement with the Health Development Agency in Leeds and is unable to be with us.
This has been a short inquiry. The Health Committee has now decided that, as a matter of policy and in addition to its major inquiries such as that on obesity and the one on which it is about to embark on pharmaceutical services, it will conduct a series of short inquiries on important topics of the day. That puts an additional burden on members and also the staff of the Select Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I extend our thanks to the staff for the additional work that we have put their way and for the excellent quality of service that has resulted in an excellent report. It is also important to thank our advisers, Melanie Kenwood and Chris Vellenoweth, who have served the inquiry well.
In our introduction to the report, we refer to the death of Margaret Panting, a 78-year-old woman who died after suffering unbelievable cruelty while living with relatives, but that event cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. During our inquiry, we heard horrific stories of various forms of abuse by positive and deliberate acts and by neglect.
In my local newspaper this week I read about the coroner's verdict on the case of 70-year-old Jean Bore who died in a private care home in a constituency neighbouring mine. Mrs. Bore had been admitted to hospital following a stroke in May last year, and in September was transferred to the care home. The following month, her condition had deteriorated and she was re admitted to Queen Mary 's hospital, Sidcup, where staff were surprised at the extent and size of her bedsores and the consultant was shocked by her condition. During her five-month stay in hospital, staff had been able to prevent any bedsores developing, but during a short period in a care home she developed bedsores that were so horrendous that the coroner said that they had contributed to her death. He said in his verdict:
"The development of and delay in diagnosis and treatment of sacral pressure sore contributed to Jean Bore's death."
144WH
No wonder her son is calling for better monitoring of private care homes and regular checks on their residents. BUPA, which runs the home, said that the care fell short of the standards that it expects. Mr. Bore was right when he said that
"if this could happen to my mother, there's every chance others have been treated in the same way".
All of us know of incidents of elder abuse in our constituencies. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will want to comment on the Rowan ward in the Manchester mental health care trust.
That is why we must raise awareness of elder abuse and why we need effective systems in place to prevent abuse from occurring. The Committee has received evidence of various forms of abuse: physical abuse, such as slapping, hitting, burning, scalding, pushing, inappropriate restraint, inappropriate use of medicine, withholding medicine as punishment, lack of consideration, roughness when handling or treating people or helping them to the toilet, changing dressings and so on; psychological abuse, such as shouting, swearing, frightening, threatening, withholding or damaging something with emotional importance, and failing to deal with elderly people with the respect and dignity that they deserve; financial abuse, including stealing and fraud; sexual abuse; neglect, including failure to provide food, heating, adequate care or bathing; and neglecting care, such as the example that I gave of Mrs. Bore.
In some extreme cases there should have been criminal prosecutions, but that is rare and some witnesses referred in evidence to the lack of effort on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that hon. Members will raise some of those issues during their routine meetings with their local police and criminal justice boards, and their regional CPS offices. I hope that the Minister will raise those concerns with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
Our evidence showed that most abuse—67 per cent. was the figure quoted to us—occurs within the home. That is not such a surprising figure given that the majority of older people live at home. Other research suggested that almost half the abuse within the home is by relatives or friends and about one third by paid workers. Abuse in the home is difficult to tackle, and more often than not it goes unreported. In some cases the abuser, possibly a partner or sibling, may themselves be elderly. Research by Help the Aged showed that three quarters of older people who live with the person for whom they care receive no regular visits from health or social services and only one in 10 older carers receives regular home care.
Action on Elder Abuse told us that figures from its helpline suggest that 13 per cent. of abuse is carried out by care staff, domiciliary carers and home helps. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the nature of domiciliary care has changed considerably as local authorities have been required to stimulate the private market and encourage the growth of private sector provision. It has resulted in an explosion of small, often locally based agencies with little by way of regulations or statutory standards.

145WH
It is easy to see how abuse can take place within the home and not be seen. Part of the evidence from Action on Elder Abuse puts it better than I can:
"Domiciliary care by its nature is based upon one-to-one relationships between (often) single workers and isolated, dependent individuals. Many of these workers provide excellent services and are valued and respected by the older people in receipt of their support and it would be wrong not to acknowledge this reality.
However, it is intrinsic to this service that such relationships are difficult to manage within professional parameters, and are certainly difficult to monitor and inspect. Home care staff who subscribe to good practices. whether as a consequence of training or supervision or personal values, are statistically in the majority. However, the very nature of the home care service lends itself to the potential for abuse because of the relationships that are established, the opportunities that present, and the isolated one-to-one relationships that are inevitably created."
That is why we need adequate training, support and supervision of the domiciliary care market.
The vast majority of workers and voluntary care providers provide a good service that is valued by those who receive it. However, we must recognise the personal toll and stress that it puts on informal carers, who often neglect their own health and suffer financial loss. We must not lose sight of the need for care and support for the carers, too.
What we have seen with domiciliary care is what we saw with residential care in the 1980s—an explosion of small private homes, some excellent but some providing poor quality of care with untrained staff and little stimulating activity. My hon. friend the Member for Wakefield described it at one conference as "wall-to-wall geriatrica". That sector has changed over the years with increased regulation and inspection, and I hope that the new Commission for Social Care and Inspection will build on the work of the National Care Standards Commission and lead to more improvements that are long overdue.
Despite these regulatory controls, the Select Committee was shocked to hear evidence of serious abuse in many homes. It included the inappropriate use of medication, often used not for the benefit of the elderly but to provide a quiet life for the staff. We should not ignore the dedication, commitment and concern of many professional care staff providing high-quality care services, but the new regulatory agencies, local government, the Government and local authorities' health trusts must do much more to raise awareness of the problem of elder abuse.
We have been in denial for too long. It is only in the past 20 years that we have spoken openly and acknowledged the existence and extent of domestic violence and child abuse. There is a growing awareness that such things take place, and often in the least suspected places. Teachers, nurses, general practitioners and staff in accident and emergency departments, as well as those working in voluntary organisations, neighbours and friends, are getting better at recognising the tell-tale signs of abuse in children and— mostly female—younger adults. We need to create the same awareness about elder abuse, and I believe that our report will assist in that process.
146WH
We need the Government to act, and many of our recommendations are aimed at them. However, we need action at a local level, too, and in this case Members of Parliament have a role to play. Our report can be used locally to raise awareness. My constituency is served by two local authorities and two primary care trusts. One is a first-wave care trust, and I discussed the report with it, as I know other Committee members will have done in their areas. In both boroughs in my constituency there is a well established multi-agency adult protection working group, which was set up following the publication of "No Secrets" in 1999, and after the Government's White Paper, "Modernising Social Services", which highlighted the issue of protection.
The role of the working groups is to ensure that all agencies work together to establish a robust system for monitoring and for investigating complaints, and to provide training in adult protection awareness and multi-agency training in investigating abuse. I examined the last report of the Bexley adult protection monitoring group. In the past year, it investigated 38 instances of alleged abuse—a considerable increase on the 29 instances of the previous year. The allegations related to several different conditions involving vulnerable adults. Of the cases of abuse investigated, 24 were of physical abuse, two were of physical neglect, five were of psychological abuse, three were of financial abuse and four were of sexual abuse. Eighteen of those cases occurred in the individual's home, four occurred in someone else's home and 13 occurred in a residential or nursing care situation.
The potential vulnerability of people in their own homes confirms the importance of the training offered to domiciliary agencies. The fact that 13 of the instances were alleged to have taken place in residential or daycare settings suggests that the strategy of providing awareness training to staff in such settings is also of great importance. I hope that the Department will encourage all MPs to engage with their local agencies in promoting the recommendations in our report. The report is timely because it comes on the eve of the introduction of the new protection of vulnerable adults guidelines and changes in the legal regulations.
I come to the recommendations of our report and the Government's response, which, in the main, has been positive. I hope that the Minister will understand if I concentrate on the parts of the response that I regard as negative. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will want to expand on my points. I am sorry that the Minister felt unable to accept our suggestion that the "No Secrets" definition of elder abuse should be extended to include those who do not require community care services. Such persons can still be isolated and vulnerable to abuse.
The Government's response to recommendation 3 about the need for multi-disciplinary research is welcome but I am concerned that the Minister has reservations about 1 he figure of 500,000 elderly people experiencing abuse at any point in time. Despite the measures that the Government have taken since the 1992 study, my guess is that this is an underestimate and not an overestimate. I believe that the figure will rise, and continue to do so. That is not necessarily due to higher incidences but heightened awareness, systems for reporting and monitoring and more reporting in general, as we have seen in cases of child abuse, domestic violence and hate crimes.

147WH
Regarding recommendation 6, I welcome the continued funding for the Action on Elder Abuse helpline, and the recent TV and press coverage of the problem. On recommendation 7, we look forward to the outcome of the Commission for Social Care Inspection's consultation.
I welcome the acceptance of the need to train care staff as set out in our recommendation 8, but I feel that the response to recommendation 21 is rather too neutral. I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for the content of nursing training, but I would have hoped that the Department would be in discussion with the Nursing and Midwifery Council on that issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It may help my hon. Friend to know that we have an appointment with the Nursing and Midwifery Council in two weeks to discuss that very issue.
John Austin: I am grateful for that comment. If care assistants need training in identifying abuse and how to deal with it, so do other carers such as nurses.
On recommendation 11, I regret that the Government are not able to accept our suggestion for more frequent reviews of medication. On recommendation 22, I am sorry that the Minister does not share our view that the formal complaints procedures may be inadequate to support older people and enable them to complain. Personally, I regret the Government's rejection of our suggestion that the proposed equality and human rights commission should be given enforcement powers as well as powers to assist, and act on behalf of, abused individuals.
On recommendation 26, I regret that the Minister does not seem willing at this stage to consider amending the national service framework for older people in line with our thinking. I hope he gives that further consideration. I had also hoped for a more positive response to recommendation 30 and the urgent need for registration of domiciliary and other care workers, which is one of the key ways of improving the quality of care.
On the whole, I hope that the Minister sees the report as positive; in the main, the Government's response has been positive, which I welcome. I have raised the issues of concern to me and my fellow members of the Committee, and those concerns are shared by a number of organisations. I understand that the Minister had a meeting earlier this week with Age Concern, Help the Aged, Action on Elder Abuse, the Prevention of Professional Abuse Network and the Community and District Nursing Association. Certainly, the latter has echoed to me the concerns about the more negative responses that I have highlighted. I hope he will share with us the discussions that he has had with those bodies and the outcome of that meeting.
2.48 pm
Mr. David AmessThis is a very difficult and sensitive area, but as ever the Health Committee has done a magnificent job in producing a report in such a short time. I hope that no one thinks that the Committee is any sense suggesting that it is the norm for elderly people to be abused. Such abuse is the exception. I will come back to that later.
148WH
Before coming here, I checked whether my office thinks that its own Member of Parliament is guilty of abusing elderly people. I say that because the chap running my office is aged 81. I looked him straight in the eyes and asked how I am treating him. He said that he willingly comes to work and enjoys it, and that, as far as he is concerned, I have a good record on the matter. The constituency that I represent is No. 1 out of the 659 in terms of people aged between 100 and 112, so, on a personal level, I have a great deal to do with elderly people.
I hope that no one will seize on the idea that the majority of care homes abuse the elderly people they look after. Years ago, elderly people were not looked after in care homes, but that has all changed. The modern way of living means that there are many people in care homes, perhaps because there is one family member who makes a decision or there are no family members at all. I have visited all the care homes in my constituency and, by and large, they all do a splendid job, but then you would expect me to say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Care homes figure heavily in the report, and to me it is unfortunate that the National Care Standards Commission has laid many duties on them, because the love and support that the proprietors and their staff give to elderly people is necessarily infinitely more important than whether the room is 2 in too small. The training of staff is also absolutely fundamental. I would be interested to hear from the Minister something further about whether the Government might look carefully at the training of people who work in care homes.
The overwhelming majority of people who work in care homes are not terribly well paid, but special skills are needed to look after elderly people. One must have bags of patience—what I am about to say will result in many letters being written—as they are a little like babies or the very young. Several bodily functions have to be attended to, and I have heard relatives complain about the care given to elderly people. Given the pressures and stresses, it is a challenge to meet all the demands of elderly people. That is why our report tries to define elder abuse. Perhaps we will hear later whether we have come up with the real definition and one with which the Government are comfortable.
We hear of children being abused, but we do not hear quite so much about elderly people being abused. Elder abuse is not a new phenomenon, as we have already heard. It has always existed, but there is more publicity about it now. Gary Fitzgerald of the charity Action on Elder Abuse gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry, and made a sound point. He said that much is reported in the media about young children who have been abused—quite rightly so—but little is mentioned about elderly people who are abused even though such incidents are just as important and take place in private homes, care homes and hospitals each and every day.
Perhaps in one sense that is an exaggeration and a little tough, but the letters I get that are critical of hospital care tend to be about wards in which people are charged with looking after elderly people. Nine times out of 10, the complaint is that someone's mother wanted a commode but no one was available to produce one, or their dad had a cup of tea or a bit of food plonked in front of him and then half an hour or an hour

149WH
later it was taken away and there was no one to coax him. Such services are not easy to deliver. Perhaps the Minister will touch on that point.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that
"we know about Victoria Climbie, we know what happened to her, we know of the abuses, but many, many of us do not know about Margaret Panting and the difference between them is 70 years."
She suffered the same number of injuries and the same sorts of abuse, but her case was not publicised in the same way as the one involving a child.
The summary of the report states:
"Abuse of older people is a hidden, and often ignored, problem in society."
That was reiterated in the introduction to the report. Gary Fitzgerald stated:
"The voice of older people is rarely heard by those who have a responsibility for commissioning, regulating and inspecting services."
Towards the end of my speech, I shall tell the Minister about an excellent advocacy service in Southend, West.
Like other colleagues on the Committee, I was shocked to hear about Margaret Panting. The local community apparently knew about what was going on, but Mr. Fitzgerald raised a poignant issue in saying
"as a nation we do not"
know about elder abuse
"and that does pose the question: why is it that we do not know about these things with elderly people?"
We cannot ignore the issue, which is why I was delighted that the Committee decided to hold the inquiry. It was not my idea, but I think we produced a valuable document.
Our report says
"it is misleading to talk of elder abuse as a single phenomenon."
The Committee came to the conclusion that abuse takes place in all manner of environments and ways—in nursing homes, hospitals and the person's home. In 35 per cent. of cases, the form of abuse is physiological, in 20 per cent. financial and material, in another 20 per cent. physical, in 10 per cent. neglect and acts of omission, in another 10 per cent. discriminatory, and I am glad to say that it is sexual in just 2 per cent. of cases.
It is disturbing that 67 per cent. of all cases of elder abuse take place in the person's home. Quite how any Government can monitor that, I am not sure. The abuse happens behind closed doors, with a care worker or a district nurse providing one-to-one care—domiciliary care. That is the most common form of abuse, yet it is difficult to detect and to combat. All political parties now think that if an older person wants to stay at home for as long as possible, they should do so, yet here we are with those frightening statistics.
Another worry is that there must be far more cases of abuse than are reported to the authorities. The Committee recommended that awareness of elder abuse should be increased. Highlighting a problem is a way of combating it, as people would be more inclined to report abuse. Yes, all that is true.
I am delighted that the Government are taking abuse in domiciliary care seriously. The helpline run by Action on Elder Abuse, which the Government fund, is
150WH
providing a central point for vulnerable adults to talk through and report their concerns. The draft Mental Incapacity Bill will make a new arrestable criminal offence of ill treatment or neglect of a person without capacity.
Elder abuse is being put in the public domain for the first time and I welcome that. Local and national newspapers and television also highlight such matters. On 27 April, The Times ran the headline, "The seasoned campaigner Erin Pizzey aims to stop the abuse of old people by their children or carers". The Daily Record came out with a similar report on 29 April in a letter from Mr. O'Hare. That is all in our report.
The BBC "Panorama" programme broadcast in November 2003 used an undercover reporter. Some of us may have doubts about that method of investigation, but there we are. "Panorama" showed how vulnerable elderly people who use care homes are. I saw the programme myself and it did not show matters in a good light. Newspapers and the television are certainly great avenues for highlighting the abuse, but as parliamentarians we have a serious duty to ensure that elderly people, who have done so much for us all, are properly protected.
The Minister gave evidence to the inquiry, saying:
"I do not dispute that it is a very significant problem and there is a very significant numb, a. of elderly people who are now abused."
He mentioned a figure of 500,000. During his evidence session with the Committee, he said that Ogg and Bennett used a very wide definition of abuse and that that is not helpful. He insisted that, because the figure of 500,000 is an extrapolation from the 1992 figures, it assumes that nothing has been done to improve the situation since 1992.
The Minister then suggested that the figure is probably lower than 500,000, but he did not dispute the fact that there is a significant problem. I must say that the Department of Health might have made more recent figures available if something has been done. No doubt there is an answer to that.
Given that 500,000 elderly people in England suffer abuse at any one time, and even if the figure is lower, as the Minister suggests, the Committee is right to be perplexed about why the Department of Health has not commissioned research to establish exactly how many elderly people suffer abuse. Recommendation 29 says that the Government should commission research to ascertain the extent to which elder abuse is a problem in our society.
We know that 500,000 elderly people are being abused, but those are only the cases that are reported to the authorities. I am therefore very pleased that the Government's response to the Committee's inquiry was recently to begin to fund Action on Elder Abuse and to explore the possibility of having a national recording system for the incidence of adult abuse. Before we can tackle the problem, we need to be clearer about its scale. Recording data would be a useful first step on the road to dealing with the problem, and I welcome the commissioning of that research.
The Committee strongly endorsed the suggestion that advocacy services for older people be made available to tackle elder abuse. The availability of such services throughout the country is hit and miss. The number of

151WH
people with Alzheimer's disease, senile dementia, or whatever else one wants to call it, and the number of people suffering from strokes is increasing, as is the number of elderly people in my area who have no relatives. Those people need advocates, and advocacy services should be made more available to them.
Southend, West is very lucky to have a wonderful service called the South East Essex Advocacy Service for Older People, which is funded partly by staff and partly by volunteers. The Health Committee recommended that the Government take steps to facilitate the network of existing voluntary and non-voluntary organisations. Those organisations do a marvellous job, but they constantly struggle to secure funding. So often, the local authorities make a grant, but say that they do not receive enough money to fund all the duties that are placed on them.
This is not stated explicitly in the report, but I hope that the Government will do all that they can to ensure that such organisations are given at least the hope of proper and adequate funding so that they can carry out their essential work instead of using their time to fight to secure funding so that they can stay afloat.
Elder abuse is a real problem. It should not be exaggerated, but we need to act now before it gets out of hand. The report is an excellent start, and we are all delighted with the Government's response. The problem of elder abuse is now in the public domain, and it is up to us, as parliamentarians, to keep challenging the Government to see how we can best tackle it before it becomes too serious.
3.4 pm
Mr. Keith BradleyMy contribution to the debate will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) has already laid out the Select Committee's recommendations brilliantly and has made the point that I specifically wanted to make about the appalling situation that arose at Rowan ward at Withington hospital in my constituency.
My hon. Friend spoke about carers. It is relevant that carers week was only a few weeks ago, when many hon. Members attended meetings, had visits and recognised, through a variety of activities, the incredible amount of informal caring that goes on. Informal caring is estimated to save the taxpayer about £60 billion a year—if that saving can be calculated. Therefore, in our discussions about care in the community, care in the family home and care generally, we parliamentarians have to recognise the huge amount of activity that goes on on our behalf. We must also do more to support carers, particularly by providing respite care, because they cannot keep caring for others at the level and quality that they do if they are not properly cared for themselves. I wanted to reiterate that point, because I do not think that we should ever forget the amount of caring that goes on.
What happened at Rowan ward was particularly appalling elder abuse—it was appal ring for the patients and for their relatives. We must learn lessons from that where abuse is taking place in national health service establishments. Regardless of the arguments about numbers, I hope that the problem is not prevalent in the
152WH
NHS, but we must look carefully at what happened at Rowan ward to ensure that it cannot happen in other NHS establishments.
Our report referred to Rowan ward. Recommendation 10 states:
"We recommend that the Department reviews the frequency and effectiveness of the inspection of NHS establishments providing care for older people. We also recognize the importance of lay personnel having an input into the inspection process and urge that further measures are taken to increase user engagement. We believe that lay visitors, by talking to residents informally and alone, are more likely to obtain information about abuse from embarrassed or frightened victims. Further measures may need to be introduced to make staff aware of their responsibility to report abuse and to allow them to do this in a confidential manner."
I believe that the Government are sympathetic to that recommendation, but we must turn that sympathy into real action, because if the essence of that recommendation had been implemented at Rowan ward, there would have been a far better reporting system there, which would have allowed the problems to be identified earlier.
Our recommendations should be considered in relation to the recommendations of the Commission for Health Improvement inquiry into Rowan ward and those of the internal inquiry into the standards of care at Rowan ward. The CHI report states:
"There is an urgent need to strengthen management capacity and leadership at every level in the trust"
and that there must be
"executive capacity and vision in clinical matters",
which clearly need to be strengthened. It goes on to say:
"In any further major capital projects or reprovision development, the trust and health community partners must ensure that vulnerable services are not left isolated during the process."
Given the danger that there might be many such cases around the country and that, as the nature of hospitals changes, we are to reprovide secondary and community services, we must not forget the situation that arose in Withington—the final element of in-patient care was one isolated ward of vulnerable elderly people, left in the middle of a building site. We must be much more sensitive and caring about how we ensure that reprovision is in place and that it can be smoothly managed, so that we do not get into further situations that leave vulnerable people such as those in Withington at risk.
The other recommendation in the report was:
"The Department of Health should evaluate the process for consideration of applications for care trust status."
An underlying problem, which was highlighted in all the reports, was the robustness of the trust when it was first established, and its capacity in a relatively short time to manage mental health services and social care services for the mentally ill in a city such as Manchester. There is a duty on the Department of Health—and on all of us—to ensure that new trusts have the capacity to undertake the job with which we charge them, so that they can make new services available to their communities.
I fully endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead that we must ensure that the way in which services develop is recognised in the community. I am pleased to say that

153WH
there is now a new leadership team at the mental health trust in Manchester, including a new acting chief executive, Laura Roberts, who will, I hope, become the chief executive in the near future. The new management team—a chair is going to be appointed—has introduced a robust action plan to try to tackle the issues that have been identified as a result of all the inquiries into Rowan ward.
As my hon. Friend said, it is incumbent on parliamentarians to involve themselves in the process. We must be aware of problems that arise in trusts, so that we can bring them to the attention of the Department. We cannot just stand back and assume that all is well in our communities. If we have learned those lessons, we have paved the way towards ensuring that, at least in Manchester, the mental health partnership can provide high-quality care. We need to discuss matters with it, as I have done as a result of what happened at Rowan ward, and address the points that it believes need to be highlighted, as we have done in our abuse report. Situations are not static and we must keep reminding ourselves of the key issues.
There have been no prosecutions as a result of the problems that arose in Rowan ward and the subsequent investigation. The management have changed and key staff members have left the trust. However, relatives concerned about future care still query why nobody was prosecuted. The trust is clear that it must work closely with the police at the earliest opportunity, consult on concerns or suspicions and agree an investigation process wherever possible. Health services need to build a relationship with the police in respect of vulnerable adults, so that, rather than merely reacting to situations, they have a protocol and procedure that involve consulting the police at the earliest opportunity. Manchester would welcome such a development.
We mentioned in our report the delays in the protection of vulnerable adults register, a fact that the Minister recognised when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. The earliest possible registration of health staff is still a live issue. We have been given assurances, but I want to re-emphasise that aspect of the report. We have already heard about the need for health and social care staff to receive professional training in abuse matters. Unless there is mandatory training, so that staff recognise abuse as a key issue, they will not feel the confidence or have the ability to engage in the reporting and investigative process. I welcome the Minister's intervention, where he said that discussions will be taking place on the matter. However, I urge speed and effective action to ensure that we introduce such training at the earliest opportunity.
Specific legislation regarding vulnerable order people is also an issue. The Minister recognises that. It is similar to the protection of vulnerable children issue. We need to look at the way in which child protection issues are handled to see how that can be effectively replicated for adults. We need to look at the range of possible legislation, to consider what is in place now, to see where the gaps are and to ensure that there is a continuum of legislative framework with which we can ensure that vulnerable people can be properly protected. I am sure that the Minister will give some more thoughts on that matter.
154WH
Rowan ward was an appalling example and, as I said, I hope that it was rot typical of care in national health service establishments and certainly not typical of the care that people receive from the health services in Manchester. However, on behalf of those vulnerable people and their relatives and friends, we must not forget what those investigations found—the weakness of the management, of the protocols and of the interrelationship with other agencies—to ensure that Rowan ward does not happen again. We should ensure that we learn the lessons and that the practice and procedures brought in as a result of our wide-ranging report into elder abuse are effectively implemented by the Government.
3.17 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I rise to speak in this very important debate on a subject about which a number of hon. Members have already spoken eloquently. They have expressed particular areas of concern from their awn experience of the inquiry.
I start by echoing something from the evidence that we received during the inquiry; it was a telling point about our attitude as a society towards the abuse of adults and particularly the abuse of elders, compared with our attitude towards the abuse of children. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) referred to the matter, which is also referred to in the evidence.
The sole difference between the cases of Margaret Panting and of Victoria Climbié is the 70 years that separates them and not the abuse they both suffered. One case produced a major national inquiry, convulsed the whole system and led to substantial change as a consequence; the Laming inquiry report and the Children Bill, which is currently going through the House of Lords. However, Margaret Panting's epitaph seems to be less. The case is now perhaps recognised in part through the Committee's report, but we require a substantial shift; not only in terms of the Government's approach to and thinking on the issue, but towards its being a more widespread issue of concern in society.
During the inquiry we were told that, as a society, we are still probably 10 or 20 years behind in our attitude towards, alertness to and awareness of elder abuse. I feel strongly that that is true. I understand the point that has been made by those who are anxious not to tar good practitioners of care—whether they are care home providers or domiciliary providers—with the brush of the abuser. However, it is also incumbent on us not to downplay the issue to the extent that we do not manage to provoke the necessary action to ensure that we have a clear picture of how widespread the problem is.
Although we have the benefit of the work done by Action on Elder Abuse and of the survey research done in the early 1990s, which led to the figure that 500,000 were being abused, and although the Government response has suggested that work will be done on national data collection on reporting of incidents, none of that deals with the fundamental concern of giving us a fix on the true prevalence of elder abuse.
Until we have established the necessary sound research methodology to do that, we cannot be certain that the reporting mechanisms are a reliable way of identifying and protecting victims of abuse. The systems may not be as robust as we should like them to be. I shall

155WH
shortly discuss aspects of the master to which "No Secrets" is relevant, and some of the systems that have developed from that, which are particularly important.
The debate about the abuse of older people and other adults is still in the realm of the taboo. We do not have reliable statistics and there is still much denial in the care sector, and more widely. Often abusers do not recognise their actions as abuse. Will the Minister say more today about this to give us some confidence and hope?
Work is to be done in connection with the data collection system being discussed with Action on Elder Abuse; but what will the Government do to set up the research to give us confidence in the Minister's contention, made in evidence to the Committee, that the figure, suggested by research, of 500,000 people being abused at any one time is not reliable? Before that figure ceases to be used, we need to know that research is being set up. A sense of the time scale for that would be useful. The data collection that is proposed will give a much better fix on the tip of the iceberg but will not reveal its entirety.
The "No Secrets" definition has been referred to, and it is important to draw out the concerns about it. The fact that that definition does not apply beyond formal care must be a matter of concern, not least because of the remarks that have been made about the valuable contribution made by informal carers, and the fact that a large amount of care—probably the bulk of it—is provided outside the formal care sector. In addition to the 6 million carers there are many others who probably never even label themselves as carers even when asked about it in the census.
The Committee made recommendations about the fact that the regulations on domiciliary care do not require instant reporting, which is required for residential and nursing homes. The Government response argued that that is more difficult in a domiciliary setting, because incidents may occur when there is no responsibility for domiciliary care, raising the question as to whether there is a burden on a particular agency to report them when another agency may already have done so.
Part of my response to that would be that that is surely something to be dealt with by the multi-agency co-ordination to be established by "No Secrets". At least if the safety net has a few additional cords to it, resulting in multiple reporting of the same incident, we will obtain the information. However, if everyone thinks that someone else might be reporting it, we will not. Will the Government think further about regulations to impose on domiciliary care agencies a duty to report incidents?
I want to underscore what other hon. Members have said about training and the importance that the Committee placed on the absolute value of more and better training for staff, and refresher training. I welcome the Minister's news, in an intervention, that he will meet representatives of the Nursing and Midwifery Council in a couple of weeks. Perhaps, rather cheekily, I want to ask the Minister to explain not so much what the details of the discussion will be but by what mechanism its outcomes will be reported, so that the Committee can find out whether our recommendations and this debate have had any purchase in moving matters on.
156WH
Not surprisingly, perhaps, I want to say a bit about the inappropriate use of medication. I have been concerned about the issue for some years, and particularly since 1997, when I read a report by the Royal College of Physicians about the medication of older people. The inappropriate use of medication can reduce a person's quality of life, shorten their life or, in some cases, take their life. Over the past few years, I have asked parliamentary questions about the issue, introduced Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall about it and published a couple of reports on how far the Government have got in dealing with it.
Studies in Manchester, Glasgow, south London and Bristol published in peer-reviewed journals have also contributed to my anxiety about the issue. What emerges from them is that, on average, a quarter of nursing home residents are prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, and eight out of 10 of those who receive such drugs are the victims of inappropriate prescribing. What do those who undertook the research mean by that? They mean that the prescribing bears no relation to the condition that the person has; in other words, they gain no benefit from using anti-psychotics.
The studies also consider the issue of poor record keeping, which makes it hard to see whether there was a real purpose to prescribing the drugs in the first place. Beyond that, the studies examine whether adequate attempts were made to reduce the dosage of the drugs that were prescribed and whether there had been a medicine review.
Medicine review is one of the keys to unlocking the problem of the inappropriate use of medication, and the Committee explored the issue with the Minister, officials and others. It is worth bearing it in mind that the national service framework says that older people who are on less than three medications should have a medicine review every 12 months; if they are on more than three medications, they should have a review every six months. One piece of research that I looked at, which was drawn to the Committee's attention, showed that about two thirds of GPs did not have adequate systems in place to deliver those NSF goals. There are some interesting comments about that on page 8 of the response:
"The National Service Framework for Older People required that, by April 2002, everyone aged 75 or over should have their medicines reviewed once a year—every six months for those taking four or more medicines"—
I apologise for saying that it was three medicines. The response continues:
"The Medicines Partnership Taskforce has undertaken a review of Primary Care Trusts to determine the extent of medication reviews carried out as per the National Service Framework requirement. Results will be available shortly."
I hope that the Minister can tell us whether those results have come through or, if not, when they might be made available so that we can get our hands on them. It would be useful to see them.
The concern about reporting comes through particularly in the evidence that the Committee received from the then National Care Standards Commission, after its first look at medication reporting. In its first full year, the commission found that 1 per cent. of care home providers exceeded the medicine standards, 45 per cent. met them and 42 per cent. almost met them. We had an

157WH
interesting exchange with the commission about precisely what that meant, and we deduced that about half of the care homes in the 42 per cent. that had almost met the standard could not be dealt with easily or quickly and that a programme of work would have to be put in train. Some 12 per cent. of care homes—about 1,600—completely failed to meet the medication standard.
The Government's response suggests that the evidence this year shows an improvement, which is good. Again, it would be useful if the Minister could share a little more of that information on that. However, the commission told us that the majority of prescribed medicines used in care homes are provided by a GP because care staff, not users, ask for a repeat prescription. That is an interesting and significant fact. As the Government move down the road of pharmacy repeat prescribing, we need to be absolutely certain that the new pharmacy contract is aligned properly with the GP contract, to ensure that it, too, incentivises medicine review and that critical thought is applied to those repeat prescriptions.
Sandra Gidley: Recommendation 12 says that
"a review of the medication of care home residents should be conducted by their GP every three months".
Given what my hon. Friend said about the changing role of pharmacists, does he agree that they would be in an excellent position to conduct a review if the problem is one of resources?
Mr. Burstow: Resources must one of the constraints on a GP's ability to take on the increased work load that would flow from the NSF. The new pharmacy contract should be fully aligned with the GP contract in that respect, so that pharmacists who deal with repeat prescribing are mindful of the need to review the prescriptions as well. The issue is not only about the volumes, but about whether the individual benefits. Pharmacists could play a useful role in that.
My concern about aligning the GP contract with the pharmacy contract relates also to recommendation 11 and the Government's response. Among the indicators in the contract, there are
"two that specifically incentivise regular review of medication."
They are:
"A medication review is recorded in the notes in the preceding 15 months for all patients being prescribed four or more repeat medicines (worth seven points)";
and
"A medication review is recorded in the notes in the preceding 15 months for all patients being prescribed repeat medicines (worth eight points)."
The Government's response says 15 months, yet the NSF talks about 12 months for people on fewer than four medications and six months for people on more than four medications. How do the terms of the GP contract fit with the NSF? How can we be confident that we are sufficiently incentivising the delivery of the NSF on the basis of the Government's response? It would be useful if the Minister said more about that.
158WH
Protection of vulnerable adults has been mentioned. I look forward to hearing the Minister talk about the NHS, which will be brought into POVA in due course. We had an exchange about that in the Committee, so will the Minister say where the Government are on rolling that out? Can the Minister say a bit more about the timetable for the General Social Care Council? The Government say in the response that they will hold a discussion with the council. When will that take place? As the Minister knows, the council is due to register about 60,000 people a year. However, there are about 1.2 million people in the work force, which would mean we would have to wait until about 2023 before everyone was registered. Having a clear sense of what the next priorities will be— the Committee thinks that they should include domiciliary care—would be useful.
One of the most interesting and illuminating things about "No Secrets" was the memorandum of evidence that the Department submitted as part of our inquiry. The Department referred to work that it had commissioned from the Centre for Policy on Ageing. On page 45 the report quotes the memorandum, which said:
"The analysis indicates that by and large local councils have met the requirements required by No Secrets and that considerable progress has been made towards improving co-ordination between agencies when dealing with adult abuse cases."
I have had a chance to look at the survey to which the memorandum referred; it contains a useful table at the back, detailing whether or not local authorities are compliant with various aspects of "No Secrets". Those details add to my concern about whether "No Secrets" really is getting sufficient traction on the ground in making the difference that we all want it to have.
For example, the designated lead officer across the organisations is someone with whom the buck stops for delivering "No Secrets". However, when the survey was published—in June 2002, I think—61 per cent. of respondents did not have a lead officer. That is a worrying statistic. The situation may have significantly improved in two years, but we are as yet none the wiser.
We have talked about training, which is a serious concern. When asked about
"Reference to existence of adult protection training plan",
79 per cent. of respondents answered in the negative, and when asked about
"Reference to production of available public information"
about plans to protect vulnerable adults, 86 per cent. had nothing to say. The hon. Member for Southend, West rightly talked about how we make people more aware of the problem so that we, as a community, can safeguard people. "No Secrets" does not appear to have the strategies in place to ensure that everyone knows what they should do if they suspect abuse so that they can report it to the appropriate authorities, who can then take action. At least, such strategies were certainly not in place in 2002.
I am sure that we would all agree that we want to prevent abuse in the first place. "No Secrets" states that 79 per cent. of correspondents said that they did not have a dissemination plan for a preventive agenda. More disturbing is the evidence of service development priorities identified around the preventive agenda; some 91 per cent. said that they did not have any. I entirely understand that the Department wants to reassure us and to give us the impression that it has a direction of

159WH
travel and is committed to dealing with the problem. I do not underestimate the Government's commitment or their desire to deal with the problems of elder abuse, but the memorandum of evidence gave too glowing a picture.
The "No Secrets" table, and plenty of other statistics that I could have given, show that we cannot be confident that we are making the progress on the ground that we want to make. That is why I am worried by the Government's response to the suggestion of a joint inspection of adult protection along the lines of "No Secrets", which was, "Well. we might do that in the future, but there is a whole host of other pieces of work that we will do first." Again, will the Minister say what sense of urgency the Government have, and what the time scales might be?
The hon. Member for Southend, West was absolutely right about the need for advocacy. That point arose in the context of the draft Mental Incapacity Bill, which will provide an opportunity to explore the matter further as it passes through this House. The evolution of advocacy services in this country seems to have been piecemeal. We should examine more closely what is being done in Scotland, which has developed an advocacy strategy at national level and is working closely with local organisations to develop grass-roots advocacy services. At the moment, living in an area that has advocacy services of a quality that meets one's needs is happenstance and a matter of good fortune. Not every area has them. They need to be provided universally to meet the needs of vulnerable people.
As I said at the beginning, the wider debate is about the attitude that we, as a society, have to older people and the language that we use. Our language colours our acceptance and our willingness to be a s concerned about the abuse of older people as we might be about the abuse of children. I think of the words that are bandied about in television programmes, such as "grumpy old", "boring old", "silly old" and "dirty old". In this place, we use language such as "demographic time bombs". We do not use the phrase "bed blocking" quite so often these days, but it has been used. All that serves to turn older people into a problem rather than what they really are, which is members of society. citizens who have made a contribution and continue to do so. The best way of safeguarding older people is to change and to challenge how we, as a society, think about them.
The inquiry and the report have cast a spotlight on abuse. I hope that, after today's debate and the Government's response, the spotlight does not move on to something else. Too much about elder abuse is still hidden. The spotlight needs to stay on elder abuse until it is all exposed.
3.38 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I, too, express my regret that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) cannot be here today, but I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) for introducing the debate so well. That does not leave someone who gets left until rather late in the debate with very much to add, but I do want to make several points.
We discussed the definition of abuse, but we did not describe the definition of "elder". In an idle moment, I looked for the definition of the word in a dictionary or
160WH
two, and picked out my favourite—the 1907 edition of "Webster's" dictionary,which defines it as "advanced beyond middle age." I then looked up "middle age". In 1907, middle age was 30 to 50. A slightly more modern edition of "Webster's" was not quite so definite. It defined middle age as being
"between youth and old age."
It went on to quote somebody called Harrison Smith, who referred to
"that increasingly elastic expanse called middle-age".
I was relieved last week to see that middle age now extends to 69. So, there are only 16 members of the House who qualify at the moment.
I shall pick out only a few points. Abuse at home has already been mentioned by several hon. Members. Like the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I was staggered to find that 67 per cent. of the cases of abuse that are recorded occur in people's homes. It is worth reminding the House that the report picked out the risk factors that help people to spot the fact that abuse might be occurring in a patient's own home. The first factor is isolation. Elderly people who do not get out and do not see other people are particularly vulnerable. There is also often a poor quality long-term relationship in the house, a pattern of family violence, and dependence of the abuser on the abused. The abuser may have a mental illness or a personality disorder, or there may be an issue with drugs or alcohol. So, there are certain pointers that mean that, with more training, people who come across such cases can pick up on abuse.
Inspection has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It came to my notice when several of my constituents who are on the list of recognised lay inspectors came to a surgery. They were very concerned that, with the change from the National Care Standards Commission to the Commission for Social Care Inspection, they were being neglected and forgotten. I asked a parliamentary question on the subject in 2003. Apparently, there was a pool of 84 trained lay assessors in 2002. In 2003, the number had declined to 77. My constituents were worried that their expertise was going to be lost.
In the inquiry, I was pleased when one witness—Tessa Harding, senior policy adviser for Help the Aged—said:
"I would say that I think lay involvement is absolutely essential. What we should be aiming to do is encourage open cultures. It is the closed culture, the closed institution that breeds the potential for abuse, not always abuse but at least the potential for abuse."
I was pleased to note that the answer to recommendation 10, which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) drew attention to, states:
"The Government values lay inspectors as do residents of care homes."
Lay inspectors are very important and I ask the Minister to push the new organisation, CSCI, to say how it will involve lay assessors and use the pool of trained lay assessors who are not necessarily being used at the moment.
Physical abuse by over-medication has also been mentioned by several people. General practitioners can gain points under the new contract for reviewing drugs, but I think that it says that the review has to be entered in the notes. How is it planned to check on that? Will there be a random or a systematic review of notes?

161WH
In recommendation 13, we raised the possibility of making more use of local consultant psychiatrists and physicians with an interest in the elderly. They should perhaps have had a more regular input into what is happening in residential and nursing homes.
We mentioned the possibility of GP specialists. I am worried about that, however, because whenever we have an inquiry we recommend that GP specialists should take on more of the load.
I was pleased about the mention of pharmacists, because they visit hospital wards more and more and check on medication. A visit from a pharmacist to a nursing home to go through the drug charts and pick up incompatibilities would be very useful.
Recommendation 40, while I am discussing the professional side, refers to GP retainer fees. I was rather puzzled by the Government's response, the final sentence of which states:
"However, where the management of a care home that provides nursing care requires the professional services of a doctor or other health care professional to assist in the management of their business, the Government believes that it is reasonable for the business to bear that cost."
My understanding is that GPs are not retained to assist in the management of the business.
On the complaints process, I support what has been said. It is quite unrealistic to think that an elderly person who is alone has a chance of talking to the patient advice liaison service or the independent complaints and advocacy service. In my area, ICAS representatives will go around and talk to people, but elderly people must know how and have the ability to get in touch with ICAS. That brings me back to the importance of lay visitors who go in during an inspection and see some of the residents on their own without anyone else being present.
Training was mentioned by almost every witness as being by far the most important single factor to come out of the inquiry. There should be better training in the recognition of elder abuse.
My final point concerns what happens in ordinary NHS hospitals. The hon. Member for Southend, West alluded to abuse by omission when food is just put in front of a patient who cannot eat it. I have had distressing examples drawn to my attention. One was of an elderly gentleman who sat sideways on a trolley, trapped in position by the cot side of the trolley. The only reason for that was that the overworked staff on the ward could not control that poor old chap in any other way. Elderly people are shut in side wards where they cannot get out.
I remember from my own experience real difficulties in controlling elderly, confused people who were wrongly placed on an acute ward. For the good of the other patients, who had recently had heart attacks and desperately needed a quiet night, the only way of controlling elderly, confused patients for the duration of the night was sedation, which, in the circumstances, was probably given not for the good of the patient concerned, but for the good of the other patients on the ward. There certainly needs to be more training in how
162WH
to cope with such problems. A physician or psychiatrist who is interested in t he elderly could be called in the next day to provide expert help.
The report has raised many important issues and has provided some good answers and some inadequate answers. I remind the Committee of the book by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) entitled "Commons Knowledge" in which he sets out 10 commandments for Back-Bench MPs. The best is:
"Neglect the rich, the obsessed, the tabloids and seek the silent voices."
These really are the silent voices—the elderly and abused who live on their own in their own homes. If we can draw attention to these silent voices, we shall have achieved something.
3.50 pm
Sandra Gidley: It is nice to be back with Health Committee members. I have missed you lot—life is not quite the same without our weekly get-togethers.
I recall a letter I wrote in my dying moments on the Committee. Someone wrote to me about a subject and asked me to put it forward as a suggestion. I wrote to him to say, "I'm sorry. I'm off the Select Committee now, but I will pass the suggestion on." I told that person to be of good cheer, because my successor is my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow),who is passionate about the subject. Without doubt, he will make a strong case. I do not know whose decision it was—
Mr. Simon Burns: The Committee's.
Sandra GidleyI thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure it was the Committee's decision, but the inquiry is nevertheless welcome.
Hon. Members have drawn comparisons between the Margaret Panting and Victoria Climbié cases. It struck me that cases of elder Abuse may make the local paper—it is not seen as much of a story—but child abuse is headline news. Social workers are hung out to dry, people ask how such a thing could happen and so on. Sadly, society treats the two cases very differently. That is something we must address.
I am very impressed by the Health Committee's report, which contains some thoughtful and strongly worded recommendations. I would not have expected anything else. Am I being a little churlish in thinking that the Government response is just a little complacent and wishy-washy?
Mr. Burns: Very churlish.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that I am being very churlish. Well, I am not alone.
Mr. Burns: As a member of the Health Committee, I said that because I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination one could describe the issue as party political—except, perhaps, in respect of the Liberal Democrat party. There are times in politics when, if

163WH
only for one's self-respect, one should give some due credit if the Government issue a response that is meant to be helpful and is constructive in advancing the situation.
Sandra Gidley: I was intending to give some due credit to the Government, but I think that their response is not good enough. It may have its heart in the right place, but I do not think it is committed to enough action. I shall go through some recommendations and responses, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with me. In case he thinks that I am alone, I refer him to this week's Community Care magazine. The opening paragraph of one article says:
"The government is being urged to tear up its response to the health select committee inquiry in' o elder abuse and start again."
I am being quite mild compared to that. Action on Elder Abuse said
"the lacklustre reaction indicated a failure to 'hear or fully understand the difficulties and shortfalls within the current system'."
Dr. Ladyman: Like the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), I do not want to make the matter party political, because I think it is one where we share a lot of common ground, bat the article the hon. Lady is referring to was no doubt prompted by the press release from Action on Elder Abuse of 23 June. Perhaps if she had done a little more research she would have seen its press release of 29 June, which is headed:
"Organisations Welcome DH Response at Meeting on Elder Abuse."
It pointed out that, having discussed the report, the organisation has revised its view and now realises that we are making major progress. It also said:
"We have all commended Stephen Laclyman's commitment to the protection of vulnerable adults and support him in the work he has undertaken so far."
Sandra Gidley: I wait with bated breath to see what next week's press release says. If that organisation is not enough, Gordon Lishman said that the response was "a bitter disappointment" and that
"the Government had taken the view that the existence of advice and helplines was an adequate response to the select committee's call for advocacy."
I do not wish to be churlish and I do not seek to make party political points, but we must examine the Government's response. There are cases where we all agree that the problem must be dealt with and we can legitimately question whether enough is being done. By asking those questions I got a positive response, such as the one a few moments ago. There is no problem with raising some of those issues.
I will canter—unless I get held up by interventions—through some recommendations that received an inadequate response. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) agreed that extending the definition of elder abuse is a good idea. The Government's refusal to widen it means that they fail to
164WH
understand the wider problem. As the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) pointed out, the Minister is unwilling to accept the figure of 500,000. The Government's response states that
"the Department of Health will continue to express reservations about the figure"
because of the wide definition.
I accept that some work has been done since the definition was produced, but we are into a circular argument because if one widens the definition, one increases the number of people who are suffering abuse according to the official description. The problem is that there are categories of abuse that the Government are unwilling to consider. The categories are, nevertheless, abuse at some level. It may be a low level, but if we do not intervene at that level how do we know that a higher level of abuse later on would not be prevented?
Recommendation 6 acknowledges that a great deal of abuse takes place in domiciliary care. The hon. Member for Southend, West legitimately highlighted the fact that the Government are rightly trying to encourage more people to receive care at home, if they wish. By the same token, those people are put in a vulnerable position. It becomes even more important that people in their own homes have almost greater protection than those in a care home, because in a care home—unless there is institutionalised abuse, which, I hope, is being eliminated—there are usually other people around to see what is going on, which adds checks and balances to the system. The same may not be true of a vulnerable older person away from their family who sees only the domiciliary care worker. Indeed, they may not have any close family.
I am not saying that all care workers are a problem. We must acknowledge that a small number pose a problem, however, and they should not be given any opportunities to abuse. I welcome the introduction of the protection of vulnerable adults scheme, but the work force lack knowledge of it. That was highlighted by a constituency case where something inappropriate happened not to an older person, but to a younger person. Nevertheless, none of the workers seemed to be aware that such a programme exists, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister what measures are being introduced to ensure that staff dealing with people are aware of it.
The Select Committee rightly acknowledged some inadequacies in regulation. It said that
"the failure of the National Minimum Standards for domiciliary care to require reporting of adverse incidents is an anomaly that should be removed."
That is one of the responses that I am very disappointed with. The attitude seems to be, "Well, hmm, let's not do this." For example, there could be an adverse incident that has nothing to do with the domiciliary care agency that is providing support. It could be inappropriate and burdensome for that agency to have to report the incident, particularly when family members or other agencies, including health professionals or the police, might have taken the necessary action. However, they might not.

165WH
Would we take the same attitude towards children? I return to the opening gambit of many of today's speeches, because that attitude seems to be at odds with the response to recommendation 10, which talks about producing
"a policy pack to provide support to organisations in developing and/or reviewing whistle-blowing policies and procedures."
I think that we live in a culture where we sometimes look the other way and think, "Oh, somebody else will pick up on this problem." I want the onus to be on people to report a problem if they believe that there is one. As has been mentioned, we are talking about vulnerable people. We should provide every protection rather than providing get-outs.
I will briefly touch on training, which is often cited as a cure for the problem. The attitude is, "It's okay, because everybody will be trained." Of course training is good and I am delighted that the Government want staff, particularly in care settings, to be trained to NVQ level 2. In care, that level includes a compulsory unit covering elder abuse. That is good, but in relation to a parliamentary question I asked on 4 May the Government have no idea how many home-care workers have achieved that level and how many have yet to achieve it.
Work in various publications has highlighted the gap, and it could be some years before all staff have managed to access that training. We must bear it in mind that the care home sector is in a state of churn because of the low wages that have been alluded to. There is high staff turnover and an ongoing need for training. If the Government have any up-to-date figures on the percentage of workers in the field who have been trained, it would be useful to know what they are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke at length about medication and covered some points that I was going to mention. There are two aspects to medication abuse. When I worked as a pharmacist years ago, the problem was intentional abuse—the administering to older people of medication to keep them quiet. We have come a long way since then. If people think that things are still bad, they should know that, in the early 1980s, nursing homes were able to order packets of 500 sedatives and dish them out willy-nilly, supposedly under the care of a GP. The previous Government rightly changed that. All prescriptions now have to be on a named patient basis.
Working with one particular home was illuminating for me. It had a high rate of dispensing—that was great as it provided lots of income for a pharmacist—of those medications. The home was taken over by new owners, who decided to review the medication. Practically overnight, they took most of the elderly patients off the sedatives. There were no adverse effects; the older people did not need them. Those medications were just being used as a chemical cosh. Clearly, that is a separate issue from the standard medication reviews of older people.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that, last year, only 45 per cent. of care homes met the standard. He also rightly emphasised that the incentives for doctors do not match the criteria for older people in the NSF. We did some research to find out whether the
166WH
situation has changed and sent out a survey to all the primary care trusts. We received a good response, but found out that 48 per cent. of the PCTs that responded were unable to provide information on the frequency of the review. Of the 50-odd per cent. that did, 65 per cent. said that they gave annual reviews to over-75s, and 72 per cent.—slightly better—said that reviews took place every six months if the person over 75 was taking four or more medicines.
I understand that the Government are to produce some new findings on that, but it is disappointing that this issue simply is not being addressed at the primary care trust level. I do not know whether that is because the target is not linked to money, but it is clear that the NSF is not having an effect in delivering care and the right services, which we all genuinely want people to receive.
Recommendation 16 deals with physical restraint. Again, I find no fault with it, but I was a little disappointed by the Government's response, which seems half-hearted. They say that it is up to the Commission for Social Care Inspection to publish findings and that further clarification would be helpful. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that that is a very strong response. Perhaps the Government are active behind the scenes or perhaps it is the wording, but something inappropriate is being touched on and I would like a strong commitment from the Minister that efforts will be made to discover the extent of the problem, if it exists, and to address it.
I have already discussed mandatory training, but I want to mention nurses. Recommendation 21 says that all nurses and care workers should receive mandatory training of some sort. Again, I feel that the Government's response could have been better:
"Qualified nurses progress into specialist areas such as elder abuse services by undertaking post-registration specialist training."
All well and good, but that completely ignores the fact that someone who goes into medicine today and works in the acute sector will treat a much larger proportion of elderly people. The Government should make a strong recommendation to the Nursing and Midwifery Council that relevant training be a core part of the curriculum. In many ways, as with child abuse, people do not always know what to look for. Training on how to identify problems would be helpful in ensuring that adequate safeguards are put in place when people who may have been subject to abuse of some sort in a home setting return to that home.
I quote at my peril a comment from a discussion that I had with Dame Deirdre Hine, who is passionate about these issues. She said that anyone going into medicine these days needs to accept that geriatric medicine, as we used to call it, will be a core part of their business, because, on the whole, that is what they will deal with as people become healthier.
We may not have liked the patient advocacy changes, but some, although they are in a bit of a muddle, work well at a local level. However, I return to a figure that has been quoted a number of times: 67 per cent. of abuse takes place in victims' homes. I am not sure who is the advocate for those receiving domiciliary care services. I am particularly concerned because of the increased move towards direct payments, and the fact that those

167WH
do not seem to be adequately covered. It has been recommended that people providing services via direct payments be registered, but there is no compulsion.
People who access services by direct payment receive back-up of variable quality from county and city councils, depending on the individual dealing with them. Some are proactive and keep closely in touch, but—as I know from case studies that I have received—others leave people feeling slightly abandoned. They have been persuaded to go on to direct payments, but have found those difficult. They have coped initially, but when the person being cared for has deteriorated, the practicalities have made the situation more difficult. It is hard to know who the advocate is in such cases.
While I am on the subject of domiciliary care services, I have concerns about the consultation on relaxation of checks through the Criminal Records Bureau. In a care home, where people are appointed to oversee what is happening, there are checks and balances; other staff will spot a rotten apple. To allow a worker to go into a domiciliary care setting after minimum supervision, and then only ad hoc, is a matter for concern. It may be that the consultation has picked that up and it will not happen, but I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the situation regarding CRB checks in relation to domiciliary care. We need to provide more such checks and balances, not fewer.
May I talk briefly about the single assessment process? It is a good thing but, in the recent survey of PCTs, many reported problems in completing it. A couple of years ago. only one in five were completed within two days, about half in two weeks and just over 70 per cent. within six weeks. Only 44 per cent. of care packages were received within two weeks. If the Minister has figures to show that the situation has improved, they will be very welcome, because I believe that joining the services in the way that is planned can only be to the good. However, there are clearly concerns that delays in the system might tempt people to take short cuts.
Finally, I am delighted to learn that the POVA initiative will be implemented on 26 July. However, as the deadline has slipped a number of times, can the Minister confirm once and for all that that will be the date?
4.14 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: Like my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Select Committee, I welcome the report. The Committee was unanimous in its decision to embark upon it following private discussions to which the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was not privy. However, Liberals never fail to try to jump on a bandwagon and gain credit if they think that they can get away with it.
This is an important debate because, as many have said, at all levels—Government, police, newspapers and possibly here, too—the difference in the response to cases of child abuse and to cases of elder abuse is staggering. I suspect that that is partly clue to naivety on all our parts. We simply do not, or did not, believe that elder abuse could be going on—certainly not on the scale that it seems to have been happening. That is why it is important that the report, debates such as this, Government responses and interested parties outside
168WH
this building have focused attention on the matter. Together, we can seek to come up with ideas, and means and mechanisms by which to try to minimise or even to eradicate—if that is humanly possible, though that may be a little idealistic—the problem, which is a stain on any civilised society.
I shall concentrate on three main areas: definition, prevalence and the role of the CSCI in moving forward and seeking to minimise the problem in society, as it has an important part to play in that. Much has been said about the "No Secrets" report and its six definitions of elder abuse. I have noted the Government's response. I wish that they would be a little more adventurous with such definitions. The obvious ones—physical, sexual and psychological abuse, financial or material abuse, neglect, acts of omission, and discriminatory abuse—will come to everyone's mind hut, as has been pointed out, the majority of care of the elderly is domiciliary, and that is potentially far more dangerous in terms of opportunities for abuse.
At least in a care home there are lots of people working together and lots of residents, so people are more aware of others' actions. It is much easier, for various reasons, for abuse to be carried out or perpetuated in a one-to-one situation in someone's home without anyone discovering the nature of that abuse. It may not be discovered because of victims' feelings of fear, low self-esteem or shame, even though the abuse is no fault of their own, and because they would rather keep quiet and have the matter swept under the carpet than face the difficulties that would come with exposing the perpetrator of the abuse.
Another form of abuse is the rapid change of people providing domiciliary care. That is a form of abuse because there is no continuity or security of service by one individual, who can build a relationship of trust and understanding with the client.
The Government are right not to expand the definition, so that it becomes almost meaningless because it has been diluted so much, but I ask them to remain open to the possibility of expanding, or fine-tuning the definition if and when it is thought to be relevant and useful to do so. I agree with the report's recommendation that the definition should be expanded to include individuals who do not require community care services but may have some assistance, particularly if they live alone in their homes. Abuse is not contained by any Government definition. That would be helpful.
The extent and prevalence of abuse is another problem. That is partly because people will not speak out for various reasons, and partly because of the nature and setting of abuse—with domiciliary care, in an individual's own home, for example. It can be difficult to detect, expose and stop abuse in such situations. That does not mean that we should not seek to do so, and to put in place mechanisms and procedures to expose such abuse, but it makes it much more difficult.
While we were taking evidence and during this debate, a lot has been said about the figure that has been bandied around of half a million cases of abuse. I have considerable sympathy with the Minister and the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee. It is intellectually ludicrous to use the figure of half a million as a fact when that figure was discovered, for want of a

169WH
better word, in 1992 as part of a survey and was then extrapolated. That is no sound or scientific basis on which to try to quantify a problem.
The important thing is to move on from the figure and the way in which it was concocted and to ensure that there is proper research to reach a meaningful and realistic identification of the scale of the problem. If we do that on scientific and factual evidence rather than extrapolations that are 12 years out of date and were highly suspect from the beginning, that will help to guide us on the ways in which we can move forward to the far more important issue. Rather than bandying around statistics, it is far more important to come up with procedures, policies and mechanisms to minimise the problem.
That is why I have more sympathy with the Minister than the recommendation in our report did— although I did sign up to the report. I welcome the Department's response to the matter, the money that it has given to Action on Elder Abuse, and the other measures that it has taken to try to expand our knowledge on a more factual basis. Anyone with any common sense would agree that that is the right way forward.
It is not simply a question of numbers and arguing about that. We must spend more time gleaning information on the ground to establish across the board the depth, extent and scale of the problem. In one of those areas, a great deal can be done. That is spelled out in paragraph 160 of the report, which states:
"We recommend that the shadow Commission for Social Care Inspection, the successor body to the National Care Standards Commission, should review its care home inspection methodology and ensure that where possible more conversation takes place with service users to validate their findings."
That is crucial. Often, as I go around the country visiting care homes, their owners, those who work in them and the residents, I hear their complaints. One of the complaints that comes up time and again, particularly from care home owners—it is a valid complaint—is that, under the National Care Standards Commission, when the inspectors went to inspect the homes, they spent far too little time speaking to the clients in the home, who of course have the greatest experience of the way in which they are being looked after.
It is interesting that paragraph 159 of the report states that Action on Elder Abuse
"recognised the contribution the Commission made to improving practice but considered there were inherent limitations on what could be validated through an inspection process. In their view, much of the inspection work of the NCSC focused on processes rather than outcomes."
That is a crucial observation. The report continues:
"They illustrated this by citing the NCSC survey of 100 inspection reports, randomly selected, which showed that in only 7 per cent. of cases had the inspector sought to validate what was being said by homes staff through conversations with service users. A similar view was put to us by Frank Ursell of the Registered Nursing Homes Association, who argued that the NCSC has been driven by reporting on policies, not by seeing if policies work."
That is a perspicacious comment, and there is a great deal of truth to it.
170WH
There is a danger that those involved in regulation and inspection go native and become more concerned with filling in forms and reporting on policies than with the more important issue of whether those policies are being carried out in the way that Parliament, the Department and its Ministers intended and are having the greatest impact on raising standards of care.
I have had discussions with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. I found it refreshing to come across an organisation—it is a new organisation, although a great number of its staff have many years' experience in the sector—with such a sense of openness. It is quite open about the fact that it is interested in raising the standard of care, so that individuals benefit, rather than in ticking off this and that on a checklist and stamping X hundred pieces of paper when they have been dealt with in the right way. Ultimately, the quality of the care given to residents is the most important thing.
It is important that we have a regulatory body that is responsible for inspection and that has an open mind. It is good that we seem to have a body that recognises, as it told me long before this debate, that speaking far more to residents in care homes and recipients of domiciliary care is critical to fulfilling its functions and achieving its aim of raising standards. In that way, it can find out about their experiences—what they get from the service, what they are happy or not so happy with, and how the service can be improved. It is good that CSCI, rather than just talking about such things, is actually prepared to go out and do something about them. Given its determined rhetoric. I have no reason to doubt that it will be successful. It is refreshing that, for the first time in a very long time, we have a body that has refocused itself on what I think we all agree should be its crucial role.
Sandra Gidley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He may be surprised to know that I agree. I have had similar conversations with CSCI, and I was similarly impressed. However, it is early days, and I have not yet managed to pick up a sense of whether the rhetoric and the ambition at the top are being translated into action at the grassroots level. Has he managed to reach any preliminary conclusions about that?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to myself for giving the hon. Lady the opportunity to put her comments on record, because they show that she is following where I lead. I have spoken to CSCI's senior management, who deeply impressed me with their views about its direction, but I do not confine myself to talking only to the generals—I like to talk to the troops on the ground, too.
It is only early days and we should not forget that CSCI is a new body. However, it was taking on the role of an existing body, as well as some additional responsibilities, so its staff were not brand new when it started up and many of them have many years' experience in the care sector. Although it is early days, the message is going out loud and clear to the whole organisation that it is not the National Care Standards Commission but a new body, with some new responsibilities and a new head. The news is filtering down that it means business and means to work differently from the normal, stereotyped regulatory inspection body. It means to try to make a difference by

171WH
putting the interests of the clients first without compromising quality or standards. It will be concerned with ensuring that minimum standards are achieved, and with what is over and above that. That is heartening.
I do not want to prolong the debate unduly by rehashing what many others have slid, but I have one more point to make. It is a plea about the protection of vulnerable adults. I assume that the Minister will confirm the commencement date of 26 July, given that it has slipped a month—what is a month between friends? However, I urge Ministers, as I haw in the past, to be very careful. I think that they have learned from the experience of the Criminal Records Bureau.
No one doubts that safety is of paramount importance, along with the checking and vetting of people, so that unsuitable people do not work with a frail and vulnerable group. We art all united on that aim, but we may differ on how to achieve it. In the case of the CRB, the Government were warned that they were biting off too much too quickly and that there was not the manpower to carry out checks in the times that Ministers in Committee optimistically told us were enough.
Problems arose immediately and the CRB could not meet deadlines and targets and provide the necessary service. If checks that people need take ages and it is possible to earn more money per hour at Tesco, with less responsibility and fewer unsocial hours, most people will do that. To be fair, there have been improvements in recent months, after a rocky start, and more has been done to ensure that time scales are reduced for unproblematic checks.
To sound a cautionary note, I hope that, having learned from the problems with the CRB, we do not encounter similar problems with POVA after 26 July. I hope that it will be a seamless service that will run efficiently and smoothly, to the standards and at the levels that are anticipated.
We are all interested in what the Minister has to say in response to the issues, which, as we shall see if we read Hansard tomorrow, boil down to broadly similar ones for most hon. Members. We must never forget that we are concerned with a frail, vulnerable and elderly group in society, which deserves the respect, care and protection that the state can offer. We must ensure that, when the debate ends, the report, the Government's response, the high hopes and the calls for action do not gather dust on a shelf in the House of Commons Library and in the bowels of the Department of Health. We must carry on and ensure that the problems that have been highlighted are tackled, so that we can remove this stain on our society.
4.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Seldom have I agreed with so much that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said; it is a pleasure to follow his speech. I shall make a few comments on it in a moment, but I particularly wanted to refer to what he said about the CSC1, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). Both hon. Members are right; the CSCI is going to be a little more flexible and open, and focused on outcomes, in addition
172WH
to fulfilling its regulatory responsibility. It has wider responsibilities than its predecessor. It inspects not only the providers of care, but the commissioners of care, which is a completely new arrangement. That gives it considerably more power and an extra opportunity that was not available to its predecessors.
The CSCI's predecessor, the National Care Standards Commission, has often been unfairly criticised. We sometimes forget that it took over the inspection regime that local councils ran previously. Each local council had its own set of regulations and inspectors, and took its own decisions about how rigorously it would enforce those regulations. The commission's job was to pull all that together and try to create one organisation, yet it had only two years for that; indeed, it was two weeks after the commission was established before an announcement was made. In the period in which the commission operated, it did a remarkable of job of pulling those operations together.
The structures that the commission created might have seemed rather rigid. Also, there may have been problems with people's attitudes to regulation, especially where people had not been exposed to regulation before and had never had to work with any minimum standards, let alone the new minimum standards. However, the National Care Standards Commission did a remarkable job. The commission was concerned with inspecting, writing reports and dealing with them.
The CSCI takes over that and inherits a situation that is far better than the one that the National Care Standards Commission faced. The CSCI has the opportunity to grow up a bit and take the evolution to the next stage. That was what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford detected when he spoke to the senior management. The chair and chief executive of the commission are both focused on exactly what the hon. Gentleman described; a new openness, a willingness to talk, to be flexible—but still to demand that the national minimum standards are met—to inspect rigorously, and to try to drive forward the standard of care.
The chair and chief executive will, without question, have an impact on the subject that we are discussing, just as their predecessors did. One or two hon. Members who have commented have perhaps forgotten that the domiciliary care sector has been inspected only since 2003. The process is new to the sector. Whatever abuse or bad practice might have gone on prior to 2003, one would hope that people are now starting to address it.
There is no one in the Chamber who does not think that the problem is a scar on our society. Elder abuse is an awful thing. Hon. Members are right that we have closed our eyes to the problem in the past, that we have tried to think that it does not happen and that we have not given it enough attention. However, that is not to say that nothing has been done. In that lies my objection to the figure of 500,000 and the prevalence statistics on which it is based. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said, that figure was based on a survey that was conducted in 1992. The survey covered only 2,000 people, of whom only 600 were old, and used a very broad definition of abuse, which included raising one's voice to an older person. The attitudes of those 2,000 people were extrapolated to the entire population and

173WH
were extrapolated from the older population in 1992 to the older population today. The survey assumed that nothing had changed since 1992.
The issue is not party political, so I am happy to say that things were happening even back in 1992, under the last Conservative Government. In the middle of the 1990s, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 started to kick in and major improvements were made. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford had my ministerial portfolio for a period. I am sure that he would be horrified to hear it suggested that nothing was done and that the matter was not taken seriously. I have no doubt that major improvements were made, even between 1992 and 1997.
Since 1997, there have been many improvements, with the National Care Standards Commission and the work that the Care Standards Act 2000 has brought about. The Criminal Records Bureau checks have created opportunities, the national minimum standards have been introduced and significant new investment has taken place. The "No Secrets" guidance has been issued. We can discuss whether its definition is right or wrong or whether we can make improvements, but all that has been done since 1992 and it is nonsense to suggest that it cannot have had some impact.
If the figure was 500,000, we must assume that it is less than that now. It may have been much higher than 500,000 in 1992 for all I know. We do not have good figures, which is one reason why I welcomed the Committee's report. The figure was perhaps helpful to the Committee and those of us interested in raising the profile of elder abuse, because it at least captured the headlines and got the country talking about elder abuse.
The Government's problem with the figure is that we have to make plans, and a 500,000-person problem requires one set of plans and a 1,000-person problem requires another and a different way of thinking. We do not yet know where we need to be, which is why I agree with the Committee that we must do the research and obtain some decent figures. We have asked Action on Elder Abuse to review the "No Secrets" guidance and the information that is held throughout the country under the "No Secrets" rules to see where its figures lead in relation to 500,000.
When I receive those results I will reflect on them and no doubt we shall debate them. We shall then decide where we go with the next piece of research. Without knowing the results of the review by Action on Elder Abuse, it would be foolish of me to commission further research, because I would lose the opportunity to guide it in the right direction. It is more sensible to obtain the first research, with a new figure and new guidance and then, if need be, commission further work to ensure more certainty about those results. We can base on our planning on that.
Sandra Gidley: That is very good news, and I am glad that the Government have commissioned the review, but will the Minister tell us when the results will be available? What time scale are we looking at?
Dr. Ladyman: Offhand, I think that the results will be available in the next few months, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with the exact time scale.
174WH
I will try not to be overly party political, because we had a little hiccup in cordial relations in the Chamber earlier. However, I must point out the conflicts in the hon. Lady's comments. In one part of her speech, she talked about the need for more regulation, more data collection and more inspection of the domiciliary care industry; in another, she talked about the fragility of the industry and the staff churn.
When I make decisions about matters such as the relaxation of CRB checks, I have to resolve such conflicts. I would dearly like to say that nobody could start work in the care industry without a thorough and enhanced CRB check. However, when the National Care Standards Commission decided that as checks were taking only four weeks, it could adopt that position, we discovered that it became impossible for the social care industry to recruit staff, who are by and large lowly paid. If they cannot start work the following Monday, they go and work for somebody else. They are not prepared to sit around for a month waiting for work.
I would dearly love to address the training, skills, qualifications and pay structure of that work force. I am working on those areas; I have made speeches and organised conferences about them and tried to make employers realise that they must drive up standards to create a skilled work force. I have talked to commissioners and organised national conferences to explain to them that they must be prepared to pay extra for the use of services provided by employers who take those attitudes. It will, however, take a long time. If we introduce these things too rigorously, we will not be able to recruit staff until we have done all that work.
We must also consider the balance of risks. I have to balance the risk of older people not receiving the care that they need tomorrow morning because there are no care workers to provide it against the possibility that a few people might carry out acts of abuse under the radar. Balancing those risks is not an easy job. The hon. Lady might not have realised that the Commission for Social Care Inspection and its predecessor, the National Care Standards Commission, returned to the interim guidance that allowed people to start work without CRB checks so long as their pre-employment checks had been done and the CRB check had been applied for. CRB checks are done only where necessary. At the moment, however, that means that people could be working in domiciliary care for four weeks before their CRB check comes through.
It is still my intention to begin POVA on 26 July, although legally it is quite complex; there are one or two legal problems still to resolve. I hope to lay the regulations before the House next week, which will allow it to begin on 26 July so that Parliament will get an opportunity to discuss it if it so wishes. POVA proscribes anyone from working in this industry without a satisfactory POVA check. In other words, people will have to have a completed POVA check before they can start working. If they have to wait four weeks for that, we will be in exactly the same position that we were in with the CRB checks.
We are trying to put in place something called POVA First, which means that we will try to secure an immediate response to a POVA application so that an employer can find out within two or three days whether the person whom they want to employ is on the POVA list. That is followed by a period of induction training,

175WH
after which the person can start work. That is an improvement on the current interim guidance because, for the first time, a check will be in place before the person starts work. However, there will not be a full CRB check in some cases, because that will not be available until a week or two later. I put my hand up and admit that that is a compromise. The situation is not as I want it to be, but the alternative is that no one starts work until the CRB check is in place, the industry grinds to a halt and older people do not receive the care that they need tomorrow. That would also be abusive, because they need that care to survive and to operate, so we need to make compromises.
One or two hon. Members talked about the "No Secrets" definition of abuse. I have a feeling that there is con fusion about "No Secrets" and to whom it applies. "No Secrets" applies to people who are eligible for social care. It does not matter whether the council provides them with social care; they may be self-funders, but they are still eligible for social care, so "No Secrets" applies to them.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford touched on a possible problem when he talked about the definition of elder abuse. I am happy to say that I will keep an open mind on that definition. I have no reason to be restrictive about it but, from a planning point of view, it may be about where the responsibility for it lies. It is clearly abuse when an older person is mugged while walking down their street, but one would not expect social care to be responsible for that form of abuse. A form of abuse for which social care is responsible is abuse in a care setting, by an informal carer, a relative or a person providing professional care.
"No Secrets" is concerned with abuse in a care setting, rather than the wider forms of abuse that might be suffered by people who do not otherwise have a care need, or who are not in a care setting. We can debate that. Maybe we have it wrong; I ant prepared to listen to arguments. If we think that it would be helpful to widen the scope, then we can do so.
A spectrum of abuse has to be eliminated. At one end is criminal activity; horrendous forms of abuse in response to which none of us would have any doubt about what to do. We should catch the person who did it and put him or her in jail. That is one end of the spectrum. At the other end is a form of abuse that is, effectively, neglect; bad or incompetent caring. That is unacceptable as well. However, we may need different tools to detect the abuse at each point of the spectrum. The tools needed at the end of the spectrum that involves neglect and incompetent caring are training—to qualify the staff to look after people—regular inspection, management and leadership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) spoke of management and leadership.
We often overlook in parliamentary debates the importance of management and leadership to any organisation. In an organisation concerned with care and the quality of care, management and leadership are vital. Some people think that abuse started when we brought the private sector into caring. That is nonsense. Why should people be more abusive because they work for one organisation or another? Others imply that the commercialisation of care is part of the problem and that if the state were providing all the care, abuse would not occur.
176WH
However, where was the worst example of abuse of which I have heard in recent years? It was in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, in a national health service ward; the Rowan ward. That was the worst place. It was an atrocious example of abuse. I do not know whether hon. Members read the report into that case. I read it over a weekend, and I am a pretty hard-boiled son of a bitch, yet I had tears in my eyes to think that that went on in this country in a care setting within the national health service.
We have to ask ourselves what went wrong. I have had meetings this week with the Community and District Nursing Association. One of the questions that I have put to it and to other organisations representing nurses is, "Why did no nurse report that?" They have a code of conduct that says that they are supposed to report such things. They have a professional and ethical duty to report them, but not one of them reported anything, so far as I am aware; not one of them did anything about it. Nor did any doctor. It was not low-paid staff who ignored the abuse, highly paid, highly skilled, highly qualified people working in a national health service ward ignored that form of abuse, and we have to ask ourselves why.
The reason is a lack of management and a lack of leadership. The culture of the ward was not one in which people felt confident to go and report that sort of abuse. That is a difficult situation to be in. If one sees bad treatment or abuse going on at the hands of one's colleague, one has to find somebody to tell. I do not believe the excuse, "We did not know who to tell." Everybody apart from the Prime Minister has a supervisor, and even the Prime Minister answers to the public and to Her Majesty. Everybody has a line manager to whom they can turn, or a policeman they can go to, or a matron or a chief executive. Everybody can find on the internet the Action on Elder Abuse helpline. Anybody could have written an anonymous letter and nobody did. We have to ask ourselves why nobody did so and why, whenever we hear of abuse in a care home, it becomes clear that, very often, it is not one person doing it—if it is one person doing it, other people know about it—and nobody does anything.
The problem is about management and leadership. It is about getting an ethos into places that allows people to report things and to say, "I won't take second best. I won't accept this and I'm going to do something about it." We are a long way from achieving that.
One of the things that I have been doing, and one of the reasons I am delighted that we are having the debate, is making a series of speeches about the new vision for adult social care that I announced that we would write in April. In those speeches, which have got widespread support on all sides of the House and in all sectors of the social care community, I have been saying that we have a model of social care that was essentially designed in the 1980s and 1990s and was appropriate for those decades. We are not in those decades anymore. We need a model of social care for our decade and the next one.
That model of social care must be about empowerment and about generating independence rather than creating dependence. It must be about putting structures in place that will not accept abuse and—more than that—will empower the people who receive care not to accept abuse.

177WH
That model must be so different from the way in which we deliver care at the moment. At the moment we say, "Somebody decides what care you need, puts a plan in place and does it to you". We need to get to a situation where we say, "You decide what care you need, with assistance and advocacy if necessary. You access the care, you are in control of it and when that care is not working for you, you can say, 'Stop, I want something else'."
That is why the hon. Member for Romsey mentioned direct payments. I think that direct payments are fundamental to the new vision of social care because they empower people to plan and deliver their own care and to say when that care is not working. Direct payment will allow us to put in place structures that empower older people to say when things are not working for them. With the regulatory regimes that we put in place—such as CSCI, the CRB checks and POVA—perhaps we can start making an impact on the problem.
I have also said that, in the new model of social care, we need to go beyond that. On Monday, I told the Local Government Chronicle that if we want to deal with these things fundamentally, we must start designing communities for ageing. Why are town planners and urban designers not involved with social services when we decide where to put accommodation for older people? Why, when people want to build sheltered housing, is the response not, "No, we don't want sheltered housing, we want extra care housing and we want you to put it in a certain place and design it in such a way that older people can remain part of their communities"?
If that happened, we could rebuild those informal networks of care that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), who introduced our discussions, mentioned, did as the hon. Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
Today I made a speech to the Salvation Army, in which I pointed out that those traditional forms of care—those informal care networks— are increasingly disappearing, because we are handing responsibility to the state to do our caring for us. We expect the state or commercial care to step in where previously family, neighbourhood and community were responsible for care.
The state cannot afford to do it all, simply because it would cost about £70 billion to replace all those informal care networks. So, in the new vision of social care, we must find ways to support carers and
178WH
those informal care networks—neighbours and communities—that want to provide care. We must recreate some of that old-fashioned tradition.
I am not one of those people who think that everything was wonderful back in Victorian days. I was wandering around Broadstairs parish church a few months ago, reading the book of the parish guardians, which told of some chap who came in and asked for a shilling to support his destitute family for the next month. The parish guardians said, "We won't give you a shilling, we'll give you two shillings, so long as you get out of the parish and never come back." Those were Victorian values.
I do not hanker for such values, but I do hanker for some of the traditional, informal caring networks that allowed neighbourhoods and communities to say that abuse of older people was not acceptable and said that such things were horrifying. In such networks, leaving people on their own was not acceptable and not doing shopping for them was inappropriate. As children, we realised that we had duties to mum and dad, just as they had duties to us. It is only when we have done those things and realised that new vision for social care—one where we are genuinely trying to generate independence, put people in charge of their own care and create communities that care about older people—that we shall start making inroads into the levels of abuse of elder people.
In the mean time, we have to rely on many of the techniques and tools we have already put in place. We have to refine and review them in order to make them work better. We have to make the CSCI and POVA work better and ensure that the national minimum standards are right. We have to ensure that commissioners are commissioning for quality when they buy services, that care providers are aware of their responsibilities and that training levels, qualifications and management and leadership are right. That is how we shall start making inroads in the short term.
I welcome the debate, the ideas in the report and the opportunity to continue working with the voluntary sector and others necessary to ensure the agenda comes together. The Government are not complacent; we know we have only scratched the surface of the problem. Whether the figure is 500,000, or 100,000, or one, it is too high. I know that, the Government know that and all of us here know that, but let us not kid ourselves that we can wipe it away through a few recommendations in the report. It will take long, hard work and a lot of money.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o 'clock.

Preamble
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESon the Woolsack.

Elections in London: Invalid Ballot Papers
Lord Dubsasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many spoilt ballot papers, expressed as a percentage of total votes cast, there were in the recent elections in London for the Mayor, the London Assembly and for the European Parliament respectively; and what assessment they have made of this.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, in the London mayoral elections, 2.96 per cent of the mayoral election ballots did not contain a valid first preference vote. For the second choice vote this figure was 17.14 per cent. In the London Assembly elections, 6.17 per cent of the constituency member votes and 2.53 per cent of the London-wide member votes were not exercised validly by voters. In the European elections the figure was 0.94 per cent. The Greater London Returning Officer will be carrying out a review of the London elections.
Lord DubsMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that those of us who were knocking on doors in the run-up to polling day and on polling day had to spend more of our time explaining the voting system to voters than trying to persuade them to vote for the party of our choice, and that there is something not quite right with having three different voting systems on one election day? Can the Government consider this matter and see whether there is a way of making life easier next time?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for his Question. Canvassing for my noble friend in the past, I never found it difficult to persuade people to vote for him. However, that is not the issue before us today. As I explained to your Lordships' House a couple of days ago, there will be a review and analysis of the elections and the process. The Greater London Returning Officer is undertaking a quick review and evaluation of the 2004 elections. It is likely that the London Assembly will conduct a similar scrutiny of the conduct of the elections.
As I said to your Lordships' House the other day, the number of spoilt or incomplete Greater London Authority ballot papers fell by over 10 per cent compared to the 2000 elections, while turnout rose by 2.5 per cent. So clearly the information blitz in the
358
run-up to the elections had a fair measure of success and we should celebrate that fact. It was a complex election and, by and large, people managed to understand the different ballot papers with which they had to deal and to cast their votes accurately.
Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, how many votes were spoilt in the London mayoral election as a result of voters who had been instructed that they had to vote twice but did not want to vote for a second person voting for the same person in both column 1 and 2 of the ballot paper?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I am unable to help the noble Lord with that question. If he will bear with me I shall carefully go through the figures. London voters had, effectively, five votes that they could use in the election. So in essence there were some 9.6 million possible votes; 1.92 million voters each having five possible votes. More than 570,000 were not validly used. Of that figure—this is an important statistic—329,000 were rejected second preference votes where the voter had chosen not to mark a second choice candidate. So, those who did not choose to use their second vote have been entered into the category of voter who did not chose to use their vote validly, which slightly distorts the figure. That is perhaps difficult for the noble Lord to follow, but it does make sense.
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, the Minister referred to a blitz of information, which included the booklets sent out by the Greater London Returning Officer in the form of freepost leaflets. There was no other freepost for the mayoral candidates. Do the Government accept that there was a problem with timing? Many postal ballot papers were issued in London, even though it was not an all-postal ballot. Many voters received ballot papers before they received the freepost leaflet. Will the Government raise with the Electoral Commission the timing of nominations and the sending out of such information so that voters may be informed before they receive their ballot papers?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, the noble Baroness makes a helpful and useful point. We will do all we can to ensure that the elections run as smoothly as possible. However, the picture I am trying to paint is that although there was much concern in the run-up to these elections, voters did extremely well in dealing with what I think would be commonly accepted as a complex set of elections. Yes, we should do more. The Greater London Returning Officer will conduct his own review and no doubt the noble Baroness, using her position on the Greater London Authority, will ensure that it carries out a thorough scrutiny exercise. There has been a lot

359
[LORD BASSAM OF BRIGHTON] of myth, but the reality is that turnout increased. By and large voters managed to opt for their choice and seemed clearly to understand the electoral system.
Lord Campbell-SavoursMy Lords, is it not true that if the returning officer carries out a full and proper review, this difficulty will not arise in future?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I should like to think that when the Greater London Returning Officer conducts his review, and does it properly, the electoral system will be plainer and simpler for people to understand. That should be everybody's shared objective.
Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. I am sure that I misheard what he said. Was it that some 300,000 voters in the mayoral election cast only one vote; in other words, they did not have a second preference? I understood from what the Minister said that those 300,000 or so votes would be null and void. Is that right?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, that is not the case. The fact that 329,000 people chose not to exercise their second preference votes did not nullify their first preference votes. What I explained to your Lordships' House was that that category of non-voter was counted in the 590,000 that I referred to as being rejected votes.
Lord TordoffMy Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to correct a statement made by his noble friend Lord Filkin yesterday in answer to my noble friend Lord Greaves? He said that the Asian lady who was being discussed,
"had to get her cross on her ballot witnessed, most probably by a member of her family".—[Official Report, 30/6/04; col. 263.]
It is not true that the cross had to be witnessed, merely the identification of the person. It would be helpful if the Government would correct that statement.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I was not present during that discussion but I think that I probably agree that the noble Lord is right on that point.
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, does this Question not illustrate that these elections were far too complicated? Do the Government not agree that it would be unwise to run so many elections together under so many systems? Perhaps they would like to consider going back to the well tried and tested method of first-past-the-post elections, which everyone understands, however many elections there are?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. As I said, one accepts that there was a degree of complexity and we have to
360
give the electorate credit for dealing with that. Electors understand exactly how to use the ballot box and where to put their cross, and if it is carefully explained to them, that is made much easier.

Homelessness: Rural Areas
11.9 a.m.
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the report on homeless households in remote rural areas, State of the Countryside, how such households not housed in temporary accommodation are provided for.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, government figures show that last year, households accepted as homeless in rural areas were more likely to be offered settled housing than households in urban districts. In 2003–04 around 17 per cent were found a settled home in rural areas compared to 12 per cent in urban areas. Of the remainder, 37 per cent of households were placed in temporary accommodation; 39 per cent remained in their existing accommodation awaiting a suitable settled home; and 7 per cent found their own solution.
Baroness ByfordMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that there is a great crisis in rural housing, whereby rural homeless figures have risen from 14,950 to 20,850—a rise of 30 per cent over the past five years? How will the Government resolve this crisis that continues to afflict people living in rural areas?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that this is a crisis. I certainly agree that there is a problem and a difficulty. The Government are very committed to tackling and preventing homelessness. We have significantly increased resources and introduced legislation to strengthen the help for homeless people and have successfully tackled the worst manifestations of homelessness.
We have increased investment in affordable housing and we are improving prevention and increasing the supply of affordable housing; £5 billion will be invested in affordable housing over the next three years—double the 1997 levels.
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, under the Sustainable Communities Plan, how much housing is likely to be provided in rural areas, particularly in the north and north-west and north-east, rather than in the south and south-east where we know there will be concrete and well over half a million houses? What are the proposals for the northern part of the country?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I do not have precise details and figures for the northern areas which the noble Baroness has not exactly defined. I can say that on rural housing the Housing Corporation has

361
already exceeded its target for 2002–03 by providing 1,579 homes in small rural settlements, and it has provided nearly 5,000 homes in larger rural areas and at least 3,500 affordable homes in settlements of fewer than 3,000 that have been approved for the next two years—that is, 2004–05 to 2005–06.
We are making progress. We should congratulate the Housing Corporation on its important work and the partnerships that are being forged with local government in tackling these problems.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, the Minister mentioned smaller rural settlements. At the current rate of provision, which I believe was some 1,800 units last year, it will take dozens of years for many smaller rural settlements to even get one unit of social housing to replace those that have been lost to the system. How many years does he estimate it will take to fulfil even current estimated housing needs?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, it is hard to give that kind of provision in data. I think that it is worth reminding your Lordships' House that we are beginning to see targets being exceeded. I agree with the noble Baroness that difficulties have been caused in the past, which is why this Government have taken action—which I am sure the noble Baroness supports—to tackle some of the worst disadvantageous effects of "right to buy" in rural areas. We have allocated more resources to ensure that vulnerable people, and particularly those in rural communities, can stay in their homes.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the annual January count of gypsies and travellers by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shows that the number of homeless Gypsies and Travellers has shot up between 2003 and 2004? What progress has been made on the Government's plans to mainstream the needs of Gypsies and Travellers in housing needs assessments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I know the noble Lord is very concerned about the needs of travellers and gypsies. We are making some progress. The noble Lord has made important contributions to debates on that subject in your Lordships' House. I cannot provide the noble Lord with detailed data today, but I am happy to write to him on progress in tackling those problems.
Lord Clark of WindermereMy Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. Is the Minister aware that in the north-west of England the Forestry Commission is undertaking a feasibility study to see whether there is any redundant forestry land in areas of the most shortage of affordable houses? If that feasibility study proves positive, we will look at the possibility of providing affordable houses in parts of the north-west.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I am aware of the important work the Forestry Commission is
362
carrying out. It could well make a very valuable contribution to ensuring that there are affordable houses in rural areas. I congratulate my noble friend on the important work he has undertaken in that regard. I think that it will greatly strengthen those communities and ensure that in the future those on lower incomes have access to affordable social housing.
Lord Livsey of TalgarthMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that since the demise of the council housing sector, the number of affordable houses he mentioned, which was 1,500, is a drop in the ocean in terms of need? Could he address the problems facing young people in remote rural areas who are unable to live in their own area and who cannot compete against second home owners? They are swelling the numbers of homeless in the urban areas. This is an urgent problem that needs to be resolved.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I certainly agree that it is an urgent problem. It is for that reason that the Government have taken action to deal with the problems that associate themselves with rural homelessness and pressure on the housing market in some rural areas. Restrictions may well be imposed on resale of "right to buy" properties in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on. We are working in partnership through the Countryside Agency and the Housing Corporation and funding jointly with local partners the rural housing and neighbours programme, so that rural communities, housing associations, local authorities and landowners can help to increase the supply of affordable housing in those rural settlements.
Lord Taylor of BlackburnMy Lords, in congratulating the Forestry Commission on its work in this direction, perhaps the Minister's department could contact the water authorities to ask whether they would carry out a similar exercise with their surplus land throughout the country.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on making that point. I am sure that other public sector providers should conduct themselves in the same way.

Iraq: NATO Deployment
11.17 a.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans there are for a NATO force to be deployed to Iraq to support the new government after the handover of power on 30 June.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeMy Lords, there are no plans to deploy NATO troops as part of, or in place of, the multinational force in Iraq. However, in a letter of 2 June, Prime Minister Allawi

363
[BARONESS SYMONS OF VERNHAM DEAN] specifically asked for NATO help in training Iraqi security forces. It was agreed at the NATO summit in Istanbul that NATO would respond positively to this request.
Lord Astor of HeverMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Clearly security is the highest priority in Iraq. In the light of that will Her Majesty's Government use their influence with other NATO members to ensure as many as possible contribute to the training and equipping of the Iraqi armed forces? Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not a good test case for that happening.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, of course security is a very important priority. The noble Lord said it is the highest priority; it is certainly a foundation stone on which other priorities have to be built. Sixteen NATO members are already putting troops towards the multinational force. The statement issued by the heads of government at the end of the NATO summit made it clear that further work would need to be done, both on the issue of training and on other requests from Prime Minister Allawi over equipment and other matters. The North Atlantic Council has been asked to consider those matters. I do not take quite such a gloomy view over the position of Afghanistan.
Lord RichardMy Lords, can my noble friend give us some idea of the scale and scope of this training? How many people is it hoped will be trained? In which country will they be trained? How much of the training is to take place inside Iraq and how much outside?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, in answering the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, I make it clear that further work is being undertaken on this issue and that the North Atlantic Council has been tasked on that by the heads of government. There are questions about where this training should take place; whether it should be in Iraq or outside Iraq. Indeed, such training as is currently under way, certainly as regards police training, takes place both within the country and elsewhere. There may have to be a mix.
There are currently 200,000 Iraqi nationals involved in security operations. Some have already received training, others still need to be trained, but this is obviously a formidable task and work is being undertaken not only by the NAC, but in conjunction with the Iraqi Government over the best way of tackling this issue.
Lord GardenMy Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the call made by the NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, at the Royal United Services Institute on 26 June for nations to consider common funding for such operations? We cannot
364
expect volunteers if they also have to pay the costs disproportionately. Should we not be pushing that agenda forward now?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, the NATO Secretary-General made a fair point. Clearly, the costs of what has happened in Iraq have fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of the willing so far. Therein we have the dilemma: this has been a coalition of the willing and, in undertaking that work, the coalition has also undertaken the cost. But that does not mean to say that in the new era that has begun, with an Iraqi Government now in charge of their own country, a sovereign country, other nations may not now want to consider whether they would like to help to shoulder some of that burden.
Lord JuddMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that, for the wider world, what is important in all that is undertaken in Iraq is that it is being undertaken under the authority of the United Nations? Therefore, although we welcome the contribution to be made by NATO, with its special capabilities, does she not agree that it is tremendously important to make it manifestly clear that anything that NATO does is ultimately politically accountable to the United Nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I associate the United Kingdom Government with the desire of the wider world, as my noble friend puts it, to acknowledge that what is now happening in Iraq is happening under the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. So I hope that in making that point my noble friend is not excluding Her Majesty's Government. The important point for us to concentrate on is that the training and discussions around it, has been triggered not by NATO, but by a specific request from Dr Allawi. Dr Allawi's letter of 20 June is clear on that point; it is clearly a letter to the NATO Secretary-General; it has been responded to in the positive manner that I have already described to your Lordships.
I do not think that we can say that NATO has direct responsibility to the United Nations on the matter, but we can say that the multinational force operates under the auspices of the United Nations and we hope that that will all be done with the maximum of international co-operation.
Lord Howell of GuildfordMy Lords, is the Minister aware that, yesterday, the new Iraqi Deputy Minister of Health told me that 2,000 children a day are still dying in Iraq because lack of security is impeding the building of hospitals and the distribution of drugs? Is it not very sad that NATO is being impeded from providing the bigger role that Mr Allawi and others want and that has been requested of the Secretary General by the apparent decision of the French that they do not want NATO to become further involved? Can she explain why France, which is not even a full and proper member of the integrated command

365
structure of NATO, is being allowed to obstruct measures that would clearly help Iraq to recover, and would save children's lives?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I was not aware of that particular part of the conversation that the noble Lord had with the new Iraqi Deputy Minister of Health, but the noble Lord was kind enough to tell me privately that he had had such a conversation. I certainly know that the health of very young children, and perinatal mortality for women, in Iraq are extremely difficult issues.
The noble Lord said that it is the French who are impeding a wider security role. I am bound to say to him that it has recently become a bit of a media sport to cite points allegedly made by leaders or Ministers of different countries to suggest that they mean different things from each other or are impeding a wider position. The point on which to concentrate is that President Chirac, President Bush, and every other leader of a NATO country has agreed that training is necessary. Not only that, they have agreed to task the North Atlantic Council,
"as a matter of urgency and on the basis of a report by the Secretary General",
to consider,
"further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to the request of the Iraqi Interim Government".
So further work on that point is being done at the behest of all the NATO leaders.

Pensions: Taxation Measures
11.24 a.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to reverse any of the taxation measures which they have taken in relation to pensions.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the Government propose, from 6 April 2006, radically to simplify the current taxation rules for pensions. The new rules, set out in the Finance Bill currently before Parliament, will make it easier for individuals to plan with confidence for a comfortable retirement by creating a simpler and more flexible environment for pension saving.
Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, I mean no offence to the noble Lord when I say that I had rather expected my Question to be answered by someone a little more familiar with the subtleties of the Treasury then he perhaps is. There is nothing offensive in that remark.
I shall ask him a simple question. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed the rules for advance corporation tax, did he or did he not anticipate the dire consequences that that would have for pension funds? If he did, should he not now offer
366
some explanation to pensioners? If he did not, if it was just an accident, perhaps the time has come to repair the damage.
Lord Davies of OldhamWell, my Lords, I do not have to be too familiar with the intricacies of the Treasury to recognise that that question is a little old hat. The changes were made in 1997 and I bring to the noble Lord's attention the fact that they were part of a wider range of measures to benefit long-term investment in our economy. I think that he would recognise that, subsequent to that, we have had a structure of increasing confidence in investment in the economy and that it is the security of the economy that brings return to investment funds, not the marginal issues of taxation.
Lord Forsyth of DrumleanMy Lords, on the subject of old hats, perhaps the Minister could tell us how much smaller are the pension funds of our country as a result of the changes that the Chancellor made to taxation. If he does not know the answer to that question, my noble friend may have illustrated how irresponsible that change of policy has been for the nation's pensioners.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I can tell the noble Lord that the overall position of the economy and the indices of shares are much more significant to pension funds than taxation. Of course I recognise that taxation has its part to play, but we all recognise that the strength of the resources available to pension funds depends on the strength of the economy. The noble Lord will recognise that in isolating the issue of the 1997 changes, he is altogether ignoring the reduction in corporation tax and the other measures that the Chancellor took to ensure that investment in our economy would increase.
Lord MarshMy Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the Minister, because all pension funds exist to invest their money in industry and commerce. I always have a go at a Latin phrase, never having learnt the language, but ispo facto, if you remove £5 billion sterling per annum from pension funds, you reduce investment that would otherwise go into industry and commerce.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I emphasise the point that I made a moment ago. Of course the noble Lord is right that that impacted on pension funds; no one would deny that. I seek to emphasise that the Chancellor brought forward a package of measures at that time to improve investment in our economy. The results of that package of measures are bearing fruit as we move on. The Opposition seek constantly to refer to only one element of the 1997 Budget, when it is clear

367
that the Budget as a whole acted very differently in relation to the overall increase in investment and the position of pension funds.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayMy Lords—
Lord Davies of CoityMy Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Davies of CoityMy Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that, when the Chancellor decided to introduce taxation on pension fund surpluses, the stock market was such that those pension funds could meet them? Things have changed since then Catastrophically, as a result of a change in stock market circumstances, plus the £5 billion a year that has been taken out, employers have moved away from occupational pension schemes to the detriment of pensioners. Is it not now time to rethink the position in view of those circumstances?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, my noble friend is right to say that the Government need to rethink the position. That is exactly what the provisions in the existing Finance Acts do. They simplify pensions legislation thereby creating circumstances in which individuals can judge the advisability of any scheme that they might enter. Employers and contributors have lower administration costs, and we provide a climate in which the development of pensions takes account of what I recognise have been a difficult past few years.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will have noticed that we have had an accident with the clock. I propose that we take questions from both the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I ask that both questions be very brief and that my noble friend be brief in his answers.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove BayMy Lords, I am quite happy to have an answer from the Minister, because my question is very simple. Do the Government realise that the state pension system is now so mean and so means-tested that most people will face a marginal top tax rate of 40 per cent on their pension savings when they retire? When will the Government understand that the only way to cut through that disincentive and to start people saving again is to give everyone a decent citizens' pension as of right, not on the basis of means-testing?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point about the state pension. He will recognise that we are producing reforms in the Finance Bill and the Pensions Bill before the House, which will clarify the position and lower administration costs. He will also recognise that the Government are concerned to tackle poverty wherever they find it. He will pay tribute to our record of taking
368
significant numbers of children out of poverty since 1997. He is right to draw attention to our need to address the problems of the elderly.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, my noble friend's Question should be put in the context of the appalling figures reported today. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the amount in funded pension schemes, having already been reduced from £81 billion to £53 billion, has now been reduced to £41 billion. It is half what it estimated two years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, pointed out, a significant reason for that reduction is the change in advance corporation tax. It affects not only private schemes but local authorities, which will have to increase council tax as a result.
Lord Davies of OldhamBut, my Lords, that is not entirely so. The noble Lord has identified figures for the reduction of the value of the funds. He will know that taxation change is a marginal aspect of that; it is not a substantial element in that computation. We all recognise that there have been significant dips on the Stock Exchange and problems over the past three years or so. However, the noble Lord will recognise that the Government's proposals in the Finance Bill and the Pensions Bill create the basis on which we can improve pensions in this country, particularly by simplifying the situation so that all involved with pensions can understand the costs and benefits of such investment. That is bound to improve the situation.

Higher Education Bill
1.34 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ANOTHER LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO, AND COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 56 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 23, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"() to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged to any eligible student for any academic year beyond the first three years of a first degree course."
2A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because any special assistance for students on longer courses is better targeted through grants, loans and bursaries.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
Noble Lords will remember that the Bill left this House exempting students in England from fees beyond the third year of a course but making no such provision in Wales. As I said at Third Reading, we estimate that the cost of the amendment to universities would be on the order of between £;130 million and £180 million annually, because it would take away from universities all fee income, not just that which would be additional to the basic fee.
I recognise the genuine of noble Lords who supported that amendment, but I fear that it will be counterproductive. By taking away that fee income from universities, we would introduce a real disincentive for them to provide longer courses, including medicine, engineering and architecture. The amendment would also have an impact on sandwich courses that include a year in industry, and on applications to veterinary science or modern language courses. We should not jeopardise the supply of qualified professionals in this way.
We already have the right approach—a flexible system that allows us to target support at those subject areas and students who most need it. For example, medical and dentistry students already have their fees paid by the NHS for the fifth and, where there is one, sixth year of their courses. In addition, in years 5 and 6 they may also receive a means-tested NHS bursary of up to £2,703 in London. They also remain eligible for a student loan for living costs under the student support regulations.
The evidence is that this approach works. Students are not deterred from taking longer courses because the support is there to enable them to complete the course. The increasing number of applications to medical courses since 1998 underlines that. We already monitor demand for courses and provide incentives where needed to ensure that recruitment in key areas remains at the right level. We shall continue to operate in that way under a variable fees system. For the reasons that I have put forward, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, as the Minister said, on Report noble Lords agreed to an amendment to restrict top-up fees to the first three years of a university course. It was intended to cover students studying to become medics in the widest sense, vets and architects and others with longer than normal courses to become fully fledged professionals—or so we thought. In condemning the amendment in another place, the Minister—like the Minister today—pointed out that the amendment went far wider and included students on some sandwich courses and also the basic tuition fees that students pay at the moment.
370
That was clearly unintentional, and Mr Johnson was right to point it out. However, had he been prepared to accept our central premise that these students should be treated fairly with their cohort doing other shorter courses, he could have proposed an amendment in lieu and this debate would have been very different, as this House, I am sure, would have accepted the olive branch.
However, when my honourable friend Mr Boswell asked Mr Johnson directly whether he would open negotiations with my noble friend Lord Forsyth on this basis, he replied with a blunt "No". What did he recommend the other place to do instead? He proposed stamping on our amendment with a very heavy foot, carrying the day in favour of his position by 291 votes to 193. The amendment now comes back to us with a surprising reason for rejecting it:
"Because any special assistance for students on longer courses is better targeted through grants, loans and bursaries".
Increasing loans, and therefore postgraduate debt. is what the Higher Education Bill is all about, and that will apply to all students. What will not apply to all students are grants and bursaries; some will get them while others will not, for exactly the same courses. In a debate in another place, much was made of the position of less well-off working class students, which is not the phraseology that I would have used. It totally ignores the position of students who get no financial help, whether from parents or through bursaries.
When I first saw this reason, unfair as it clearly is, I was tempted to propose to your Lordships an amendment in lieu, and press it to a vote. Clearly, I have resisted that temptation, for two reasons. First the Government would have turned it down flat. I could live with that, but in the end it would have meant keeping students' hopes up unnecessarily. After all they should be given the longest possible time to prepare for the future. Secondly, as we all know, then will be a general election within the next two years. It is inevitable that one of the things that will influence many voters, student voters in particular, is the unfairness of this Bill. They cannot fail to realise that Medical students will continue to be subsidised by the state for their fifth and sixth years; the public sector looks after its own. Vets, architects and the like in the private sector will not be subsidised.
A mischievous thought then came to me. Will the Labour Party manifesto contain a commitment to pre-university Civil Service exam, with successful students then being subsidised through university? Perhaps there would even be special universities such as the ècoles d'administration in France. Irrespective of that, the right thing for your Lordships to do now is to let the Government have their, way, and let the electorate decide.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, from then Benches, we supported this amendment when it was, tabled in this House. We are sad that the other place has seen fit not to support the amendment. Much has been made in our debates of the position of those studying medicine and architecture. I was always more, concerned about the normal run of students,

371
particularly those studying engineering and languages, which entail a four-year course, and who are hit disproportionately by having to pay fees for that extra year. Over the course of time, the law of unintended consequences may well play its part. We shall see many students opting not to take these courses because they are longer-term courses, and instead opting for the shorter courses because they are shorter and fees must be paid only for a shorter time.
However, that is as may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said. This goes forward now as part of the Bill, and it will be for the electorate to make up their minds at the next general election. In the elections last month, it was noticeable that in university towns where students were voting there was a considerable vote against the Government.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I will make a couple of points, which I hope will be of some reassurance. First, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will agree that I have been open in the opportunities for debate. I appreciate that that is not quite the same as the Minister of State for Higher Education; I hope that none the less that has been some comfort to him.
Secondly, it is important to realise that we will consider and ensure that government departments monitor demand and take-up of places to address the concerns of noble Lords that we do not see fewer applications. The Langlands review is an important part of that, and the House recognises that Sir Alan Langlands will do a great job on that. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will see that we are continuing to monitor the situation, and they will not press the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.45 a.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
() A condition under this section must require the governing body of the relevant institution to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees charged to a person do not exceed the basic amount if that person—

had on or before 1st August 2005 received an offer of a place on a designated course or on a similar course which is no longer offered, in either case the first year of which begins before 1st September 2007, and whether conditional on obtaining specified qualifications or not; or

had received an offer of a place on a designated course the first year of which begins before 1st September 2006, and—

he was not able to take up the offer because a specified qualification or grade was not awarded to him,

he appealed against the decision not to award the qualification or grade to him,

the appeal was allowed after the last date when he could have taken up the offer, and

372

as a result he was offered a place on the course for a year which begins on or after 1st September 2006 and before 1st September 2007.

() For the purposes of this section, a course is similar to a designated course, whether or not it is at the same institution, if—

it leads to a degree or other qualification which is the same as the degree or other qualification which the designated course leads to, and

the governing body of the institution at which the designated course would be studied is satisfied that the subject matter of the designated course is for the most part the same as the subject matter of the other course."

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu—

Page 10, line 21, at end insert "and section (Transitional cases in which condition must not allow fees to exceed basic amount)"

Page 10, line 41, at end insert the following new Clause—

"Transitional cases in which condition must not allow fees to exceed basic amount

Section 23(1)(b) has effect in relation to the qualifying fees payable by a qualifying person in connection with his undertaking a qualifying course ("the relevant course") in a case where subsection (2) or (3) applies, even if those fees are payable in respect of an academic year which begins at a time when an English approved plan is in force in relation to the institution.

This subsection applies where—

the qualifying person had on or before 1st August 2005 received an offer, whether conditional on obtaining specified qualifications or not, of a place on the relevant course or a similar course, and

the first academic year of the relevant course begins before 1st September 2007.

This subsection applies where—

the qualifying person had received an offer of a place on a qualifying course (whether or not at the same institution as the relevant course) the first academic year of which begins before 1st September 2006,

he was unable to take up the offer because a specified qualification or grade was not awarded to him,

he appealed against the decision not to award him the qualification or grade,

the appeal was allowed after the last date on which he could have taken up the offer,

as a result he was offered a place on the relevant course, and

the first academic year of the relevant course begins after 31st August 2006 but before 1st September 2007.

For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) a course ("the original course") is similar to the relevant course if—

it appears to the governing body of the institution providing the relevant course that the subject-matter of the course is in whole or in part the same as the subject-matter of the original course, and

except where the original course is no longer being provided, the relevant course is provided by the institution which was to have provided the original course."

Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 3A and 3B in lieu thereof.

373
We recognise the genuine concern that noble Lords have expressed about the treatment of gap year students in 2006–07, and we have been swayed by the principled arguments that have been put forward. In the light of that, I am pleased to say that the Government accept the principle behind Amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 3A and 3B in lieu, which the Commons have voted to accept, reflect that. I assure noble Lords that they achieve the same policy intent as the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, while addressing some technical issues.
It was argued in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the advantage to students of putting this provision in the Bill would be to give them certainty, both about the fee regime and the student support package to which they are entitled. I fully accept that this is the fairest approach. By providing the protection sought in the noble Lord's amendment, which our amendment in lieu would provide, we avoid the risk that some students might choose to forgo a gap year in 2005, thus placing extra pressure on places in the higher education system for that year.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also sought to protect that very small number of students who, because of a successful appeal against their A-level results, might miss out on a university place in 2005 and have to start instead in 2006. This is the right thing to do, and the government amendments in lieu offer this protection. Essentially, the students covered by the government amendments would be treated for student support purposes as if they began their course in 2005, and they will be liable for fees at the standard rate.
While the amendments in lieu fully maintain the intent of the noble Lord's amendment, there are a number of ways in which they differ in drafting and structure. First, the amendment passed by this House includes a reference to "years". This is replaced by "academic year" throughout, in line with the rest of the Bill. Secondly, the Lords amendment refers to "designated courses", but the courses to which the fee controls in the Bill apply, and to which the gap year exemptions should apply, are "qualifying courses". We have changed that term. Thirdly, we have structured the government amendments to reflect the structure throughout the rest of Part 3 of the Bill, linking it into the condition of grant in Clause 23(1). Our amendments in lieu make clear that Clause 23(1)(b), which limits fees to no more than the basic amount, still applies to these students, even when the institution has an access plan in place. Fourthly, the amendment passed in this House contained no provision for sanctions, should a higher education institution seek to charge higher fees to the gap year cohort. The amendments in lieu address that.
Finally, the amendment passed in this House is based on the first set of regulations made in 1998, rather than the regulations as they were subsequently amended. The amended regulations were slightly less restrictive in how they treated students who ended up studying a different course from the one for which they
374
were originally accepted. I am sure that noble Lords would want us to echo this approach, and that is what the amendments in lieu do.
We have had extremely fruitful discussion on this issue. We have listened to the arguments made in the course of debates, and we have been persuaded by the principle and spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Our amendments in lieu reflect that, while ensuring that the protection offered to students is as watertight as possible. I hope that the House will agree with the amendments in lieu.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 3A and 3B in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Lord Forsyth of DrumleanMy Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking on board these concerns. She has been kind enough to point to the fact that the amendment was in my name, but it would be only right to point out that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, felt just as strongly about this. It has been something of a double act on our part.
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for doing the work of at least 200 journalists. This place and the other place seem to have lobby correspondents at every turn. I listened to the reporting of the consideration of Lords amendments by the Commons on "Yesterday in Parliament" at the time, and they managed not even to notice that the Government had made this major concession, which affects tens of thousands of families across the country. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because it took her letter to the Times to draw the attention of the country to what was going on in this place in respect of this Bill. I do not know what all those journalists are doing. I know what they were not doing when the Commons were considering the Lords amendments, because I went to listen. Whatever they were doing. they were not in their places in the Press Gallery. However, that is a wider issue.
I should also say to the Minister that we toasted her health at a school function that I went to last weekend. Somehow, word of the change had got out. It is important not just for students currently doing AS-levels or Highers—the cohort that is affected—who want to take a gap year but for those who want to go straight to university, because otherwise there would have been a bulge.
In a little bit of role reversal, I am a bit worried about the technical drafting of the government amendment, and I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on two points. In the original amendment, I included a date of August, and my first question is whether students who apply through clearing will be covered by the provision. That will affect a number of students. I suspect that the answer may be "No". The second issue that concerns me is the fact that the Government have added some sanctions, should universities decide to charge increased fees to

375
students who take a gap year. What will the Government do to prevent universities offering fewer deferred places to that cohort of students, perhaps because of the incentive of the prospect of getting additional fees? Those are my two worries. I have no doubt that, given the spirit of what the Minister said, they can be covered in one way or another.
The Bill has been a great deal of work. It makes it very worth while to see the Government prepared to listen—albeit under a degree of pressure from this House—and to make a change that will make a huge difference to thousands of families throughout the country. The Minister could help me by indicating how many people she thinks will benefit from the Government's concession.
Lord Campbell-SavoursMy Lords, I was one of three Labour Peers that voted for the amendment. I am glad that Ministers have changed their mind. I feel justified in what I did and am grateful, in particular, to the Minister for the work that she did in ensuring that the Government's position was changed.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said, we supported the amendment throughout, and we were very pleased when it was accepted by this House. We are doubly pleased that the Government have seen fit to continue with the amendment and recognise the wisdom of what we said about the large number of students who would be affected and the uncertainty that it would cause for institutions and students, unless the matter were made clear in the Bill. We are extremely pleased to see the amendment being made.
I was pleased to be able to clarify in the columns of the Times that it was this House that had passed the amendment. The other point that was worth making in the Times was that, in this House, it is not just when we take issues to a vote that we obtain concessions from the Government. In this case, in particular, we had a listening Minister, and there were other occasions on which she listened to us and some substantial concessions were made in this House. Some of the concessions made with regard to OFFA and the position of part-timers were significant and are worth flagging up.
I am grateful to the Government for retaining this change. It will benefit many students. I have had two or three telephone calls from parents who were delighted that the concession had been made. I thank the Minister for arguing for it with her counterparts in the other place.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, it was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to toast my health. I could not agree more with him about the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. I referred to it, but obviously not clearly enough. I also agree with him about the role of your Lordships' House. On this subject in particular, it has a substantial role to play. I am also grateful for the
376
acknowledgement of the work that I have done, although I should say that my colleagues in another place have listened and have been extremely helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, asked me about a couple of specific points. The date of 1 August mirrors what was in the amendment that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness tabled, which was the same date as provided in 1998. In another place, they discussed different scenarios with regard to clearing. Rather than go through all of those, it is right, as the noble Lord indicated, that we do not plan to cover clearing students at this stage. That is mainly because it would, at best, be unusual for a student to take up an unfilled place through clearing and then seek to defer entry. That is not the purpose of clearing.
As I said, universities still have the right to exercise discretion in such cases. We have not taken that away; indeed, it is where we began. They could offer exemption in a particular case, if they felt that that was right. However, we will carry on talking about the issue with Universities UK and with UCAS. Noble Lords will probably know that we can do something about gap years without primary legislation, because of the way in which the Bill is structured. If those deliberations and discussions lead us to a view that we should do something more, we can. For the moment, we do not plan to, and we will carry on the discussions. I am sure that we would be interested to hear anything more that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has to say on the issue.
I was asked about the number of gap-year students who will be directly affected. Some 19,000 18 year-olds in the UK deferred entry from 2003–04 to 2004–05. About 26,000 students of all ages deferred entry. Taking the proportion of students in England from the UK figures, we estimate that about 28,000 students might defer entry and would be covered by the noble Lord's amendment. That is a significant figure. It may sound like a joke, but actually my babysitter is covered too.
Lord Forsyth of DrumleanMy Lords, I suspect that the Minister's babysitter may have had more influence than the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and me put together. My recollection of how hard it was to get good babysitters would support that.
People who would have been denied a place if others had not taken a gap year will also benefit. However, I should like to press the Minister—she may be just coming to this point—about the anxiety that the universities may offer fewer deferred places.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I was coming to that point. I must say to the noble Lord that the babysitter told me that only after we had made the decision. I shall point out to her the reference in Hansard; she will be very pleased.
Given the autonomy of universities, there is nothing that the Government could or should do to make universities do it. Our relationship with the universities continues to be a strong one, and I hope that we will address such issues with them directly. I am deeply

377
reluctant to say that the Government should interfere with the autonomy of the universities in the way in which they deal with admissions. I appreciate what the noble Lord says, but it is for universities to determine the issue. The Government will talk to the universities, support them and work with them, but it is not right that we should tell them what to do about it. I have great faith—I know that the noble Lord has too—that the universities will respond appropriately, as they have responded throughout our discussions.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with the amendments in lieu.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Noon

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 27, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
"() Student fees paid to relevant institutions pursuant to this Act shall in principle be additional to and not in replacement of state funding provided for and in respect of the teaching of undergraduate students at such institutions which funding will be at an annual real level per student not less than the average provided over the previous three years."
4A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason—
Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.
The amendment raises the issue of parliamentary privilege, which is why those in another place have chosen to reject it. For that reason, I hope that it will not be pressed. Nevertheless, the issues raised are important, and I am glad of the opportunity to refer to them again. We debated the issue at some length during the passage of the Bill in Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading. It was a wide-ranging debate, which reflected well on the expertise of noble Lords who spoke. In particular, there were valuable and heartfelt contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Phillips, Lord Dearing, Lord Baker and Lord Forsyth, the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady O'Neill, and my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Blackstone. I am grateful to them all and to all other noble Lords who made contributions to this important debate.
The key issue, and the reason that this amendment was rejected in another place on grounds of privilege, is the fact that we believe that it would be inappropriate for legislation to tie the hands of future governments and prevent them determining their spending priorities in the light of circumstances at the time. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House that this fee income should be genuinely additional. I have said quite clearly that the Government are committed to that. But primary
378
legislation is not the right place for such commitments. Noble Lords will appreciate that that is a precedent I do not wish to set.
While I do not believe that the amendment should be pressed, I hope that I can again go some way to assuring noble Lords that we are doing all that we can to meet their concerns. When we discussed this matter previously, I said that, following discussions with Universities UK and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for higher education had written to Universities UK proposing the establishment of a working group to produce a new definition of unit cost. I am pleased to say that the first meeting of that group will be on 5 July. That definition would, of course, be published in the annual departmental report, which is laid before Parliament in the usual way.
I can also confirm that I shall be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on Tuesday 20 July with colleagues from the Higher Education Funding Council for England to discuss how information about the levels of funding can be presented in the most helpful and transparent way for the benefit of both institutions and their students. I know that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, was seeking when she spoke at Third Reading.
It is important that we have had a further chance to reflect on those issues. The Government have done so. So, too, have the other place. On grounds of privilege, they have decided that they cannot accept this amendment. In view of that, for the reasons that I have set out and with the reassurances that I have given, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, this amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Phillips, who is unable to be here today and asked me to speak in his place. He is sad that the Government have not seen fit to support this amendment in the Commons and that it has not been passed. The amendment reflects a very deep anxiety on his part and on the part of other noble Lords from all Benches in this House that in the Bill the Government would be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The guarantee incorporated within the amendment would have ensured that that did not happen.
We are delighted that the Minister has continued to maintain, in what she has said today, the assurances that she has given to the House that it will not be a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The other aspect that arose during our debates—that is, a definition of what is meant by unit funding per student—is being clarified. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, is not in her place today. but her amendment carried this issue forward. We did not pass it, but nevertheless it was agreed that she would participate in discussions. I am delighted to hear that

379
the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, will participate in discussions to identify a clear statistic that we can look at and measure.
On these and other Benches, I am sure that we shall follow in considerable detail and keep a very eagle eye on precisely what happens to the funding for universities. It is vital that the moneys that are promised through the Bill are additional to other moneys, which was the fundamental purpose of the amendment. There should be clear additionality. I very much hope that the Government live up to those promises and that, from now onwards, we shall see universities benefiting from the extra moneys that will be flowing into their coffers.
Lord Forsyth of DrumleanMy Lords, I do not wish to be too controversial or too ungrateful at this point, given that the Minister was so helpful on gap years. I am not particularly surprised that the Government have rejected the amendment on additionality. After all, we have been here before. We did this last time around when fees were introduced. This House passed an amendment stating that funding which came from fees for universities should be additional. That was rejected in the other place on the grounds that it would be additional. Ministers gave great assurances that the funds would be provided. I shall not bore your Lordships by reiterating what happened in detail again. We know what happened; that is, that the money was taken and was not additional.
We know that the Government's explanation is that if the Tories had won the election, their spending plans would have meant that there would be a reduction. But a Government that was elected on a platform of "Education, Education, Education", and on not introducing tuition fees, introduced tuition fees, took the £1 billion and put it in the Treasury's pockets, and it was not additional. So we have the Government's recidivism to consider against the assurances, however well intentioned, from the Minister that that will not happen.
While being controversial, I have to say that Universities UK—which, it has recently been drawn to my attention, sent an e-mail to all its supporters or possible supporters in this House telling them that there was a plot between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to have an amendment reopening the fees debate and urging them to make sure that they went through the Lobbies to do so—has, so far as I am aware, not gone out with the same eager enthusiasm to get people to give support to this principle of additionality.
If noble Lords believe the Government, that is up to them. Personally, I think that the same will happen again. The Treasury does not change its spots whichever administration is in power. Universities UK has been—to use the colloquial expression—sold a pup. It has gone around telling universities that this will be additional money and that this is the only way to get that additional money. Here we are, at this stage, with the Commons claiming privilege in response to
380
our amendment, which simply seeks to put in the legislation the promises being made by the Government and being reiterated by the Minister.
I know that there is an important principle here. I know that the Treasury hates it. But I do not, for the life of me, see why making it explicit in the Bill that the income from fees will be additional is impossible, when it is possible to do so in respect of, for example, income from congestion charging in London. The principle that the Treasury has always fought to prevent being enshrined in legislation—of pre-empting its resources—has been included on a number of occasions. Given that the sums of money involved are so important to the universities—albeit that they are inadequate—and given that the cost to the taxpayer of providing that additional income of £900 million is at least £200 million more, it is disappointing, to say the least, that the Government have not accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who I now see in his place, which had support in every quarter of this House.
So I have a prediction. If the Government win the next election and this Bill continues in force, at some stage in this House we will be contemplating the fact that the additional money that came from fees has somehow not been added to the grant; just as we did before. The universities, of course, will be in even more dire straits than they are at present for the Bill does not measure up to the scale of the problem that they face.
Lord DearingMy Lords, I was one of the supporters of the Phillips amendment. I feel very strongly about this matter because we were concerned with increasing the resources going into universities, not with changing the basis of university funding. It is a matter of conscience for us all that this money should go towards improving education that people will get from our universities and to remedy some of the past inheritance. I cite, for example, academic salaries which have fallen very severely in real terms.
In the other place when discussing this matter, the Minister, Alan Johnson, referred to a "very interesting debate" in which the Government had joined with Universities UK on defining units of resource. I say to the Minister that we shall take an equal interest in the outcome of that debate and in seeing that the unit of resource is maintained.
I have perhaps more confidence than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the undertakings will fructify in the way we would both wish, and I trust that I, rather than he, am right on this occasion.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is able to tell noble Lords about the spending commitments made by the party on the Opposition Bench, we shall see the commitment to the growth of our universities made by this Government. The noble Lord has spoken with great passion about his concerns, so I hope that he is successful in making sure that that passion is translated into the kind of commitments made by his colleagues in another place

381
that keep politicians true to their word in all senses. That is important We need to see it happen on all sides of the House.
I am aware of the strength of feeling and the desire of noble Lords to ensure that this is pushed forward. However, I believe that the pledges I have given, in particular on the definition of unit costs, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will be kept to, thus ensuring that noble Lords will be able to see what happens. We have debated many times the history of what has developed post-1997 and I do not propose to re-enter that argument, but I can state categorically that unit funding will rise by 7 per cent between 2002–03 and 2005–06. Universities should be aware of and recognise that commitment.
On the basis of my argument about the Commons and their privilege, and on the basis of my commitments, not least to those noble Lords who feel most passionately about this, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 29, page 14, line 4, at end insert "who shall be subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code"
5A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
Because the recruitment code of the Civil Service Commissioners is not appropriate to the appointment of the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23.
Amendment No. 5, with which the Commons disagreed, would make the Secretary of State subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code in appointing the Director of Fair Access. The Commons disagreed with this because it is not the appropriate code for that appointment. The director will not be a civil servant; he or she will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The appropriate guidance for this appointment is that of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said in its report, The Regulatory State, that,
"we recommend that Ministers should remain responsible for appointing regulators, subject to Nolan rules, to ensure proper responsibility and accountability".
We agree with that and we intend to follow the appropriate code of practice for this appointment. It is for this very sensible reason that those in another place chose to reject the amendment, and 1 hope that it will not be pressed.
I turn to Amendment No. 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A. As I said when this was last debated in your Lordships' House, the amendment causes considerable difficulties which I shall summarise very briefly. First, it would remove the power of the
382
director to issue guidance to institutions. This would make it very difficult for institutions to work out what to put in their access plans. Secondly, it would remove the regulation-making power in respect of the approval of plans. Noble Lords will be pleased to see that we want to go even further than the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and make the regulations in respect of the approval of plans subject to affirmative resolution. I shall expand on that later.
The return of the regulation-making power under this clause will also enable us to introduce a review procedure for approval decisions, completing the structure of the amendment agreed by noble Lords in respect of variation of plans and sanctions.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 15 would imply a duty on institutions to provide a strategic plan to the funding councils, which we believe would place a bureaucratic burden on institutions in perpetuity. The amendment also raises the problem of what would happen if the relevant authority wished to approve a plan, but the funding council had not approved the overall strategic plan or vice versa.
In short, the Government believe that it is desirable to require separate plans for the purposes of fees provisions and that those plans should be approved only by the relevant authority. I hope that noble Lords will agree.
12.15 p.m.
I turn to Amendment No. 16, disagreed with by the Commons for their reason numbered 16A. It is inappropriate to confer a regulation-making power on either the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. This amendment is closely tied to Amendment No. 15 and would give regulation-making powers to the funding councils on the duration of plans.
It is not impossible for the funding councils to make regulations but, as I have said previously, it is hardly conventional. The convention is that either the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would make such regulations. It is not right that institutions should have to provide access plans as part of their strategic plans. Noble Lords will know that we have sought all along to minimise bureaucracy rather than add to it. Therefore it is not right that the funding councils should decide the length of access plans.
Noble Lords will have seen that our draft regulations set the maximum duration of plans at five years. It is only a maximum and a university may propose whatever period it wishes to facilitate coherence with their own plans. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Commons have disagreed with Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 for their reasons numbered 17A and 19A. The Commons believe that it is desirable that the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education should have the power to enforce the general provisions of an English approved plan, and that the relevant authority should have a corresponding power in respect of a Welsh approved plan. These amendments would mean

383
that the director would not be able to sanction an institution for any breach of the general provisions of its plan—which includes any measure in the plan beyond those relating to fee limits. In England, that would include the measures it will take to encourage more applications from under represented groups, such as the provision of bursaries or outreach activities.
I think I made it clear when we last debated the issues that I was concerned about these amendments. It has always been clear that sanctions would be a rare occurrence, if they are used at all, but it is important that they should be a possibility if plans are to be of real substance.
What we have asked is that in return for charging higher variable fees, institutions must reinvest some of the extra income in outreach and financial support. As a result of the very helpful discussions in this House, safeguards for institutions regarding sanctions have been added to the Bill, which I believe create a sensible framework for access plans. I want to express my thanks in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for the amendment he tabled which we were able to accept in principle before returning with our own amendment.
Equally, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Norton of Louth, who enabled us to consider a review by a third party. The thoughtfulness and wisdom of noble Lords in these areas have been extremely helpful. I am pleased that the Commons have accepted these safeguards, which are important elements of the Bill. Moreover, I hope that noble Lords will share in my delight that the Commons have accepted a number of other amendments made by noble Lords during the course of our detailed consideration.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, may be disappointed that another place did not accept the amendments tabled in her name. I can assure her of my sincere gratitude for her contribution to this Bill, not least in her suggestion, which we accepted, to give the director a role in promoting and identifying good practice. As I have said, that was accepted in another place, along with its extension following the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, relating to part-time students.
I am also grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and other noble Lords, who argued powerfully in favour of the provisions for academic freedom, which the Bill now contains. Many noble Lords feel passionate about this issue. Lastly, I offer particular thanks to my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. The Bill now specifically excludes admissions from the director's remit and from regulations on the content of plans.
Briefly, I turn to Amendment No. 20. Changes were proposed in another place to clarify and strengthen the safeguards introduced by noble Lords. This amendment came about as a result of debate in this House and I am grateful to noble Lords. Although I
384
needed some persuading, I was won over by the arguments of noble Lords who made a powerful case for a review mechanism. The Commons were also persuaded, I am glad to say, and have sought to increase the scope of the amendment that I originally tabled to cover decisions in respect of the approval of plans. That is one of the reasons it is important not to insist on Amendment No. 15, which would make these important Commons amendments impossible. I am sure noble Lords agree that, if the principle of a review is right, then it must surely apply to decisions not to approve plans, the financial implications of which would be substantial. I hope noble Lords will join me in welcoming Amendment No. 20.
As to Amendment No. 23, I recognise the concerns that the House has had about regulation-making powers. I agree that they should be granted with care. As I said earlier, we accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and amended the Bill accordingly, when your Lordships were considering the Bill in Committee.
But we have recognised that some noble Lords—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—were concerned about regulations relating to the approval of plans, and we now wish to go further than the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We therefore tabled an amendment during debate in another place to bring the regulation-making power in respect of the approval of plans under the affirmative procedure. We recognise that this is an important regulation-making power, as did the Commons, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome the assurance that any regulations made under this clause will now be debated.
I should add that this procedure applies to England. The procedures in regard to regulations are different in Wales.
I hope that I have covered all of the amendments successfully.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkMy Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which the role of OFFA was greatly changed and improved in this House thanks to her listening to and considering, with her usual courtesy and commitment, the suggestions that were made. We now have an OFFA in the Bill which is very much closer to the one originally recommended by the Schwartz review—one which has promotional powers, a right of appeal against its decisions and so on. This makes it much more acceptable to academics in the system.
As the Minister anticipated, I am of course disappointed that neither she nor the Government in another place were able to accept all the amendments that this House approved.

385
I still find it puzzling that the recruitment code of the Civil Service Commissioners is thought not to be appropriate as it has been applied in other public appointments. However, we are not inclined to do more than note that—and warn, perhaps, that we shall watch very closely who is appointed. My motivation in moving the amendment was to ensure that we did not get a crony or a creature of the Secretary of State, and we shall watch very carefully to ensure that that does not happen.
As the Minister said, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together would have required a different kind of procedure, and I am sorry that universities will now be subjected to the double bureaucratic requirement of having to submit two sets of plans. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, as passed in this House, would have ensured that access plans were submitted as part of the already required strategic plans of universities, where I believe they belong. I think it will be very difficult to plan access arrangements without putting them into the context of all the other plans for student numbers, finance and so on.
Amendment No. 15 clearly left the power for approval of the plans with OFFA. It would have ensured that the plans would be submitted to the funding council and passed on to OFFA. The universities will have to live with the double bureaucracy, and I regret that. Again, the system will have to be monitored as the procedures are put into train.
I am most of all sorry that Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 were rejected. I am particularly sorry that the Minister in the other place argued that the Lords amendments would remove from OFFA the power of sanction if an institution reneged on the commitment in its plans in respect of the fees that it would charge and the bursaries that it would give. Our amendments most clearly did not remove that power. We were most careful to ensure that OFFA, through HEFCE, was left with the power to sanction universities which reneged on their financial commitments, as it is proper it should do. Our amendments would simply have removed OFFA's powers to recommend to HEFCE unlimited fines on universities for very ill-defined offences.
I have asked before—and I repeat it because it bears consideration and thought on the part of the Minister and her department—that if a university, for example, puts in its plans that it will visit 100 inner-city schools and then discovers that 20-odd of those schools are not willing to accept visits and it can therefore visit only 70-odd schools, will the university then be liable to sanction? Will OFFA recommend to the funding council that it should have part or all of its grant removed?
I ask the question because, as was made clear by the chief executive of HEFCE when giving evidence to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee last March, HEFCE already has powers to regulate and to punish universities which do not have adequate access plans. He said that HEFCE has powers to
386
withhold funds from them and powers to punish them by putting in new regulations about what they must do the following year.
Given that there will be two authorities with the power to punish universities, can the Minister confirm that, if we accept the other place's rejection of these amendments, the power to punish on access will be removed from the funding council and kept solely within OFFA? It would be absolutely monstrous for universities to remain subject to this kind of punitive action from two different directions.
I am very disappointed that these powers remain in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's response to my questions.
Baroness Warwick of UndercliffeMy Lords, I agree with the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I thank the Government for the many significant concessions they have made on the working of OFFA. Universities UK also identified a number of concerns about the original proposals. I am satisfied that all of them have been addressed, with the exception of the provision relating to the promotion of higher education in Wales.
I very much welcome Amendments Nos. 20, 20A and 20B, which have been accepted in another place. They create an appeals mechanism for OFFA and subject the regulations in Clause 32 to affirmative procedures. As other noble Lords have said in this and previous debates, I very much appreciate the way in which my noble friend the Minister has listened to my concerns and those of other noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. I thank her most warmly.
Lord Forsyth of DrumleanMy Lords, I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lady Perry that the Government have not been able to make the extra leap which would have completed the task she set herself. Her mission was to change the character of OFFA from one of an organisation with a big stick to one which worked positively with the grain, which I believe is there in the universities, to widen access.
In fairness to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, the Government have come quite a long way down the route in their consideration of her amendments and her arguments. Perhaps modesty forbade my noble friend from drawing too much attention to that. I am certainly grateful to her and to my noble friend Lord MacGregor, who worked so hard on the appeals mechanism that has now become an independent review mechanism. I recall raising this—if I am allowed to mention private meetings with the Minister—and being told to think of some scheme that will work. I was extremely grateful to my noble friends Lord Norton and Lord MacGregor for having the aptitude to come up with a scheme which not only worked but satisfied the civil servants within the Minister's department, because I know that her heart was in the right place on this.

387
12.30 p.m.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that it is interesting, is it not, that these amendments on academic freedom, appeal mechanisms and the structure and functions of OFFA have been accepted in this place and not in the other place? Credit must be given to the Members of this House on the Cross Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches as well as our Benches who worked together to draw attention to the deficiencies in the Bill and had the Gatling gun with which to bring down the Government's position if required.
Although I commend the Government for accepting the amendments, it is a little depressing that in the other place so few amendments were made in the initial consideration of the Bill. As my noble friend has pointed out, I had the impression from reading the speech of the Minister for higher education that he may have been looking at the wrong speaking note when he responded to some of these amendments. I could not quite reconcile what the amendment said with what the Minister was saying. I know that his officials would not have left him completely unbriefed, so I can only imagine that he was dealing with an old copy of some papers, or whatever. Or perhaps he did not show the dedication and commitment to detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has shown throughout the Bill's stages. I hope that that remark is not too damaging to her. My impression is that some of the Ministers in another place do not read the proceedings in this place, so she may be protected from any action in that respect.
I share my noble friend's disappointment that the Government have not been prepared to accept, in particular, the amendments to which she drew attention. However, the Minister has done very well in persuading her colleagues to make very substantial improvements to the regime. I think that we would be better off without it altogether, but we are content to leave that to the electorate to decide.
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, I, too, welcome Amendments Nos. 20, 20A, 23 and 23A, which carry through the appeals mechanism and the affirmative resolution issue that we debated at some length. I am delighted to see both those provisions incorporated into the Bill.
I share a lot of the disappointment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, at the fact that the Government have not seen fit to accept at least the spirit of her Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. It seems to me very sensible that OFFA should have been aligned with HEFCE and that the procedures requiring plans should have been aligned with the overall strategic plans required by universities. These two aspects should work together. I have argued right from the beginning that it is all very well saying that HEFCE is a funding organisation and OFFA is regulatory, but in many of the ways in which the system works, HEFCE is, and remains, a regulatory organisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, pointed out, it already imposes considerable sanctions if universities do not act in accordance with its guidance.
388
Nevertheless, we are where we are. As a result of the debates and the amendments which were accepted in this House, the face of OFFA has been changed considerably. It moves from being a vindictive and punitive organisation to one that has the makings of helping universities to develop plans to widen participation and open up access to students who may not traditionally have attended university. I look forward to seeing how this organisation works out over the longer term. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I assure the Government that we shall be watching very closely to make sure that it functions benignly rather than malignly.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has done. I do not wish to embarrass her or make her blush, but much of the way in which we have moved on the issues surrounding access bears witness to the noble Baroness's commitment and that of other noble Lords as well.
I believe that we have a better OFFA. I believe that we have made sure that admissions and academic freedom in particular, about which your Lordships feel very passionately, are well protected. In a sense, it is the role of the House to do that, given the expertise that exists within it on higher education. I am not at all surprised that this House has done so. The Government are pleased to have been able to move on those amendments, having listened carefully to the arguments.
As to my career, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has already toasted me. He said that in a private meeting I asked him to come up with a scheme that would work. It is good that I am putting the Opposition to work in this respect, but that may be it as far as I am concerned.
The Butler amendment deals with the noble Baroness's point about how OFFA and the director will work. We have been very clear about making sure that where an institution has done what it has said it would, we are input-measuring and not outcome-measuring. In that sense, I do not think that the noble Baroness need worry. I know that she will keep a watchful eye on this, as ever, and I shall be at the Dispatch Box—if I am still here—to discuss it.
Of course, HEFCE does not have the sanctioning powers of OFFA, and we will make sure that they work well together. We have debated the differences between the two at many stages of the Bill, and I do not propose to go over it now. But it is important that they work well. We will seek to ensure that they do, and noble Lords will make sure that we do.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, my right honourable friend should have said that Amendment No. 17 would prevent any sanctions applying as a result of a breach of the general provisions of the plan, which includes everything expert the fee limits He has written to opposition

389
spokesmen. That letter has been copied, I believe, to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, to clarify the position, and there is also a copy in the Library.
On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree with what the Commons have done, particularly on regulation-making powers. Although I know that some noble Lords feel some regret, I hope that they will not press the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 32, leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause—
"Approval of plans (No. 2)

The Funding Councils shall provide to the relevant authority copies of that part of Institutions Strategic Plans relating to Fair Access arrangements, which will then comment to each institution on the content of its plan and may, if it thinks fit, approve the plan.

The relevant authority shall require each institution to provide an account of the financial assistance it has provided to students.

The relevant authority shall report to Parliament each year on progress on the plans and on financial assistance which has been provided to students under the plans."

15A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
Because it is desirable to require separate plans for the purposes of the fees provisions and to require those plans to be approved only by the relevant authority in accordance with regulations.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 33, page 15, line 39, leave out from "made" to end of line 41 and insert "by the Funding Councils"
16A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because it is inappropriate to confer a regulation-making power on the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 35, page 16, line 12, leave out "or (c)"
17A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason
Because it is desirable that the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education should have power to enforce the general provisions of an English approved plan.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.
390
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 36, page 16, line 31, leave out "or (c)"
19A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
Because it is desirable that the relevant authority in relation to Wales should have power to enforce the general provisions of a Welsh approved plan.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 19A.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
20 After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—"
"Review of decisions made by relevant authority
Regulations made by virtue of section 34, 35(2)(b) or 36(3)(b) must include provision

requiring any decision of the relevant authority under section 34, 35 or 36 affecting the governing body of an institution to have effect in the first instance as a provisional decision,

enabling the governing body of the institution to apply for a review of the provisional decision to a person, or panel of persons, appointed in accordance with the regulations—

in relation to England, by the Secretary of State, or

in relation to Wales, by the Assembly,

enabling the Secretary of State or the Assembly to pay remuneration and allowances to any person so appointed,

ixprescribing the grounds on which an application for the review of a provisional decision may be made, and

requiring the relevant authority to reconsider its provisional decision having regard to any recommendation of the person or panel."

The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendments—
20A Line 3, after "section" insert "32,"
20B Line 6. after "section" insert "32,"
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B to Lords Amendment No. 20.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 43, page 21, line 17, at end insert "or
(c) regulations to which subsection (3A) applies.
(3A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 31(1A) or 35(2)(c) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
23A The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment
Line 5, after "31(1A)" insert "32"
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to Lords Amendment No. 23.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Bill
12.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she, having been informed of the purport of the Civil Partnership Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Civil Partnership]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 4, leave out "relationship" and insert "contract"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill is in a constant state of confusion. I am never quite sure what is going to happen next. In that context, I was not expecting a statement on the prerogative. Perhaps, at some stage in the proceedings, the Minister will be kind enough to explain exactly why it is necessary in this case.
We have debated Amendment No. 1 on previous occasions, both in Committee and on Report, but the context in which it is now relevant has changed quite significantly as a result of the other amendments which have been passed by your Lordships. Since the Bill now defines civil partnerships much more widely than before, the expression "contract" rather than "relationship" seems even more appropriate, not least because it will not necessarily offend the sensibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in the same way as it was previously going to do.
Perhaps I may say a word about the interventions which I made in the speech of the Government Chief Whip the other day. It is very difficult in such exchanges to make one's position absolutely clear. I was trying to be helpful. I am concerned that if the Bill now goes to another place, we will be able to debate it on its return only in the context of the amendments which have been carried in another place. Therefore, other amendments to which we might have expected a response from the Government in this House will not be possible. I think that that is the situation which now exists. In particular, there will be no opportunity to cover some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was going to make. Therefore, it is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding. That is why I was concerned to establish from Chief Whip exactly what the position was. His simply saying that we would
392
proceed in the normal way did not take fully into account the way in which we were now likely to proceed in the context of the Bill as it now stands.
The Government seem to have changed their position also with regard to responding to amendments. The other day, their basic position was that they were not going to respond at all to amendments and, generally speaking, were not going to move their own amendments. They seem to have changed their position as far as that is concerned. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is going to happen. A number of government amendments now appear on the Order Paper. Are they the only ones which would be unaffected by the amendment which your Lordships carried last week? Are all the others affected by it?
Nevertheless, as far as concerns Amendment No. 1, the arguments which we put forward previously are, if anything, reinforced and I hope that they will find acceptance in your Lordships' House.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I want to make it clear that I retain the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I acquit him entirely of responsibility for what occurred on Report. As he rightly said, it is precisely because his party and others have transformed the Bill away from the concept of loving couples and of a relationship that he can—
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I made it absolutely clear on several occasions that whereas the noble Lord's party and the government party were whipped, we were on a free vote. Therefore, he is wrong in saying that the change was introduced by my party.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, in that case, I apologise for that mistake. However, the noble Lord is perfectly logical and correct in saying that once one moves away from the notion of couples, the notion of a relationship becomes a strange one, because one can move from the notion of status and relationship to one of simple contract. That debases the entire purpose of the Bill. It is because we on these Benches strongly object to the way in which the Bill has been wrecked that we object to this consequential amendment.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I shall deal first with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked me why we had moved the Queen's consent statement. The Queen's consent was required for Clause 59(2) of the current draft of the Civil Partnership Bill. The clause makes provisions that correspond to those in Section 58(2) of the Family Law Act 1986. Clause 59(2) states:
"Any declaration under Section 58 binds her Majesty and all other persons".
A declaration under Section 58 is one which is about whether a civil partnership was, at its inception, valid and whether it subsisted on a specified date or about whether it has been dissolved, annulled or is the subject of legal separation. The Queen's consent was signified to what became Section 58(2) of the Family Law Act 1986 at Third Reading in both Houses. There is

393
sufficient provision for Northern Ireland in the Bill at Clause 177. I hope it is now clear why we need that provision.
I turn to the second question to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me to reply. It related to the Government's position that was expressed last Thursday and today. I should make a number of points clear. We have always believed, and we believed that noble Lords opposite accepted it, that the Bill was a good Bill, because it sought to address an issue of unfairness and lack of parity of treatment and all appeared to agree with it. It was very carefully drafted. It was drafted so that all the provisions interrelated one with the other. Noble Lords will remember that consultation on the Bill started almost three years ago. During the period of preparation, we have had to trawl through a huge amount of legislation. Some of it goes to back 1681; that is, the Declaration Act, which is dealt with in Scotland. Your Lordships might have heard reference to it.
The provisions of the Bill were therefore all part of one construction. That construction was predicated on there being a same-sex couple civil partnership and not broadened out to others. The Government remain committed to the Bill as originally drafted.
In accordance with parliamentary procedure, we must of course scrutinise each Bill as it comes before us, but by going forward with Third Reading today, we hope to make clear our commitment to the continuance of the Bill and to take forward work on the Bill in a manner that is coherent and consistent with our convictions and the choices made by this House.
As noble Lords opposite failed to lay consequential amendments predicated on the change that was sought, the proposal that was put before this House was changed in one degree, but did not take into account all the other changes which would flow from that significant amendment. The Government's case was that we did not agree that the definition of civil partnership should be so widened for all the reasons that I gave previously. The amendments—your Lordships will know that there were hundreds of them—were so interlinked that it was very difficult to disentangle them. Of all the amendments, we have managed to identify only 21 which remain wholly unaffected by the amendment which was passed by noble Lords last week.
Perhaps it is right that I give some examples. Noble Lords will appreciate that the change which was voted on last week brought about some internal inconsistencies and anomalies for the scheme; for example, because of the change which your Lordships passed last week, a woman who formed a civil partnership with her grandfather would, under Clause 238(1), have her own mother as a step-daughter. Such unintended consequences run throughout the Bill as a result of the change made last week.
The Government are sensitive to that because we must speak to the Bill, not as we crafted it, but as it currently stands. To do otherwise would be to fail to respect the decision made by this House. We will
394
participate in debate as far as we are able but, at times, we will be limited by the context of the House's decision on Report. That was not of our making but it is the position with which we now have to deal.
As noble Lords know, the Government decided not to move our amendments on Report. For the same reasons, we have decided not to bring many of those amendments back now. They would have elaborated or altered provisions concerning how people would be treated as a consequence of forming a civil partnership that was restricted to same-sex couples. Noble Lords opposite may have had a free vote but, if I may respectfully and very gently say so, it was significant that they seemed to me to vote in the same direction. That brought about changes.
I shall give just one other example. Under the Bill as amended, a grandfather could leave a survivor's pension to a civil partner grandson. Of course, aside from the fundamental change to the principles underlying the pensions system in this country, this would have significant cost implications. Our estimate is that the cost would be in the region of £2.25 billion a year. I am, of course, aware that noble Lords opposite have expressed the wish, and the intention, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. If that is seriously contemplated, one wonders how the dramatic increase in costs will be funded. We must look at consequences and deal with them.
So, although we do not feel able to put down some of our amendments, the Government do want to respect this House and its decision. Therefore, we have brought back only those amendments that now make sense. If noble Lords opposite wish to move some of the amendments that the Government brought forward on Report, that is their prerogative, but it is a nonsense. If they do that, they will find that the synergy that was in the Bill has gone. As the concept of civil partnership has now been fundamentally redefined, the Government no longer consider it appropriate for civil partnership to entail all the consequences originally envisaged because we now have a different Bill.
The Government also have serious concerns about the effect of the amendment on Report. We are considering the matter further, but we believe that it may mean that the Bill would not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because of the onerous restrictions related to age, cohabitation and consanguinity that they impose on this new category of civil partner.
Furthermore, many of the registration and dissolution procedures now make little sense when applied to the new group, in the same way that some of the rights and responsibilities consequential on the formation of a civil partnership are no longer appropriate. I shall give noble Lords other examples: if a son entered into a civil partnership with his elderly mother, with whom he lived and for whom he cared, he might lose entitlement to jobseeker's allowance, based on his mother's ability to support him financially.

395
Should a daughter in a civil partnership with her mother wish to marry, she would have to go through a formal court-based dissolution of the civil partnership first. If her mother had become mentally incapable, or objected to the marriage, she would have to live apart for five years. These are serious disincentives to marriage. Moreover, if she did seek a dissolution, the daughter would be entitled to a share of her mother's property, which might mean that the elderly mother would be dispossessed of her home because it would have to be sold and shared to make provision for her civil partner. So depending on the circumstances, this might require the mother to sell the family home in order to provide a settlement. I am sure that noble Lords did not have that in mind. She would also have to prove irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. That is very difficult to prove when it is with your mother. It might be that there is not an irretrievable breakdown. The mother might agree that the daughter or the son could live with the new partner in her home. How will that be dealt with?
I regret to tell your Lordships that the amendment made a nonsense of the Bill in the form in which it was considered. So our decision was not pique or temper but acceptance. We accept the nature of this House. We accept that this House can make decisions and that we are bound by the choices that it makes. But we are all bound by the consequences of the decisions we make. The Government accept those consequences. But we do not agree that this is the right Bill. We have said time and again from this Dispatch Box that we have sympathy for the concerns noble Lords opposite have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised some of those issues with his Bill. There has been assent from these Benches about those concerns, but fiscal arrangements cannot be turned back to the 1930s. It is for that reason that we were not able to respond. Today we will respond as we are able but we will take into account the reality of the decision that this House knowingly took last Thursday. We are a grown-up House and we must accept the responsibility for our action.
In relation to Amendment No. 1, we still believe that "relationship" is of real importance and signifies a difference from a mere "contract". We are dealing with intimate connections between people and we do not think that "contract" accurately expresses what we are seeking to uphold. The very nature of last Thursday's amendment emphasised that we are talking about the tender relationships that can happen within families, relationships of support. They are relationships. They are not contracts and we think that it would be inappropriate to describe them as such. It demeans the quality of the relationships that we hope that people in these partnerships will be able to enjoy.
Lord EltonMy Lords, before the Minister sits down, she has touched on a great many subjects. As a Back-Bencher who was fully involved in the proceedings in this House, I assure her that there was no Whip on these Benches, formal or informal. I voted voluntarily, as a friend to the Bill, because I believed,
396
among other things, that the change would remove from the people who the Bill is supposed to help the resentment by others who did not share the same benefits.
I welcome the full way in which the Minister has explained the Government's conduct last week. That has removed a good deal of anxiety on our part. Normally, this House does not send Bills to the other place in a defective state. Efforts are usually made by the Government and the Opposition to remedy defects that occur. Of course, that would be a major operation on this occasion and I presume that that is the Government's reason for not doing it. But I welcome the Minister's explanation.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, the number of amendments would have meant a wholesale redrafting that could not have been undertaken without many months' work.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Elton in expressing our thanks to the Minister for her explanation, including the explanation with regard to the Royal prerogative. She said that the Bill had been very carefully drafted. None the less, given the legislation with which we are faced, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the number of government amendments. I understand that some changes had to be made at the last moment with regard to Northern Ireland. However, generally speaking, as regards areas affecting pensions and so on, a great many government amendments to Bills are tabled the subject of which one might reasonably expect to have been dealt with before the relevant Bill was published.
1 p.m.
I am grateful for the estimate of costs. I am astonished at the figure of £2.25 billion. However, if one wished to extend the provisions of the Bill at a later stage, as the amendment that was carried last week does, it would be helpful if the Minister would place in the Library the calculation that establishes the figure of £2.25 billion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrosemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after "is" insert "only"
The noble DukeMy Lords, I hope that your Lordships will understand why I have tabled this amendment again. It was tabled as Amendment No. 5 on Report. The arguments that I put forward today are exactly the same as the ones that I put forward on Report. They can be found at col, 1415 of Hansard of 24 June. I put forward the same arguments today as we had a sense that the Government were slightly gagged in terms of what they were able to say on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, this amendment seeks clarification that the relationship of

397
civil partnership is formed only at the point when two people register as civil partners to each other. In responding to the amendment I speak to the overall principle set out in Clause I and also refer to a specific issue relating to Scotland raised by the noble Duke.
The provisions in Clause i make it clear that a civil partnership is a new legal relationship formed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Bill. Put simply, the new legal relationship of civil partnership which is created by the Bill can be formed in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only by registration. It comes into being once the second proposed civil partner signs a civil partnership document. Couples who register an overseas relationship under the law of another country will, subject to certain conditions, be treated as having formed a civil partnership under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill. Again, this can be done only by registration.
I hope that the noble Duke will understand, therefore, that there is no need for the insertion of the word "only" as it is clear from the Bill that there is no other way to form a civil partnership than by the procedure referred to in Clause 1. I hope that that will suffice.
The Duke of MontroseMy Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I hope that in future years any Scottish lawyers who feel a little too contentious will read the Minister's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after "4" insert "(subject to section 253(3))"
The noble LordMy Lords, it is refreshing to note that noble Lords on the Front Bench are somewhat less liverish than they were on Thursday of last week. That, none the less, does not prevent my drawing attention to the original drafting of the Bill and to what it has become.
My basic objection to the Bill is well known; I have not sought to hide it. Noble Lords may be interested if I point out that the Bill arrived here as a single issue Bill so to speak—atleast, that is what we thought it was—with 258 pages, but we now have a Bill of 383 pages. The Bill arrived as a government Bill to which, subsequently, in Committee, the Government tabled 171 amendments. The Government tabled those amendments to their own Bill. Noble Lords managed to table 116 amendments.
On Report the Government tabled 150 amendments to their own Bill. Noble Lords managed to table 55. Here we are today at Third Reading with another 22 government amendments. With respect I believe that that is an indication of government incompetence. It is a case of take an idea, table it and then build a Bill round it by means of 343 government amendments in total. I know that there is an overlap but that is really what it means in essence.
398
Not only do we have a Bill with which I profoundly disagree, but we also have a decision and an insistence by the Government that despite what the majority of people in Northern Ireland feel about this, and the need to have the substance and the consequences of this Bill debated in Northern Ireland, the matter will be left to a fairly brief and formal introduction by the Secretary of State. I believe that that is wrong. Northern Ireland's culture is very, very different from what I call the London club scene. I could say the same for other areas throughout Great Britain. Their overall culture is somewhat different from what I call, for want of a better phrase, the London club scene.
As well as beginning to recover from 30 years of terrorism Northern Ireland is in the process of recovering from years of systematic sexual abuse of children. As a consequence there is a sensitivity among the people of Northern Ireland in respect of that particular abuse.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, with great respect I interrupt the noble Lord. I am not sure whether procedurally I am doing the right thing, but someone will surely tell me if I am not.
If the noble Lord is linking the idea of civil partnerships with child abuse, that link therefore suggests that homosexual people abuse children. I have carried out a considerable amount of work in Northern Ireland through Childline. The statistics show that on the whole heterosexual people are far more likely than homosexual people to abuse children. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my asking him to correct me if I am wrong in assuming that that was not the connection he intended to make. I have not taken part in proceedings on the Bill but I wanted to clarify that point.
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I do not in total seek to disagree with her. I used the term "systematic abuse" of children. Without wishing to open up old wounds that affect institutions which have been guilty of that kind of systematic abuse, I cite but one example; that is, Kincora. That is probably the best known case. There is no doubt that those involved in the Kincora scandal are homosexuals.
It is not my wish to open old wounds and make things more difficult for people who indulge, for whatever reason, in abnormal sexual activity, but what happens behind closed doors and what is systematic abuse are two entirely different matters. As someone from Northern Ireland, I would be wrong not to draw attention to the fact that—
Lord AlliMy Lords—
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I will give way in a moment.
Noble LordsOrder!
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I want to finish this point. Cases can always be made. The noble

399
Lord, Lord Alli, wrote me a letter on a remark that I made about there not being systematic indulgence in "gay bashing" in Northern Ireland. It drew my attention to the fact that a Democratic Unionist Party councillor was convicted a couple of months ago of harassment of a colleague. That is a very poor argument. For anyone who had been involved in politics in Northern Ireland, such as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, or myself, harassment would be the least that we would expect of some members of the Democratic Unionist Party. Many of us have suffered physical abuse and attacks from members of that party, so it does not make the argument for the noble Lord, Lord Alli.
Lord AlliMy Lords, I shall deal with some of the noble Lord's points on a more substantive basis during the debate. I simply want to tell him how offensive his contributions, both last Thursday and today, have been to many gay people up and down this land, given the kind of language that he has used twice in the two different debates. I suggest that he think very carefully about the tone that he adopts during the debate. We have all agreed that, hitherto in this House, the debates in the area have been sensitive and co-operative, with a sense of consensus prevailing. He is breaking that consensus, and should think wisely about his words.
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I have listened very carefully, and I recognise the difficulties that exist. I have indicated again and again that the last thing that I have in mind is to provoke any antagonism towards people like the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Those of us who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and offensive from a religious perspective to many people in the United Kingdom also feel that we have at least an equal right to put our opinion, as he puts his.
The noble Lord raises the issue of being offensive. I respond by asking him whether he read the article in the Sunday Times last Sunday for which the headline stated:
"British Airways flies into a gay boycott".
That article specifically cited intimidation and threats against someone who did not agree with the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that the threat by Stonewall—
1.15 p.m.
Lord EltonMy Lords, I may be able to help the noble Lord and the House. Am I not right in thinking that the purpose of his amendment is to see that the Bill does not have effect in Northern Ireland until the Assembly, having reconvened, has the ability to express its opinion on it? That is a question of devolution, not of all the issues being raked over now. Will he bring us to discuss that, because that is the basis on which I shall take my decision on which Lobby to go into, if he decides to divide the House? What he says now does not advance his cause at all, so far as I am concerned.
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord and agree with what he said.
400
However, I find myself as a voice for Northern Ireland, ultimately suggesting that the Bill not be extended to it, as he commended to me. I felt that I had to try to indicate why the Bill should not be extended.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that, under the Northern Ireland Act, one matter not transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly is responsibility for compatibility with the human rights convention? Like the government of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland's devolved Assembly cannot breach basic human rights, including those of homosexuals, if that would be in breach of the European convention. Is that not the position under the devolution legislation?
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt better versed than I am in European legislation. I accept what he indicates, but "human rights" must surely apply to the people of Northern Ireland as well as to individuals. When there is a conflict, decisions have to be made. I do not want to pursue the issue any further, but I was distracted for a moment when I mentioned the article in the Sunday Times, which displays a degree of aggressiveness from that small group of people. They are not saying that they want human rights; they are saying, "If we don't get our way, we will take action that will penalise other individuals".
Northern Ireland is in a difficult period of transition. It has had to grapple with systematic abuse of children, and—be I right or wrong; someone can contradict me—I have seen a degree of organised abuse by homosexual elements. Imagine that I open my door and, on my left-hand side, my next-door neighbours are living in a civil partnership. Imagine that, when I open the same door and look on my right-hand side, I find a 60 year-old lady who has spent her life looking after her 90 year-old mother. Imagine that my children or grandchildren walk out and look at the situation that will be brought about by the Bill. What will the implied situation be when same-sex people have privileges denied to the mother and daughter?
Finally, I listened to the noble Baroness and heard her explain how a daughter would become a mother-in-law of her own mother. She was referring to a grand-daughter living with her grandmother. The mother in that family would become the daughter-in-law. I thought that the Government told us that the Bill had nothing to do with marriage and the relationships brought about by marriage. In an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, also indicated the cost factor. I thought that she had said at an earlier stage that this matter did not relate to cost.
So, on the basis of what I have heard so far, I believe that Northern Ireland should not be included—that,
"such an order must not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
I beg to move.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of

401
Drumglass, because he has introduced a degree of transparency into his arguments and made clear the real purpose of the amendment, which is fundamentally to oppose the whole purpose of the original Bill, rather than the question of devolution.
I shall restrain myself from being seduced by the noble Lord into wandering into the various by-paths of his argument and I shall stick as closely as possible to the content of the amendment itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has advised. There are a number of serious problems with the amendment. First, it puzzles me that I have heard a Unionist Peer speak about excluding Northern Ireland. I recall many Unionist colleagues—not the noble Lord, although he may have done—protesting, as I did, about the anti-terrorist legislation that restricted many people to Northern Ireland for the protection of the rest of the United Kingdom. It was a form of internal exile. I and many Unionists protested against that as well as an overwhelming number of nationalists. Yet, we have a suggestion that would introduce a form of relationship, partnership or contract between two individuals that could be entered into by Northern Ireland citizens if they were living in this part of the United Kingdom, but they would be unable to live peacefully in Northern Ireland. They would be in a form of internal exile within the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that was a curious proposition for a Unionist in particular.
Another colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, rightly describes himself as "a voice" from Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord is not the only voice from Northern Ireland. I suspect that if the matter could be discussed in the Northern Ireland Assembly there might not be the degree of unanimity across all the parties suggested by the noble Lord's speech. I shall speculate a little as to what might happen, given the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who is a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Bill were to be passed in its original form, one might say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, "Well, as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly you could perhaps bring forward a Private Member's Bill to reverse this". But he could not, because before a Private Member's Bill can be presented for First Reading in the Northern Ireland Assembly the Speaker has to ascertain whether or not the Bill conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights. It would ill-befit me to speak for any future Speaker that there might or might not be, but I can say with some degree of surety that such a Bill would not have been given a First Reading during my own period as Speaker because I have no doubt that it would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. It would also contravene Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, makes much play of the huge number of amendments that the Government brought forward and I have some sympathy with what he says. However, I recall that when the Northern Ireland Act was being passed there was a massive number of amendments, many of them occasioned by deals that the Government made with
402
his party and his leader to ensure that they would go along with the Act. So, one always has to be a little cautious about making accusations. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the amendment would contravene Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act which specifically forbids any kind of discrimination on sexual grounds. That means that when the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, says that this is not a matter of human rights but a matter of devolution, he is entirely wrong in law. It is a matter of human rights.
That brings me to the question of human rights and to the question of culture, religion and the views of local people. I do not presume—and it would be improper for anyone to presume—the outcome of a debate in any legislative assembly. That would not be proper, as the assembly would speak for itself. However, let us assume that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was correct. I have struggled greatly with the notion of human rights for a number of years and one matter seems fundamental. It is about human rights—not Northern Irish rights, not Irish rights, not European rights. As the deputy president of Liberal International and the chairman of its human rights committee, I have spent much time confronting oppressors in Asia who describe "Asian rights" as being something culturally different from human rights and the West. I do not accept that. Human rights are rights that people have by dint of being born as human beings. So the idea that there should be a different set of human rights for people in Northern Ireland because of the culture is, to me, problematic—to the point where I have considerable doubts about a matter which I would otherwise support, the notion of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The strength of human rights is that they transcend local communities and national states and that those who abuse human rights should not be able to find sanctuary behind national boundaries. That is part of the purpose of this whole exercise, as far as I am concerned.
I look at the position of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and his colleagues, who have religious convictions which I would share in many circumstances; and I look at Christian communities in states which are dominated by fundamentalist Islamic governments who wish to introduce legislation that would be wholly in accordance with the views of the overwhelming majority of people in those countries, but which would be oppressive of Christian minorities. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, would quite rightly use the opportunities of this House to demand that Her Majesty's Government made strong representations against any government that would do such a thing in respect of Christian, Jewish or whatever other minorities in other parts of the world. Yet, we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. We cannot say that other countries should respect the rights of those with whom we share an affinity, but then say that we have the right to set aside the human rights of others on the grounds of cultural and religious thoughts and sensitivities in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the island or in the UK as a whole.

403
I have great difficulty in seeing the rationale—the legal, thoughtful, reflective argument—in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, because they do not fit his Unionist commitments.
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I shall not detain the House for long, but he and others make much play of human rights. I would not advocate intrusion into the human rights of people because they were homosexual, but the Bill, although it is paraded as an extension of human rights, is nothing to do with fundamental human rights. It is about financial implications for homosexuals. That is the sole purpose of the Bill as I see it and I should be interested to hear the noble Lord's explanation of that aspect.
1.30 p.m.
Lord AlderdiceMy Lords, I hesitate to enter into the debate. Knowing the noble Lord as I do, I fear that were Ito answer he might wish again to interject and I would not want to say no.
It seems to me that one of the most fundamental rights of all can be set even beside the right to life and not to be murdered—and the noble Lord is familiar with the breach of that right in our part of the world. It is the right to have close, confiding, lasting, intimate relationships. Without them, no place, no money, no property, no ambition—nothing—amounts to any value. Life is about relationships or it is about nothing at all.
We do not choose all our relationships. We tend to acquire our parents and siblings too late to make choices about them, but they are our relations. We live and work with them, we value them and they enrich our lives. However, we also have the opportunity to choose our relationships. It seems to me to be a fundamental human right to be able to choose the person with whom you wish to spend your life and with whom you wish to have a real bond. I suspect that we may differ, but for me this is a question of fundamental human rights. It does not matter how large the majority that is against or how small the minority that is satisfied, for me it is fundamental matter.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I know that there are concerns about carers and others and I hope that at the next election we will see in the manifestos of all the parties a commitment to address this difficult question. I do not want to make myself my own grandfather or some other complicated piece of nonsense out of a piece of otherwise reasonable legislation.
However, as I listened to the argument and tried to follow its rationality, I reached the conclusion that the opposition to the original Bill was less to do with rational argument and more to do with fundamental feelings. Those are important matters, but it is perhaps not the best way for us to construct legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, to
404
consider whether he really wants to presume upon the vote of the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.
Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, I had not intended to speak today, but I feel that I must, for two reasons. First, as I said on Report, I did not then move my amendment relating to Northern Ireland solely because the Assembly, which is in suspension, should have the right to discuss the Bill. I said that purely on the basis of knowing something about the Northern Ireland situation and knowing quite a lot about the situation in the island of Ireland. I know the sensitivities and I am totally aware that no one in this House does not want the Assembly to be reinstated. It seemed to me that that would show the people of Northern Ireland that they had some say in their future. That was all—that was the only reason.
Today I was deeply moved by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I have always had the highest regard for him, and his remarks about relationships made me quite emotional. And of course he is right—life without close relationships, be they familial, same-sex or whatever, is not one worth living.
Secondly, much has been said today about the Bill being emasculated—no one has used that word, but it seems to me that everyone believes that to be the case—by an amendment which I moved and which was carried by a substantial majority in this House last Thursday. If the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had been here last Thursday, he would probably have been very sympathetic to that amendment because it hit exactly the point he made about relationships.
I want no unpleasantness about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, began to allude to that today. I have been at the receiving end of a great deal of unpleasantness—and, pleading my own case, I believe it is unwarranted and unjustified. However, that is the way it is. If you agree to take a role in your Lordships' House as a parliamentarian, if you have the honour to be appointed, as I was, you have the right and the duty to contribute to the proceedings of this House on the basis of your experience and expertise. And I believe that it is rather unfair then to be targeted just because you, in all conscience, have tried to contribute to the best of your ability, experience and expertise.
I do not want to make special pleading on this issue, but I hope that by standing here now and saying what I have said I have shown that in everything I have said on the Bill I have wanted the best for legislation in this country. In particular, when I brought forward the amendment last week on Northern Ireland, it was to allow the people of Northern Ireland also to have their say. That was the only reason and that is why I have intervened now.
Lord HenleyMy Lords, a week ago, I spoke from this Dispatch Box on a free vote in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain on Northern Ireland. A week later—perhaps a week is a long time in politics—I cannot offer the same support to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I am sympathetic to the picture he paints

405
and to the fact that matters are different in Northern Ireland. I believe—and perhaps many others will agree, however they wish to vote—that the Government could have handled the matter with slightly greater sensitivity in terms of consultations in Northern Ireland. However, I accept that it is not a devolved matter and that if the Bill is to be enacted it should be on a United Kingdom basis.
Having said that, I stress again that on these Benches this is a matter for a free vote and that I would not be able to offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, in relation to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I deeply deplore the way in which she has been subjected to targeted abuse and the way in which a boycott of British Airways is being advanced by some who, like me, strongly disagree with her views. Attempts have been made to persuade shareholders that she should even be removed from the board of British Airways and that people should not fly with British Airways.
All of that I regard as quite disgraceful. She has the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else. When debating the matter, we are covered by the great privileges of this House and Parliament to enable that to happen. I hope that my words will be heeded, as one of the great supporters of the Bill, by members of the gay and lesbian community who so deplore what the noble Baroness has done that they have resorted to what I believe to be base tactics which should not be pursued.
Secondly, in the light of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, it would be a gross anticlimax for me to say much at all, except by way of footnote, but I want to make a few brief points from these Benches. First, it is not fair to attack the Government for incompetence in tabling a large number of amendments in relation to Northern Ireland. It would be especially inappropriate for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrat Party to make that attack. It has not been made this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It is unfair because we were offered by the Government detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I both agreed, and said, that pre-legislative scrutiny would not be necessary. We were warned by the Government on behalf of our parties through the usual channels that, if there were no pre-legislative scrutiny, a shoal of amendments would have to be tabled later in order to deal with Northern Ireland for the good reason that there had to be very detailed consultation within Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would, indeed, be a case of double standards if we were now to criticise the Government.
My third point—I speak as a lawyer and a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—is that there is no doubt that the Bill seeks to give effect to a basic human right. I suppose that it is a right to equal treatment without discrimination in one's private life.
406
That is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Human Rights Act.
As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who, in view of his office in the Assembly, has spoken with enormous authority—I speak as a lawyer—there is no doubt that the devolution legislation in the Northern Ireland Act limits the powers of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland administration, compelling them to act compatibly with the European convention. This is not a transferred matter. Therefore, if these amendments were passed, there would be a blatant denial of equal protection in the law across the UK. That would be incompatible with the European convention and the Human Rights Act.
For 50 years, Parliament was unable to eliminate religious discrimination in Northern Ireland and was even unable to debate it because of the curious convention in the other place that this was a devolved matter to Stormont and therefore could never be discussed in the Westminster Parliament. That convention led to enormous injustice in Northern Ireland but, happily, that is no longer the case under the devolved legislation.
I have to say that sentiments of the kind expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, were the same as those that were responsible for the United Kingdom having to be taken before the European Court of Human Rights in the Dudgeon case. There is no doubt that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland and, I dare say, in the Republic—they, too, had to be taken to the European Court—believe that male adult consensual sexuality between homosexuals should be criminalised, as it had been in the middle of the 19th century. It took the European Court to change that in both the north and the south.
We are now in the happy position of being the legislature not only for England, Wales and Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. As lawmakers, we are responsible for ensuring that the basic rights and freedoms of all British citizens and of everyone within the jurisdiction of the whole of the United Kingdom are guaranteed and that equal protection exists.
As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said far better than I am doing, those fundamental rights of the individual apply to everyone on both sides of the Irish Sea, as well as north and south of the Scottish Border. Both islands are bound by the same standards—thank heavens—and it is now time that we enacted legislation that frees homosexual people in this whole country from an ancient form of discrimination.
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him to make one matter very clear? It appeared to me that he linked my opposition to this Bill and to its application to Northern Ireland with religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Does he acknowledge that, during my entire public life and before I was involved

407
politically, I was an arch opponent of religious discrimination? I would resent any implication otherwise.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I am happy to make it absolutely clear that I was not making any such implication. I was saying that the argument for leaving everything to a devolved legislative body has great dangers, and for 50 years—long before the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was an active politician in Northern Ireland—arguments made on behalf of the majority caused the House of Commons to refuse to debate the issues at all.
Of course, nothing whatever that I am saying has anything to do with the record of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in opposing religious discrimination. But it was that history of deferring to an Assembly that was seen to represent the wishes of the majority, rather than the Westminster Parliament doing its job, that exacerbated the tragedy that became the divided communities of Northern Ireland. I say that as a great friend of Northern Ireland who enjoys everything about the place except the tragedy that befell it.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)My Lords, the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, concerned the number of government amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for clarifying the position on that. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the Government made it absolutely clear at Second Reading that there would have to be a substantial number of amendments.
With regard to the noble Lord's amendment, the continuing suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly is unfortunate, and the Government continue to work with the parties in Northern Ireland to reach an agreement which will lead to the restoration of the Assembly. But we have said previously—I repeat the point—that good governance of Northern Ireland must continue. The people of Northern Ireland expect it and they are entitled to it during the period of suspension. We have made that commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and we shall not go back on that pledge now.
When we discussed this matter in Grand Committee, I believe that I made it clear that the reasons for legislating in Northern Ireland relate to fairness and social justice. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made an extremely powerful and deeply moving speech about the human rights dimension in that respect.
Government have a responsibility to lead. They also have a responsibility to challenge bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. I have to tell the House that I am very proud of what this Government have achieved by establishing a framework of equality and rights in this country. I hope that this House is equally proud of that achievement.
408
While the Assembly remains suspended, legislation for Northern Ireland must be made by this Parliament. During the current period of suspension of the Assembly, this Parliament has passed a considerable body of new legislation applying in Northern Ireland, whether by Order in Council or by an Act of Parliament. On no occasion has it been put to the Government that commencement of legislation for Northern Ireland should be delayed until the Northern Ireland Assembly is restored. If it had, we would have resisted such a move, as we resist this attempt to delay the implementation of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.
The issue of delay has been raised in relation to this Bill only. If Members of this House really thought that the views of the elected Members of the Assembly were critical to the legitimacy of legislation applying to Northern Ireland, the issue would have been raised before when we discussed other pieces of legislation. If we were to accept that commencement of legislation for Northern Ireland passed by this Parliament should be subject to an indefinite delay, how would noble Lords explain to the people of Northern Ireland why they were being denied the benefit provided by recent legislation? I strongly oppose the amendments.
Lord MonsonMy Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she will remember that she said both in Grand Committee and on Report that the Northern Ireland Assembly would have a power to repeal this legislation in so far as it affects Northern Ireland if it reconvened and if it so chose to do. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just indicated that the Assembly would not have that power. Can the Minister say who is right?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I repeat that when the Northern Ireland Assembly and executive are restored, they will be able to decide on transferred matters. There is a very long list, which I went into in Grand Committee, setting out those areas where powers have been transferred and those areas which rest clearly with the national government. As regards the European Convention on Human Rights, clearly, that is an issue which is not transferred.
Lord Maginnis of DrumglassMy Lords, I have listened carefully and with interest to what noble Lords have said. I am perhaps a little less convinced about what I have heard from the Government Front Bench. I shall simply make the point that good government is government that comes in response to the needs of the people. As to the way in which the Bill will be implemented in Northern Ireland without consultation with the Assembly, which I admit is now suspended, I do not believe that that is a good response to the people of Northern Ireland. However, I do not intend to waste the time of your Lordships' House and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, before my noble friend moves the government amendments,

409
perhaps I may remind the House that this is Third Reading. The Companion states that arguments fully deployed at an earlier stage should not be repeated at length at Third Reading and also that the debate must be relevant to the amendment before the House. To put it in the vernacular, stick to the subject and to the point.
Clause 9 [Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 14, after "of" insert "proposed"
The noble BaronessMy Lords, I shall try to obey that stricture. I hope that I explained earlier today why the Government chose to bring back only the few amendments which your Lordships see before us today. In the main, the amendments are minor and technical. They seek to correct errors or omissions or improve the existing drafting of those parts of the Bill which are unaffected by the decision made last Thursday.
We have not felt it appropriate to table any amendments which would affect the substantive provisions on formation, ending or recognition of civil partnership or the substantive rights and responsibilities that would apply to civil partners. First, we have to remember that this is Third Reading—I am trying very hard to do that—and even more importantly, the difficulties we would now face in moving those other amendments. It has never been the Government's policy to apply these provisions to the wider group who can form a civil partnership as a result of last week's amendment.
The Government are not able to give an adequate explanation of the policy underlying these further or additional changes or their legal effect and consistency with other provisions on the statute book or in the Bill. A further difficulty is that before introducing the Bill, the Government consulted widely about their plans for the new legal relationship and the legal rights and responsibilities which should attach to it. This fundamental change, without any additional consultation, deprives the Government of important background to policy making.
Those considerations will also make it difficult for the Government to comment on other issues raised by the Bill and other amendments which have been tabled today. However, we shall attempt to describe the crucial issues in outline. In a few cases that has meant that we have not been able to table minor amendments because they are closely linked to the substantive amendment, which the Government have decided not to move, for the reasons that I have just explained.
It is the Government's intention to overturn last week's amendment in another place and then to table the remaining government amendments to the Bill, which have had to be put on hold for that reason. It will be a decision for the other place whether it feels it wants to do that.
The amendments in today's group are all very minor drafting changes, which do not involve any significant change in legal effect. I do not propose to describe
410
those in detail. I wrote to noble Lords about the amendments when they were tabled on Report. I hope that that explanation will have prepared colleagues opposite to comment as appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord HenleyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I am in a particularly benign mood after the Minister announced that we are a grown-up House and the Government have withdrawn from their fit of pique as described by the right revered Prelate last week and tabled their own amendments. Therefore, on this occasion I shall not seek from the Minister a detailed explanation of those amendments because I appreciate that we have received some explanation in one of the mysterious, undated letters—one of which I believe should have been dated 17 May—that the Minister kindly sent to us on an earlier occasion.
I wonder whether she can help me a little. I am rather intrigued about the grouping. As the Minister will remember. when the little local difficulties arose last week I moved what was then government amendment No. 13, which was in a group of seven other amendments. No Tellers were appointed by either side on that occasion and Amendment No. 13 was therefore lost. I understand that government Amendment No. 4 is the second from that group; which was Amendment No. 15 last week. Presumably some of the others belong in that group and some in other groups. I appreciate that those are all very minor amendments, but it is very difficult to work out exactly which ones are from Report stage as opposed to those that are now before us at Third Reading.
I wonder whether it might be good practice for the Home Office in terms of getting their letters right—perhaps they would remember to date them on this occasion—if the Minister were to write to me and to other noble Lords setting out which amendments these are so that I can follow in slightly greater detail what it is the Government have put before us. 1 have no intention of opposing the amendments on this occasion.
As I said, I am in a benign mood and therefore I shall not move my Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 25 and 26, which were originally government amendments. It might be that if the Government still wish to go ahead with those amendments, if they are valid, that they could move them. However, if they do not want to go ahead with them, I shall not move them and shall leave things in that position. Perhaps the Minister could give me the assurance of another brief letter from the Home Office.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord. If one scrutinises the letters that I have sent, one would find each and every one of these amendments outlined. That does of course mean that one has to read them.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that I am most grateful that he is in a benign mood because I do not think that I should like to see his expressions if he were not in a benign mood. I hope I made clear at the first intervention that this was not

411
the Government acting in pique; it was the Government accepting the consequence of the amendment passed last Thursday and behaving in a responsible and responsive manner. The one thing I have learned in this House is that the House does not wish to be unnecessarily wearied by long explanations about why every provision moved by the other side is arrant nonsense. So the Government behave, if I may respectfully say to the noble Lord, with calm and I believe with a degree of dignity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2 p.m.
Clause 23 [Evidence to be produced:]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 11 line 31, leave out "But"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 27, after "applicant" insert "at the first available opportunity"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have returned to this amendment at every stage in the Bill. It was first raised as part of a clause stand part debate in Grand Committee, which seems a long time ago now.
Amendment No. 6 is a simple amendment which would ensure that a solicitor acting for a client who seeks to dissolve his civil partnership would have to raise the possibility of reconciliation with him at the first available opportunity. The Bill as currently drafted does not state when a solicitor should raise such a prospect and provide him or her with details of persons qualified to help effect this. It seems common sense that the earlier the matter is raised the more chance there is of reconciliation.
Both the Minister and I have expressed our concern to emphasise the seriousness of the proposed civil partnerships. Such partnerships are for the committed. I suggest that raising the possibility of reconciliation at the start of the prospect of a relationship breakdown would reflect well the Government's serious intent in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, the amendment serves to highlight why the extension of civil partnership to close family members is entirely inappropriate; not just in this one area of the dissolution process concerning reconciliation, but in every area of the dissolution process proposed by the Government. The amendment would place a duty on solicitors to discuss at the first opportunity the possibility of reconciliation between civil partners seeking dissolution of their civil partnership. Reconciliation would involve details of people who can provide relationship support, such as Relate, to be provided to civil partners.
412
In order for attempts at reconciliation to be worth while, the relationship concerned must be a suitable one. Under the amended Bill, however, a civil partnership between family members offers a very different premise to that provided for by a same-sex civil partnership.
Let me take one example. A person in a civil partnership with his brother would need to dissolve that civil partnership in order to marry. A person in this case would hardly need reconciliation with the brother he has formed a civil partnership with. His decision to dissolve the civil partnership is simple and uncomplicated: all he wants is to be able to marry his fiancée. I am sure noble Lords would not think it necessary to advise him on, and possibly dissuade him from, this course of action. I know that noble Lords are very supportive of those who wish to enter into marriage.
Turning to the wider picture on dissolution, the amendment to extend the scope of the Bill to family members would result in a number of wholly undesirable consequences; consequences that I am sure noble Lords opposite would not wish to see.
The procedure that the Government set out for the dissolution of a same-sex civil partnership is based on the court being satisfied that one of the following facts has occurred: unreasonable behaviour or desertion and separation for periods of either two or five years. We do not, however, see the package of provisions relating to dissolution as being remotely appropriate to the reality of family members' lives.
Perhaps I may illustrate again some of the absurd consequences that may follow if the current dissolution provisions were applied to family members who want to dissolve a civil partnership. A daughter, for instance, wishing to marry, but having formed a civil partnership with her mother, would be unable to marry until the civil partnership was dissolved in a formal court-based procedure. That could take over a year to complete.
Alternatively, the daughter may well decide not to marry at all if the financial benefits associated with her civil partner status were greater than if she were to marry. Clearly, the Government would strongly resist encouraging situations where people decline to marry for fear of losing out financially; for fear of leaving their close relatives in a worse financial position; and/ or for fear of creating tensions within their wider family. I would hope that noble Lords agree with me on that.
We might also have the situation of a daughter, who had formed a civil partnership with her father which had been subsequently dissolved, being liable not only for maintenance payments to her father, but also for any of her dependant brothers and sisters who had been treated as children of the family. As I said last Thursday, this could turn the clock back to the 1930s when daughters were held financially responsible for their father and others in the household, leading to their lives being restricted in a totally unacceptable way.

413
Of course such applications for compulsory maintenance between family members would lead to great ill feeling between the applicants if the arrangements for them to live together broke down. Last week's successful amendment would also encourage property disputes between family members where only two have become civil partners. Civil partners have increased rights to apply to the court in respect of property disputes, as opposed to relatives who live together. Under the current Bill an elderly mother could be forced to sell her house, as was said earlier.
The examples go on and on. We are faced with a situation where this formerly reasonable court-based dissolution process, which sought to support same-sex civil partnerships, has now changed to the extent that it actively undermines relationships between family members; it undermines the integrity of the wider family unit; and it undermines the entirely acceptable role of the state in seeking to support families as the most valuable unit for social cohesion. Nor are these effects easily remediable as some noble Lords might suggest. They form both the foundations and the structure of the dissolution process.
So I understand why the noble Baroness wished to move the amendment in relation to same-sex partners. However, when one seeks to use the reconciliation model to the wider group, it becomes clear that some very difficult decisions would have to be made by family members which are inherently incompatible with the overall scheme we have for dissolution.
However, when all that has been said, I wish to put on record that the Government have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment in respect of the Bill as originally presented. Clearly, it would be important that attempts at reconciliation should be started as soon as possible. The Government would not, however, wish to be too prescriptive about how solicitors discharge their responsibilities in connection with reconciliation.
The Law Society's protocol for family proceedings requires solicitors to ensure that their clients consider the possibility of reconciliation and are made aware of the relationship support facilities available locally at appropriate stages in divorce proceedings. My noble friend Lord Filkin wrote to the noble Baroness regarding the current provision of relationship support in divorce proceedings. It is intended that corresponding duties will be placed on solicitors in civil partnership proceedings. The responsibility on solicitors to consider the possibility of reconciliation is continuous and remains throughout the proceedings. The Government believe that solicitors should be allowed to use their discretion on how to raise this possibility with their clients. This amendment has helpfully served to flag up the difficulty that we all face when discussing the Bill in its current state.
I hope that, on the basis of the consequences that I have outlined, the noble Baroness will accept the explanation that the Government have given of their
414
original intent on reconciliation for same-sex civil partners, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness WilcoxMy Lords, that was a lengthy response, for which I am extremely grateful. Even though we have been exhorted not to take too much time at this stage, given the circumstances under which we are working at the moment, I am extremely grateful for any extra help that the Minister feels that she can give us by way of explanation. Obviously, things have changed, and one must listen. I have listened carefully to the Minister.
At one stage I thought, "What if two homosexuals had entered into a civil partnership and one of them had decided to get married. Surely the civil partnership would break down then, and they, too, would then be looking at that?" I can see that there is a lot to discuss. I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 83 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
The Duke of Montrosemoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 38, line 27, after "has" insert—
"(a) freely agreed to enter a civil partnership, and (b)"
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which are consequential. The amendments would ensure that parties to a civil partnership must clearly agree to enter the partnership. I hope that I will be taken to have complied adequately with the strictures of the Companion when I say that the reasons for the amendment were outlined on Report, as reported at col. 1442 of Hansard. Noble Lords present are probably well aware that events have conspired to render it impossible for the Minister to reply to any such amendments either in Committee or on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, I was unable to reply to these amendments in Committee because they were tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who did not turn up to move them.
From the outset, the Scottish Executive has strongly supported the aims of the Civil Partnership Bill in seeking to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships. On that basis, the Scottish Executive, like the rest of the UK, carried out public consultation. The results were positive: 86 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposal to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples in Scotland and 74 per cent agreed with the proposed use of a Sewel Motion.
As with the UK Government, the Scottish Executive does not support the new definition of civil partnership; it, too, considers that it will make the Bill unworkable. Unless the amendments are reversed, the

415
Scottish provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill will be placed beyond the scope of a Sewel Motion and the Scottish Executive will have to consider whether it needs to gain fresh authority.
As with other parts of the Bill, the government amendments to the Scottish provisions have not been laid, as they are consequential on the creation of a form of legal recognition for same-sex couples and do not reflect the current definition of civil partnership. As I have said before, the parts of the Bill that relate specifically to Scotland achieve the same effects as exist elsewhere in the Bill but have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scottish law.
I shall now respond to the amendments that the noble Duke has moved. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are to Clauses 83, 84 and 90 respectively. These clauses have been modelled on the procedures that exist for civil marriage, which we consider appropriate for such a long-term relationship. We do not consider that that should automatically hold true for family members wishing to form a civil partnership. I ask the noble Duke to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of MontroseMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the situation of the Scottish Executive. We are at an interesting stage in that the Bill does not have to be fully Sewel-ed until it has left this House and been taken on in another place, so perhaps we have a little more liberty than being totally constrained by the Sewel Motion passed in the first instance. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 [Eligibility]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 90 [Objections to registration]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 111 [Civil partners: competency of interdict]:
The Duke of Montrosemoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 56, line 43, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) It shall be competent for the Court of Session or the Sheriff to entertain an application by one civil partner in a civil partnership for a relevant interdict."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is another amendment that I moved on Report. It relates to the competence of the Court of Session. The amendment reworks Clause 111 to make it a positive statement of competency for interdict proceedings in the Court of Session or sheriff court. Noble Lords will remember that the argument was about the current employment of a double negative and the Scottish Law Society's view that the wording in my amendment clarifies the position. I beg to move.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, Amendment No. 12 applies to Clause 111, which is modelled on an equivalent provision in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland)
416
Act 1981 that exists for spouses. Before the 1981 Act, it was thought arguable at common law that an interdict could not be obtained by one person against another living in the same house—an interdict in Scottish law is the same as an injunction in our law. Their option would have been to remove themselves from that house.
The purpose of Section 14 of the 1981 Act, which Clause 111 replicates, is to remove that doubt and to declare that it is not incompetent to grant an interdict between parties living together. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Duke's dislike of the use of a double negative, the clause has been drafted to mirror the equivalent provision in the 1981 Act. The noble Duke's amendment will not change the meaning of the clause, and it is arguable whether it clarifies the purpose. I hope that the noble Duke will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of MontroseMy Lords, it is an interesting reply. It presupposes that we do not wish at any point to see any improvement to a Bill passed previously, even if we can see that there is a better approach. The fact that the noble Lord has taken the time to explain how it is arrived at will be helpful to those who must look at the legislation in the future. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Dissolution]:
The Duke of Montrosemoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 60. line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble DukeMy Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, with which Amendment No. 13 is grouped. The aim of the amendments is to tie up what we are considering in this House with the current state of the law in Scotland.
Amendment No. 13 deletes the provision for dissolution on the basis of desertion. As noble Lords will be aware, the Scottish Law Commission, in its Report on Reform of the Ground for Divorce in 1989, recommended that desertion as a basis for establishing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be abolished. Accordingly, it seems appropriate that this thinking is reflected in the law on civil partnership. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 seek to make changes to the Civil Partnership Bill to pre-empt changes to marriage law in Scotland that may occur as a result of a Family Law Bill in Scotland. The changes proposed would mean that dissolution with consent could take place within one year and without consent after two years.
These amendments are inappropriate. There is no date as yet for the Family Law Bill. If these amendments were accepted and the Family Law Bill did not proceed, or proceeded with significant changes, it would give rise to differing provisions for ending a legal relationship depending on sexual orientation. That goes against the policy intention of

417
the Civil Partnership Bill as we planned it. As I have said on a number of occasions, the policy intention is that civil partnership is modelled on provisions for marriage. The Scottish Executive's proposals to reform family law have just been consulted on; in fact, the consultation period closed last Monday. If and when the Family Law Bill is passed, any changes to provisions for spouses will be reflected in the Civil Partnership Bill. In this way, we ensure parity between spouses and civil partners. I hope that the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of MontroseMy Lords, I hear what the Minister says, and I am conscious that we were looking at the intention of the Scottish Parliament if the Family Law Bill were passed. I am interested to hear him say that if the Family Law Bill does pass, matters will be brought into line. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be clauses in the Family Law Bill in Scotland that will be reckoned to amend the Civil Partnership Bill? That seems to be a funny way around for things to happen.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, although this is Third Reading, the position that I took was that as there is no date for the Family Law Bill—I did not actually say this—it would be inappropriate for me to discuss any aspect of that Bill or its relationship to any other Act.
The Duke of MontroseMy Lords, I thank the Minister, although he has not clarified the point. Perhaps it is not possible to clarify it at the moment. 1 was never sure that it was possible for the Scottish Parliament to include legislation that would affect a UK Bill and bring this Bill into line with the Scottish legislation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 157 [Powers to make orders and effect of orders]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 16;
Page 76, line 33, leave out from "court"" to end of line 35 and insert "has the meaning given by section 183."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 165 [Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 80, line 21, after "period" insert "during"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 179 [Supplementary provisions as to declarations]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 87, line 18, leave out "and section 148"
418
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 185 [Transfer of proceedings]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 90, line 24, leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 220 [Meaning of "the court"]
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 106, line 3, leave out from "court"" to end of line 5 and insert "has the meaning given by section 183."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 222 [Proceedings for presumption of death order]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 106, line 44, leave out "court" and insert "High Court"
Page 107, line 6, leave out "court" and insert "High Court"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 243 [Civil partners to have unlimited insurable interest in each other]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 118, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 244, insert the following new clause—

CIVIL PARTNERS: TREATMENT FOR TAX PURPOSES
For tax purposes civil partners shall be treated as in the Finance Act 2004."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to make two points; one specific point and one general point. I have tried on two previous occasions to refer to the press release issued by the Inland Revenue ahead of this Bill, saying that the Civil Partnership Bill is social policy legislation, so any tax consequences would be dealt with in the "first available Finance Bill". It seems absolutely clear that the first available Finance Bill is the one now going through the House of Commons, but as I far as I can see no tax consequences of this Bill appear in that Finance Bill, at any rate as far as government amendments are concerned. Was the press release simply wrong, or will some clauses appear in the Finance Bill that will eventually become the Finance Act 2004? Repeated attempts to get an answer to that have totally failed. I should like to have an answer.
My second point is more general. We have discussed at some length the proceedings of last week and the consequences of them. If one thing is absolutely clear, it is the degree of sympathy felt in your Lordships' House for carers and others who were not originally covered by this Bill. The provisions that we have now attempt to do so, but the noble Baroness, Lady

419
Scotland, has pointed out some of the problems that might arise if the Bill were to remain in its present state. None the less, given the degree of sympathy that has been expressed, particularly with regard to inheritance tax, and the feeling that in removing one set of injustices experienced until now by those who were covered by the Bill as originally drafted, we have brought into sharp focus the problems suffered by others. It might happen that they are sharing accommodation, one dies, and the other finds that he can no longer occupy it because of the effect of inheritance tax.
My understanding is that an amendment covering this point in the Finance Bill has been, or is about to be, tabled in the other place. I hope very much that the Government could help these people as far as concerns inheritance tax. It would after all, except in very exceptional circumstances, merely be a question of cash flow for the Revenue. On the other hand, it would seek to treat a group of people covered as they were by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain's amendment last week in a way that does not create some of the problems to which the Government have rightly drawn attention. I hope therefore that the Government will fulfil their claim in the press release that they will legislate in the Finance Bill, and that they will take into account not only those originally covered by the Bill, but those who are now having it extended to them, though not necessarily with the requirement to form a civil partnership in order to get that advantage. I beg to move.
Lord GoodhartMy Lords, it is not appropriate to insert provisions relating to taxation into a Bill in your Lordships' House, since taxation is entirely a matter for the other place. However, pensions provision is a different matter.
What the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said reflects a fundamental defect in the view taken on this Bill by speakers on the Opposition Benches. I refrain from referring to "the Opposition", since they claim to have had a free vote; no doubt they had. The point at issue is that this Bill was never, as we understand it, in its original concept intended to be a tax Bill. It was intended to grant recognition to a legal relationship between partners of the same sex. The tax issues were consequences of that object; they were not the object in themselves. Those Conservatives have here made taxation the primary object of the Bill. Although we too have considerable sympathy for the problems raised, we wish to make it clear that we do not think that this is the right Bill in which to raise these issues. That is a matter for the other place in a Finance Bill.
2.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right, as so often: it is not a tax Bill. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also touched, in a way, on the ground of a subsequent amendment—Amendment No. 40, I think—which deals with the same issues.
420
The first point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised was whether the unamended Bill would be incorporated into the first available Finance Bill. As the Finance Bill is currently going through the House of Commons, he asked about the Government's intention. There are two "ifs" relating to that. First, the Bill as unamended must go through; and, secondly, the amendment that your Lordships chose to pass last week must be overturned. In either circumstance, we could not incorporate a version of civil partnership before the other place had made a decision on what it embraced. That must be determined before anything could be incorporated in a Finance Act. The Finance Bill makes no mention of civil partners and cannot do so until the Civil Partnership Bill passes.
I am sure that the noble Lord is using the amendment as a probing amendment, even at this late stage, so given the high degree of respect and courtesy with which we have always sought to exchange with each another, it may be helpful if I put the Government's intentions on record. The fiscal consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill are crystal clear. We have already announced that, for all tax purposes, same-sex civil partners will be treated in the same way as married couples, if the Bill proceeds in its original form, without the extension to the categories of civil partners made last week by the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
The Government went further and made it clear that all tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill, as it applied to same-sex couples, would be addressed and debated at the appropriate time in the first available Finance Bill. That is still the case if the Bill completes the legislative process with the category of civil partners defined only as same-sex couples. We expect that, if the Bill that we are debating is passed and concerns same-sex couples only, it will come into force about a year after Royal Assent. There will be plenty of time for another Finance Bill, to include provisions dealing with the tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill. If the Bill proceeds in its current form, the tax matters will be dealt with in the normal Budget process.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is saying that the press release was wrong. However, given the importance of press releases—with the question of abolishing the Lord Chancellor, for example—one must be sensitive about them. What was in the press release is incorrect: the matter will not be dealt with in the next available Finance Bill.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, it is my fault that I do not have the particular press release to hand. I did not know that the noble Lord was going to refer to it.
I do not see how any Bill can pre-judge another Bill that has not yet concluded its proceedings. In so far as the press release said "the next available", it could only have meant the next available Finance Bill after this

421
Bill had terminated its parliamentary progress. Therefore, it seems to me that, as described, the Inland Revenue's press release was exactly correct.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I am surprised to hear that the noble Baroness was unaware that I would refer to it. I referred to it in Committee and on Report. However, I think that, on those occasions, she was not going to reply to the particular debate. That may be why.
The press release was clear. It says that any tax consequences will be dealt with in the first available Finance Bill. They are not being dealt with in the first available Finance Bill.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I must say that I have not at any stage said that the primary purpose of the Bill was taxation. Tax is an important aspect of it, but I have accepted all along that the primary purpose is the one that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his Bill. That is undoubtedly the main purpose, but the fact is that there are important tax consequences.
The point that I sought to make was that, whatever one does about the original scope of the Bill, the House has expressed enormous sympathy for those covered by the amendment carried last week. I hope that the Government will take into account the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships' House on that issue, when they consider the financial consequences in the present Finance Bill. My understanding is that an amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it.
We cannot take the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 245 [Power to amend enactments relating to pensions]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 252 [Extent]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31:
Page 124, line 11, leave out "and 14" and insert "to 20"
Page 124, line 15, at end insert—
"(c) sections 220 to 224 extend to Northern Ireland only."
Page 124, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) Section 242 extends to Northern Ireland only."
Page 124, line 22, leave out "or repeal" and insert ", repeal or revocation"
Page 124, line 23, leave out "or repeal" and insert ", repeal or revocation"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 253 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Family homes and domestic violence]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 223, line 9, after ""(j)" insert "Schedules 6 to 8 to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
422
Schedule 16 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Page 243, line 42, at end insert—
"to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;
(f) an order that one of the civil partners must pay such lump sum as may be specified—
(i) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of a child of the family, or
(ii) to a child of the family."
Page 273, line 3, at end insert—
"() In this Schedule "the court" has the meaning given by section 183."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 36 to 39:
Page 283, line 14, leave out "(5)(a)(i)" and insert "(5)(a)"
Page 283, line 16, leave out "(5)(a)(i)" and insert "(5)(a)"
Page 291, line 32, leave out from "apply" to end of line 34 and insert "for the purposes of this Schedule as they apply for the purposes of that Order."
Page 291, line 44, at end insert—
"() In any provision of this Schedule "the court" (except where the context otherwise requires) means a court of summary jurisdiction which by virtue of this Schedule or of rules of court has jurisdiction for the purposes of that provision."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 344, line 9, at end insert—

PART 14 AMENDMENT OF THE INHERITANCE TAX ACT 1984 (C. 51)
In section 18(1), (2) and (3) for "spouse" substitute "spouse or registered civil partner"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that my colleague has spoken about tax, and I can see how the Minister might think that that overrides the amendment that I have tabled. However, my amendment has a particular aspect on which I would be grateful for the Minister's response. As the Government have been most helpful in their responses today, I hope that the Minister will not mind my using another couple of moments of her time.
I heard the response that the matter would be dealt with in the next Finance Bill., but, as the Minister knows, the Bill started in this House, and we will have to pass it in this House on the promise of things to come. I have had a lot of post from people—including those covered by the new amendment—who are

423
obviously confused and excited about the idea that they will not have to suffer the problems of inheritance tax any more, if they can form a civil partnership.
I do not want the Government to give me another lecture about last Thursday's amendment or the Minister to tell me that the matter will be dealt with in the next available Finance Bill—I understand that; she articulated it most clearly—but I must ask whether this House will be able to know the Government's intention in this area. One of the benefits that the Marriage Act brings to all other married couples is that, if two people live together under the contract called marriage—it will be called a civil contract, when, as I hope, the Bill goes through—they do not have to suffer the misery of moving out of their home because of its value for inheritance tax reasons. Can the Minister give this House some feeling of the Government's intention in that area? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I do not think that I can take the House much further than my response to the previous amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The noble Baroness said that she had had a large postbag from people in the new groups covered by the amendment moved last week who were confused and excited—
Baroness WilcoxMy Lords, I do not want to confuse the Minister. I was trying to capture the fact that my amendment had originally dealt with the Bill, as intended. Now, of course, I too must include the other people. Since the beginning of the Bill, however, my main postbag has, of course, come from homosexual and lesbian couples. Obviously, they were excited by the Bill. It follows the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which I supported, just as I support this one. My post came from people who originally saw themselves as the main beneficiaries of the new civil contract.
I do not want the noble Baroness to think that my postbag has come from people, in a moment of excitement, following the amendment on Thursday. I have received a heavy postbag and I know that other Members of this House—certainly on my Front Bench—have too. I am very sorry if the Minister has not received any letters of a similar nature from people who express how pleased they are, particularly as regards inheritance tax.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I do not think that the last remark was relevant. My ministerial postbag is my ministerial postbag. I am concerned to make the point that I would be very anxious if groups over and beyond those under the original shaping and umbrella of the Bill now believe, following last week—which is what the noble Baroness said—that there are new possibilities of adjustments to inheritance tax rules and so forth as a result of the amendment. If the noble Baroness—
Baroness WilcoxMy Lords, perhaps I may interject once more. The noble Baroness is really holding on to
424
the point of the "new people". I am obviously not being very clear, for which I apologise to the House. The postbag to which I am referring, right now as I stand here, is that which I received before last Thursday. Will the Minister address her comments to that postbag, which I received from those people who, at that time, were being referred to in this Bill? My question still stands: can the Government tell us their intention in that area?
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, again, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, my response to that point, as opposed to the other point raised by the noble Baroness, is exactly the same. This amendment seeks to alter provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act relating to transfers of value so that civil partners will enjoy the same inheritance tax relief as enjoyed by a married couple.
The scope of the Bill is now entirely different from that which was originally envisaged as a result of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The categories of civil partners presently extend to those within the specified degrees of family relationship who meet the conditions imposed by the amendment. If the amendment is retained throughout the legislative process, in order to deal with and reflect those changes to the scope of the Bill, the Government will be required to undergo a considerable review of the tax consequences which follow from those changes. That will be dealt with as part of the normal budget process.
In so far as the noble Baroness seeks clarification, I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. When the Civil Partnership Bill was published on 30 March, the Government announced that for tax purposes same-sex couples who form a civil partnership would be treated the same as married couples for inheritance tax and other related purposes.
The Government's intentions regarding the fiscal consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill as presented to this House on 30 March 2004 were, in my view, crystal clear. The Government had already announced that for all tax purposes, including inheritance tax, same-sex civil partners were to be treated the same as married couples. Nothing could be clearer than that. The Government had also gone further and clarified that all tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill would be addressed and debated at the appropriate time, once the Bill had become, or should it become, an Act, in the first available finance Bill following the completion of parliamentary scrutiny.
However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, if the Bill remains in its present form, tax changes will be considered as part of the normal budget process. I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness WilcoxMy Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that answer. It has been extremely helpful. I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

425
2.45 p.m.
Schedule 25 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to pensions]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 344, line 12, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble LordMy Lords, it would be helpful to discuss Amendment No. 41 with Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44, although they cover a most extraordinary range of issues ranging from the Fire Services Act 1947, the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 and the Theatres Trust Act 1976.
I should like to make a couple of general points. The gap between the provisions of public sector pensions, which are frequently of a final salary type—sometimes of a non-contributory final salary type—and private sector pensions, as a result of various changes that we have seen since 1997, is getting wider. But in one respect at least, the public sector seems to be lagging behind the private sector; namely, the extent to which trustees are given discretion to make provision not simply for spouses but, very often, to enable the beneficiary in the pension scheme to decide to whom the survivor's pension should go in due course.
These clauses seem to perpetuate the situation whereby the survivor's pension is restricted to a surviving spouse or a surviving civil partner. Would it not be better to say that the trustees should have discretion in each of those cases? That could include surviving civil partners, as well as any other individual. That best practice in many private schemes would enable the beneficiary to state who ought to receive the survivor's pension when he or she dies.
Why the Theatres Trust Act is singled out for that statement, I am not clear. Nor am I clear about why the Fire Services Act should be singled out. On what basis have four Acts been singled out for apparently special, explicit treatment in the Bill rather than dealt with in the generality? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I shall try to answer the noble Lord's questions. Following the amendment laid by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which widened the scope of the Bill to include close family members, I have already explained why the Government would not wish to extend survivor benefits to this group of people. I shall not go over those arguments yet again. In response to this seemingly probing amendment, even at this late stage, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I shall seek to indicate the original intention of the Government in including what is now Schedule 25, which was originally Schedule 24, in the Bill
Schedule 25 is the first of two sets of provisions that were intended to amend existing pensions' legislation to make provisions for surviving civil partners. Schedule 26 amends enactments relating to the Armed Forces.
The rules of most public service schemes are set out in secondary legislation, which can be amended using the broad scheme-making powers that already exist in
426
the primary legislation that sets the scheme up. For example, the Superannuation Act 1972 sets up the PCSPS, local government, NHS and teachers' schemes. Other public service pension schemes exist that do not have such broad scheme-making powers set out in primary legislation which set the schemes up and which require complex amendments. They do not need to be amended in the Bill as they will be amended using the power in Clause 245—given all the qualifications that we have to keep making in respect of your Lordships' decision—of the Civil Partnership Bill.
However, Schedule 25 was intended to deal with four Acts that require very simple amendments in primary legislation which are most effectively made in the Bill rather than in regulations. Schedule 25 amends the Fire Services Act 1947, the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 and the Theatres Trust Act 1976.
The noble Lord asked in particular about the Theatres Trust Act 1976. The Theatres Trust does not currently employ any staff. A separate non-statutory charitable trust currently employs staff who assist the trustees of the Theatres Trust in carrying out their statutory functions. However, should the Theatres Trust itself employ staff in future, which cannot be ruled out, as a result of the Civil Partnership Bill, the amended Act would extend the power of the trustees in relation to providing pensions and gratuities to their employees to cover civil partners and clarify that the surviving spouses of both male and female employees are also covered by the same power. It is a peculiarity which is worth putting on the record.
These provisions were intended to enable payments to be made to surviving civil partners and their dependants as well as to surviving spouses. As the House is well aware, the Government are firmly against extending such rights to family members under the amended Bill, and the Government will seek to overturn the amendment to extend the scope of the Bill in another place.
I hope that my explanation is useful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but on the basis of the information I have given him and in the context in which we are currently operating, I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, decides what to do about his amendment, may I ask for clarification of one point? Given what the Minister has said, are there adequate powers in the Bill to be able to amend the state pension scheme if the Government were to come to the view—which is not their present view—that it would provide a way of eliminating unfair discrimination? I refer, for example, to backdating to 1988 same-sex couples belonging to schemes in accordance with a view that the Government might then take about the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not asking whether they agree with the substance, but do

427
the provisions give the power to do that without the need to amend the Bill itself? I hope that I have made my question clear; I hope that I have.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, when he refers to state pensions, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is referring to the single reference scheme test in defined benefit schemes and/or the protected rights in defined contribution schemes, or whether he is genuinely referring to state pensions. The issue does not arise in that way, as no doubt his noble friend Lady Barker will explain to him following our previous discussions. So I am not sure to which pension provision the noble Lord is referring.
I am not sure whether this is the appropriate forum in which to discuss the issue. However, I shall be perfectly happy to write to the noble Lord, which may be more appropriate given that we are at Third Reading. I could happily engage in a discussion at length about retrospectivity and so forth, and I acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord has not kept his amendment on the Marshalled List. It is my understanding that there are powers by regulation should this subject wish to be revisited by a Secretary of State at any future date. But I do not say that that would be easy, simple or straightforward. That is my understanding. Once more, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she really has not taken the point I was seeking to make. These clauses enable trustees operating under the different schemes to extend their powers for surviving pensions to civil partners. I understood the noble Baroness to say that it would not be appropriate to extend them to those covered by the amendment carried last week. But what I have suggested would solve both problems at once.
In many private sector schemes, the question of who should receive the surviving partner pension or the survivor's pension is given to the trustees who, not infrequently, allow the person concerned not only to leave the pension to their spouse—or, as in this case, to their civil partner—but simply to leave it to someone whom they nominate. Is it not rather retrograde to perpetuate the old situation in these cases, which are not really in line with best practice in the private sector? Should the Bill not simply provide that the trustees may have discretion to allocate the survivor pension to someone nominated by the member? That would solve both problems at the same time.
I am sorry. I thought that this would be the best way of proceeding. I hope that the noble Baroness will respond.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I am trying to follow the conventions of the House at Third Reading. I have already trespassed well beyond them in taking an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I am in the hands of the House, but this is not the Committee stage of the Bill.
428
I do not want to be unhelpful to the noble Lord because I have every respect for him. All I would suggest is that we shall shortly be considering the Pensions Bill when it comes before the Grand Committee. This is not the Bill to discuss alteration of the basic terms or construction within which trustees handle the headspace in public sector pensions. However, there is certainly a point to argue on that score.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I sought to intervene before the noble Baroness sat down and I had hoped that I was very much in order in doing so, even at Third Reading. She had not taken the point I sought to make. The Government are extending the power of trustees, so are not trustees better served simply by having the discretion to give the survivor pension to someone who the beneficiary nominates? If the noble Baroness would like to write to me about it, fair enough. It is an important point which I hope will be put right when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Schedule 28 [Consequential amendments: Scotland]:
The Duke of Montrosemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 374, line 2, at end insert—
"In section 16(4) (petitions for recall of sequestration), for "section 41(1)(b)" substitute "sections 41(1)(b) and 41A(1)(b)"."
The noble Dukesaid: My Lords, I am sure that it is a relief to many that we have reached the last group of amendments.
These amendments concern the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. In moving Amendment No. 45, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 49. I spoke to amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 on Report at col. 1457. The arguments may be slightly different on Amendment No. 47. Its effect would be to insert a reference to a new paragraph (aa) into Section 42(d) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The reason for this is that paragraph 31(2) of Schedule 28 to the Bill inserts a new Section 40(2)(aa) into the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. As a result, Section 40(2)(d) of the 1985 Act requires amendment to refer to new paragraph (aa).
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 were also spoken to on Report. No doubt the arguments were clear enough at the time. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 have been drafted on the basis that civil partners should be treated in the same way as spouses. It does not automatically hold true that family members who have formed a civil partnership should be treated in the same way as spouses for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

429
Although the amendments tabled by the noble Duke are very helpful, I am sure he will understand when I say that the Scottish Executive would wish to lay its own amendments to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 which, in its view, will be very comprehensive.
I hope that, in the light of my explanation, the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
The Duke of MontroseMy Lords, once again I am most grateful to the Minister for a very interesting reply. We can see how the interplay of legislation between the devolved administrations and the Government is working out. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will address the matter clearly if it is not something that we feel able to address here at this time.
I thank the Minister for his response. While I cannot speak for the House as a whole, for myself I have found it both entertaining and useful. I am only sorry that he was unable to give it at an earlier stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Read a third time.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
3 p.m.
Lord TebbitMy Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I wish, first, to express the view—which will not come as a shock to Ministers and others—that the Bill as drafted originally was, in my view, outrageously discriminatory. It has been so improved by the amendments carried against the Government last week that I cannot find it in my heart to oppose the Bill in its present form.
Secondly—I hope it will not be thought that I am straying too far out of order—I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In the heated nature of the debate last week, I believe that I was dismissive of something the noble Lord said to the point of rudeness. I do not want him to think that I was that dismissive; we were all trying to move on quite quickly and in a rather heated manner. I apologise to him for being so rude.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, the noble Lord is very generous. I would never ever suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is rude or dismissive, but he is perhaps sometimes a trifle sarcastic.
What happened to the Bill last Thursday has harmed the well-earned reputation of the House in exercising its crucial legislative powers. It has meant that we have not been able to debate the Bill's provisions as we had hoped. For example, I had intended to raise the issue of unjustifiable discrimination against same-sex couples in existing
430
state and private pension schemes as regards survivors' benefits, especially in the light of a recent landmark decision in the House of Lords in the case of Mendoza.
I had to withdraw that amendment and the issue will now have to be raised and entirely decided in another place—no doubt taking into account, I hope, any forthcoming report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I hope and believe that the fate of the Bill will not be like that of J.W. Turner's crippled "The Fighting Temeraire", the great vessel that was towed away and broken up. We are confident that the Bill will be repaired in the other place. When it comes back to this House, we shall see whether the Official Opposition will support this much needed legislation.
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for what he has said. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for the generosity of his admission as to what happened on Thursday. However, I say to the noble Lord that to describe the Bill as having been drafted in an outrageous and discriminatory way is a travesty. For some, the Bill was a thing of beauty and a joy for ever.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Gender Recognition Act,
Higher Education Act,
Mersey Tunnels Act,
Ipswich Market Act.

Age-Related Payments Bill
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Since coming to office in 1997, we have put pensions and pensioners at the centre of our commitment to reform and modernise the welfare state. Security for today's pensioners is being achieved through a system of universal and targeted help. The result of all this help means that in 2004–05 the poorest third of pensioner households will be on average £1,750 better off per year in real terms—an extra £33 per week—compared with the 1997 system.
This simple Bill builds on those achievements. It puts in place the Chancellor's Budget promise to pay all eligible households with someone aged over 70 an extra £100 this year. This payment is a response to the concerns expressed by some of our oldest citizens who over recent years have been coping with high increases in household bills, particularly council tax bills, while living on fixed retirement incomes.

431
We are targeting older pensioners because we know that older people have, on average, lower incomes. Pensioner couples where the man is over 70 have an average net income of almost £50 a week less than pensioner couples headed by someone under 70. Even those pensioners with private pension provision see their average income reduce the older they are. For example, a single pensioner under 70 with private pension provision will receive an average of £104 a week, whereas a single pensioner over 70 will, on average, receive £83 a week.
In addition, older people are much less likely to have income from earnings. Around 14 per cent of pensioners aged under 70 have income from earnings; this reduces to less than 2 per cent of pensioners over 70.
Inevitably, the older people are the more likely they are to live alone, managing the full cost of running their household on a single retirement income. Some 19.2 per cent of women aged 60 to 64 live alone compared to 39.9 per cent of women aged 70 to 74 and more than 70 per cent of women aged over 80.
We anticipate that around 5 million pensioner households will benefit from this payment at a cost of around £500 million. In order to guarantee that these large numbers of payments are paid quickly and reliably they will be made using the tried and tested winter fuel payment system. We will keep the process simple and transparent by mirroring the winter fuel payment rules as closely as possible. By doing this we will keep administrative costs to a minimum and ensure that the vast majority of eligible people will receive a payment automatically, without needing to make a claim, before the end of the year.
For those very few eligible people who do not receive a winter fuel payment and who will not therefore receive an automatic payment, we have put in place a very simple claims process. We will include details of the payment and how to claim it with the planned winter fuel payment publicity campaign.
The Bill also includes a regulation-making power. This will mean that, if circumstances warrant it, future payments may be made to people over the age of 60 or a subset of that group. Any regulations made using this power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and so be subject to parliamentary debate in both Houses, as well as scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee. We are taking this power so that we will be able to respond quickly to any future need without having to resort to further primary legislation in this way.
The Bill responds to a specific need by providing a tax-free one-off payment to our eldest citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
3.7 p.m.
Lord HigginsMy Lords, when I first entered your Lordships' House I was intrigued by the procedure
432
whereby ahead of the Committee stage the Long Title was deferred. That is very different from the situation in the House of Commons where the Long Title tends to be very inhibiting. I understand that because this is a money Bill we will not have a Committee stage and that therefore that interesting Motion will not be made.
However, I have wondered what one could select as a better Long Title for the Bill than the one it has at present. I thought perhaps the "Pre-election Bribe Bill", or something like that, would be appropriate; or alternatively the "Pre-election Bribe (Failed) Bill", as quite clearly the electorate did not respond to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's peroration in his Budget Speech which gave this extraordinary handout to pensioners.
Of course, all pensioners—including myself—will be grateful up to a point, but it is wholly inconsistent with his basic policy. It is more consistent with that of my own party, which believes that it is best to go for increasing the basic state pension rather than the mass of means-tested benefits, tax credits and so on which the Chancellor has introduced since 1997. This is not consistent with the policy that he has adopted. It makes a straight hand-out to people regardless of the rest of the social security system. It is a curious situation.
The Chancellor has never moved away from a quick increase of this kind, which he hopes will be politically successful however inconsistent it may be with his own policy of targeting. I did not quite catch the noble Baroness's opening remark—I believe she referred to "universal and targeted help", although I am not quite clear how this could be so described—but certainly in a number of respects the Bill appears to be neither targeted nor universal.
I should declare an interest since I will qualify for this payment. The noble Baroness kindly sent me a long list of those who will qualify, and under what circumstances. It is actually pretty complicated, because even with a flat-rate approach, the Chancellor manages to complicate matters. Although people over 70 will benefit, people between 65 and 69 will not. We have had no explanation about why people up to the age of 69 do not qualify and those over 70 do.
The justification for this handout—I think that that is the right expression—is that people are suffering from a substantial increase in council tax and this measure will ameliorate their problem. The noble Baroness may correct me if I am wrong, but the Chancellor appears not to realise initially that this measure will need primary legislation. It is being tagged on to the Christmas bonus. However, pensioners will have to pay the higher council tax now and will not get the payment made under the Bill until Christmas, so they will have a cash flow problem.
The payment is completely unrelated to the tax and benefit system. It rather disregards the appalling take-up rate for council tax benefits. One might have thought that the Government might more appropriately deal with the problem in that way. But in that case, as in so many others, the Chancellor keeps

433
introducing or increasing benefits when the take-up rate is appallingly low. The latest statistics, published in February, show that the take-up of council tax benefit, which might be expected to help the poorer members of the community, was only about 66 per cent to 72 per cent by case load, and 70 per cent to 76 per cent on the basis of expenditure. The take-up of benefits by pensioners is lower than that of other people, as a whole, and the take-up in 2001–02 was lower than in the previous year. Therefore, the Bill's overall approach is open to considerable criticism.
As I will benefit from the measure, I should not be so cautious, but I do not think that this is really the best way of spending the money. It has to be seen against the general increase in council tax which is undoubtedly having a substantial effect on many people and is in some ways the consequence of the Chancellor's own actions. I refer to the fourth Starred Question, asked earlier today by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on the effect of the change in advance corporation tax. That is one of the things that affects the position of pensions as far as local authorities are concerned. The effect of that change made by the Chancellor will be to put up council tax, yet he is making this payment in order to offset it—a most extraordinarily circular way of going about things.
It is difficult to oppose anything which helps people, but my strong feeling is that the Bill is inconsistent with the Chancellor's basic approach. It is, in many respects, a rather sordid Bill, and I do not think it is appropriate for the Chancellor to introduce it. But no doubt it will be of some help to people, even though it will do nothing to help many of those between 65 and 69 who suffer from council tax increases—indeed, it will be very discriminatory.
There are various other strange provisions in the Bill, but we will not be allowed to discuss them in detail, as this has been certified as a Money Bill. I am not the least bit clear about what steps the Government propose to take to establish, for example, that the person receiving the benefit is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. I do not remember whether that applies for the Christmas bonus.
Overall, since there is nothing that we can do about the Bill other than make a speech on Second Reading, I believe that we have to let go of this matter. It is a shame that we cannot amend this, even though it is a Money Bill, but that is the situation. I am unenthusiastic about the Bill, to say the least.
3.15 p.m.
Lord NewbyMy Lords, this is a very curious Bill about a very curious payment. It is curious because the Government never intended there to be a Bill in the first place. It was always the intention that this payment should be made under regulations. At the last minute, the Government discovered that they did not have the power to do that, so the Bill has been rushed out to deal with that problem.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the Bill's title could probably be improved to make it more relevant in a number of respects. The second curiosity
434
is that its ostensible and stated purpose is to help mitigate the increases in council tax which hit pensioner households particularly hard. But the terms of the payment are nothing to do with council tax. First, it will be paid to people who do not pay council tax, such as those living in households with members under pensionable age. Secondly, it will be paid to people who are already getting full council tax rebate. So the idea that the payment will help with council tax rises is not borne out by the way in which the measure will apply.
This is an expensive and inefficient way of trying to reduce pensioner anger about the council tax. I am sure that it will not succeed because, at best, it is a very partial sticking plaster.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to know that we on these Benches believe that a better mechanism for dealing with the unfairness of the council tax would be to replace it altogether with a fairer local income tax, which would be of great benefit to pensioner households. However, I am sure that she and the rest of the House will be very relieved to know that I do not intend to give my standard speech extolling the virtues of a local income tax this afternoon. I would, however, be grateful if the noble Baroness could say something about progress on the balance of funding review. Will she, in particular, amplify the Prime Minister's statement at Question Time yesterday that he was totally opposed to any element of a local income tax as part of a funding package for local government?
The Bill, in common with all Bills, has been before a number of Select Committees in your Lordships' House. It has been considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and by the Constitution Committee. Both committees found that the powers to make further payment to the over-60s, contained in Clause 7, are too widely drawn and are inappropriate. I was rather surprised that the Minister did not refer to these two conclusions; it seems as though the Government are perfectly happy for committees of your Lordships' House to opine on these important questions and then completely ignore their conclusions. I would be extremely grateful if she could explain how the Government respond to those two findings. They are very clearly drawn up and the two parallel committees came to the same—and, from the Government's point of view, unsatisfactory—conclusion that the Government are trying to take too widely drawn powers by way of an ability to operate through secondary legislation.
I loved the Minister's explanation of why the powers will be needed in the future. She said it was so that the Government could respond quickly to future need. What kind of future need will apply to pensioners that will be so unexpected and will need such a quick response that draconian secondary legislation powers are required to deal with it?
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I think that the future need will be an impending election.
Lord NewbyMy Lords, the future need may be an impending election, but if so, there is even less

435
justification for the powers. The Minister did not provide a serious reason why the Government need a power of this kind. The problems of low income and poverty in pensioner households are not new. Nothing is likely to change, other than some cataclysmic event that we cannot foresee. Nothing will affect the incomes of those households in such a way that the Government need to act within a few weeks rather than through a normal legislative procedure. Frankly, I fear that I do not find the Minister's statement at all credible as to the basic purpose of the further powers granted by the Bill. It is an unsatisfactory Bill and it contains unsatisfactory powers for future payments. I certainly hope that they are never used again.
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I am slightly disappointed by the churlish—perhaps that is too harsh—but the less-than-warm welcome that has been extended to the Government's commitment to make available more resources to pensioners over 70. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about why the resources would be available to over-70s rather than under-70s, I had hoped that I had sketched that out in my opening remarks. Essentially, we know that those over 70 have a lower income than those under 70. The income they have is more likely to be drawn from benefit than from earnings or private savings. People over 70 are more likely to be on pension credit. They are more likely to be female. They are also more likely to be living longer and more likely to be living alone. That is a profile that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, completely recognises, which is why the fulcrum point of 70 makes good sense.
The second question of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was about council tax and council tax benefits. Although I would be happy to do so if he would wish it, I do not want to engage in political sparring about comparative levels of band D between different local authorities. Overall, in order to keep our discussion blessedly free from party politics, council tax bills last year rose by 5.9 per cent. That is less than half the previous year and the lowest increase in a decade. However, it is the case that many pensioners, perhaps 1.7 million, are not claiming council tax benefit to help meet their bills. As they grow older and their incomes do not rise with perhaps the same speed as council tax rises, they may have greater difficulty in paying those bills.
One reason why pensioners may not be claiming is because council tax benefit has been made more generous: 1.9 million people get more help; 300,000 people are newly qualified for the first time. As noble Lords will know, any changes in benefits take time to bed down in terms of people being aware of them. Furthermore, every time one increases a benefit, one produces a new group of people who are entitled to claim but who would receive very little money, so they decide that it is not worth so doing. That may be part of the reason why some pensioners are not claiming, but, nevertheless, I recognise that there is an issue to be addressed. We are working closely with
436
local authorities to ensure that we see the maximum take-up of benefits to which pensioners are entitled to meet their council tax bills.
As I suspected, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could not resist at least a mention of local income tax. I cannot say what the Government's full view on that may be, but, as a local authority leader, I dealt with the poll tax when it was first introduced in the late 1980s. I remember that I had to have Special Branch protection because I implemented the law to the disgust of a number of people in the great city of Norwich, who thought that they should do something about it. It struck me that when I consulted with employers about the option of local income tax, one of the points that was made to me was that a small company with 12 employees drawn from all around Norfolk might well have seven different local income tax rates set by seven different local authorities, and that would significantly add to payroll burdens on business. I am speaking about something with which I was intimately involved at that time and it weighed heavily with me, leaving aside any of the macro-economic arguments with which the Treasury might wish to engage.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the balance of funding review. That review has received a series of presentations by experts on the pros and cons of the various options which were thrown up by the public consultation, which include reform of council tax, relocalisation of business rates, local income tax and a mixed option of a number of smaller changes in taxes. The review has been hearing evidence on a range of different options, but that should not be taken as evidence that the Government accept that the balance of funding must be changed or that they favour any of the options. To answer more closely the noble Lord's point, the review, I believe, is due to report in the summer. I shall not speculate on the outcome, but no decisions have been made. That may give the noble Lord some sense of the timetable.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised some questions about Clause 7 and its use. I accept that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have made those points, but as I am sure that the noble Lord would accept and as I hope to have established in my opening remarks, the clause is useful and benign. I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, even if he had the power, would wish to stand in the way of any future government directing more resources to pensioners, particularly those in hardship. On that basis, I hope that I have responded to all but the highly party political remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made with relish in his speech.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 17 June), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Age-Related Payments (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.
The noble BaronessMy Lords, the order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those in Great Britain which are contained in the Age-Related Payments Bill, which we have just considered.
As the Age-Related Payments Bill was certified as a money Bill, it was not possible to include within it an enabling provision for a Northern Ireland negative resolution Order in Council. We are therefore proceeding by way of an affirmative resolution Order in Council. So that payments can be made in Northern Ireland at the same time as payments in Great Britain, the order must be made at the Privy Council on 27 July 2004.
The payment will be disregarded for social security, tax and tax credit purposes. Although the order provides for the social security disregard, as tax and tax credits are excepted matters, the disregard for those purposes cannot be included in the order. Advice from the Inland Revenue is that the payment would not be liable for income tax and would not be taken into
438
consideration for tax credits. All the other arguments have been rehearsed in our previous discussion. I shall not go into them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord HigginsMy Lords, I agree with the Minister that the arguments are broadly the same as before. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, as indeed the rest of the country, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and that of the committees to which he referred, about the Government's ability to make handouts of this kind whenever they happen to feel that it is appropriate. That is a dangerous political innovation, whether it applies to Northern Ireland or otherwise, but I would not wish to oppose the order. I merely make the point that I made before. There are many other causes on which the money could be better spent.
Lord NewbyMy Lords, I am curious as to why such a provision can be introduced by secondary legislation in Northern Ireland, whereas in the rest of the country it needs primary legislation?
Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, my understanding is that it is a consequence of it being a money Bill. If I am misleading the noble Lord, I shall write to him. I hope your Lordships will accept this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

  South-east Europe: Parliamentary Forum
  Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
  In what ways they are supporting the proposal to create a parliamentary assembly for south-east Europe. [HL3159]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Her Majesty's Government support the establishment of parliamentary forum for south-east Europe, which should make a positive contribution to regional co-operation and reconciliation in the Balkans. The Cetinje Forum is in its early stages and we are following developments closely.

  Sudan: Darfur
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, in view of the finding by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Execution that summary executions have been carried out in Darfur, they will invite President Omar el-Beshir to co-operate with the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights in setting up an independent international inquiry into the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur. [HL3246]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We fully endorse the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the situation in Darfur, and have discussed the findings of the report with the Government of Sudan.
  Subsequent to this report the OHCHR produced 90-day action plan for the Promotion and Protection o Human Rights in Darfur, which provided for the deployment of eight human rights monitors to Darfur. We fully support this plan and are providing financial support to the OHCHR for this purpose.
  The UN Security Council took note, in its presidential statement of 25 May, of the OHCHRs recommendation for the establishment of an international commission of inquiry to investigate alleged human rights abuses in Darfur. The Security Council may wish to revisit this proposal in light developments in Darfur, including the work of the national commission of inquiry set up by President Beshir.
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, in view of alleged attacks by Sudanese Janjaweed militia on Chadian territory, they consider the situation in Darfur to be a threat to peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the United Nations Charter; and, if so, whether they will
  WA38
  propose a resolution to the Security Council under Article 40, calling on the Sudanese Government to take immediate and active steps to disband the militia. [HL3343]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  We are concerned by reports of incursions by the Janjaweed militias into Chad. We welcome President Beshir's announcement of 18 June of his intention to disarm all outlaws, Janjaweed and armed militias in Darfur. We have consistently urged the Sudanese Government to act quickly to rein in the Janjaweed and are encouraging them to translate this statement into action.

  There have been several discussions about Darfur in the Security Council. UN Security Council Resolution 1547 of 11 June called on all of the parties in Sudan to halt the fighting in the Darfur region and to conclude a political agreement without delay. Our priority now is to respond to the humanitarian crisis and support the rapid deployment of the African Union-led monitoring mission. However we will continue to consider with all partners what further pressure can be brought to bear.

  Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will make any further efforts, either bilaterally or through the European Union, to persuade the government of Ethiopia to accept the decision of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission, in accordance with the undertaking they gave when the commission was established. [HL3309]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The UK, bilaterally and with European Union partners, will continue to press Ethiopia to accept the Boundary Commission decision, which is final and binding, and press Eritrea to participate in the comprehensive political dialogue proposed by the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy.

  Iraq: Status of Detainees
  Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Who decides whether a prisoner taken by either the United States, the United Kingdom or other member of the coalition occupying force in Iraq is classified as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention or sent to Guantanamo Bay; and what criteria are used in coming to a decision. [HL3320]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The decision regarding the status of detainees and internees held in Iraq by UK forces is made following consideration of a number of factors. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention sets out the criteria by which persons may be detained as prisoners of war. Former senior members of the Saddam Hussein regime or high-ranking members of the Iraqi military under Saddam

  WA39
  are treated as prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention. Under Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva. Convention, if an occupying power considers it necessary for imperative reasons of security, it ma: intern individuals as security internees. All prisoners o war and all security internees held in Iraq by UK forces are protected under the Third Geneva Convention or Fourth Geneva Convention respectively.
  Where UK forces arrest individuals for criminal acts, they are classified as criminal detainees and are handed over to the Iraqi authorities or held on behalf of those authorities in accordance with Iraqi criminal law.
  The status of detainees and internees held in Iraq, or elsewhere, by the US is a matter for the US administration.

  Russia: Human Rights
  Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What was the date of their last discussions with the government of the Russian Federation concerning human rights in that country. [HL3328]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell) raised human rights issues with senior Russian officials, including the Russian President's Human Rights Ombudsman, during his visit to Moscow in April.
  The next round of our annual bilateral human rights discussions with the Russians is expected to take place in the autumn.
  Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether in the last 12 months they have discussed judicial issues with the government of the Russian Federation. [HL332]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:The UK regularly discusses human rights issues with the Russian authorities. These discussions include various judicial issues.
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell), raised judicial issues with senior Russian officials during his visit to Moscow in April. Specifically, during talks with the Russian President's Human Rights Ombudsman, Vladimir Lukin, the Minister raised pre-trial detention centres in th context of Russia's obligations to the Council of Europe.

  Iraq: Kurdish Entity
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What undertakings were given to Kurdish representatives in the administrative area, Coalition Provisional Authority North, in Iraq by the head of
  WA40
  that authority concerning referenda in Mosul, Kanakin and Kirkuk to determine whether those cities should be part of a future Kurdish entity in a federal Iraq. [HL3340]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Coalition Provisional Authority North regional co-ordinator gave no undertakings on referenda in Mosul, Kanakin and Kirkuk to determine whether those cities should be part of a future Kurdish entity in a federal Iraq.

  Export Subsidies
  Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What decisions on export subsidies the leaders of the G8 countries have called for to be taken by July, and by whom; whether any of these fall to the United States Government; and whether they will propose the ending of agricultural export subsidies by the European Union. [HL3345]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The G8 leaders' statement on trade at the Sea Island summit underlined their commitment to achieving ambitious results in the current round of WTO negotiations, including in the key issue of agriculture. Substantially reducing trade-distorting agriculture subsidies was agreed to be one of the core issues in negotiations.
  The detail of how agricultural export subsidies should be tackled is one of the issues currently being negotiated at the WTO. The EU and other WTO members aim to come to a framework agreement by the end of July, which we hope will include commitments on agricultural export subsidies.
  As called for by the UK, the EU has already made a significant move on export subsidies, having stated its readiness to negotiate an end date to all its export subsidies, provided that other developed countries agree to eliminate their own forms of agricultural export subsidies in parallel—including the subsidy elements of US export credits and food aid.
  All WTO members will need to work together constructively to ensure that we have a framework agreement by July.
  Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What issues will be discussed at the European Union and United States summit on 25 and 26 June; and whether these include the ending of agricultural export subsidies. [HL3346]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: EU and US leaders discussed a range of issues, including the transatlantic economic partnership, Middle East, counter-terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS, Sudan/Darfur, and Iraq. Negotiations on trade rules were not on the agenda. As called for by the UK, the EU has already made a significant move on agricultural export subsidies, having stated its readiness to negotiate an end date to all its export subsidies, provided that other developed countries agree to eliminate their own forms

  WA41
  of agricultural export subsidies in parallel—including the subsidy elements of US export credits and food aid This shows that Europe is serious about opening up markets in agriculture, particularly for developing countries.
  Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the forthcoming agendas of COREPER (European Union Committee of Permanent Representatives) and the Agriculture and Fisheries Council include the ending of agricultural export subsidies. [HL3347
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The agreed EU negotiating mandate for the current WTO trade round gives the European Commission considerable flexibility for manoeuvre. As called for by the UK, the EU has already made a significant move on agricultural export subsidies, having stated in a joint letter by Commissioners Lamy and Fischler on 9 May its readiness to negotiate an end date to all its export subsidies, provided that other developed countries agree to eliminate their own forms of agricultural export subsidies in parallel including the subsidy elements of US export credits and food aid. This shows that Europe is serious about opening up markets in agriculture, particularly for developing countries COREPER and the Agriculture and Fisheries Council are regularly updated on WTO negotiations.

  Low-lying Islands
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will propose a scheme to the General Assembly of the United Nations that would allow people living in low-lying islands and coastal areas to claim compensation for the loss of habitable territory. [HL3372]
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We currently have no specific plans to propose a compensation scheme. However we share the concerns implicit in the noble Lord's question about the implications for lowlying island states and coastal areas of the current trends in climate change. We attach importance t international co-operation and research to understand better the impacts of climate change that can help countries to develop strategies to adapt. We support effective international action to mitigate the potential effects of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  Criminal Justice Act 1988: Section 134
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 13 November (WA 216) and in light of recent correspondence with Home On Ministers, how many officers of the Metropolitan Police are engaged in the investigation of offences under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;
  WA42
  how many alleged offences have been investigated since the Act came into force; and in respect of how many alleged offences files have been sent to the Attorney-General, either to request him to exercise his power under Section 135 of the Act, or as a preparatory act with a view to a possible subsequent request. [HL3373]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): In correspondence (copies of which have been placed in the Library), I have acknowledged that the response given on 13 November 2003 was incorrect. The correct Answer should be:
  "I have been informed by the Commissioner of Police for Metropolis that there is one detective superintendent in charge of a team of on average five people who are currently engaged in the investigation of offences under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  There have been approximately eight alleged offences investigated since the Act came into force. An exact figure could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Information concerning the number of files that have been sent to the Attorney-General—either to request him to exercise his powers under Section 135 of the Act or as a preparatory act with a view to a possible subsequent request—could be obtained only at disproportionate cost".
  I am sorry that an incorrect Answer was originally given, the reason for which has been explained in my letter of 18 March.

  Iraq: Human Rights Guidance to UK Personnel
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What instructions and guidance have been given to members of the Armed Forces and other United Kingdom personnel and contractors in Iraq as to the obligations imposed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [HL2751]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach: All United Kingdom military personnel are informed of their responsibilities and obligations under relevant international humanitarian law through standard military training and pre-deployment training. These principles are reflected in standard orders and procedures. While other UK Government-employed personnel and government contractors do not receive such training, none is employed by Her Majesty's Government in duties where they have responsibility for apprehension, detention or guarding.

  Iraq: Treatment of Prisoners
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the statement by the Lord Bach on 12 May (HL Deb, col. 378), when and in what circumstances Ministers were first informed of the practice of hooding; what was the nature of the practice; and what were the reasons for its abandonment. [HL2835]
  Lord Bach:
  The hooding of detainees for the purposes of arrest or transit was a standard procedure for UK troops prior to Operation TELIC and, as such, was not specifically brought to the attention of Ministers. The UK believes that hooding during arrest. and transit is acceptable when there is a strong military reason, for example to offer security to our own forces and locations and to provide protection to the detainee (through the prevention of identification by other detainees).

  The practice of hooding was discontinued when there was no longer a military justification for continuing to do so.

  Iraq: UK Detention Facilities
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the statement by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 13 May (HC Deb, cols. 513–515), whether they will seek a permission of the International Committee of the Red Cross to publish the report of February 2004, together with the second report specific to United Kingdom detention facilities in Iraq. [HL2923]
  Lord Bach:
  No. It would not be appropriate to do so.

  War Pensioners: Alexander Izett
  Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What further representations the Ministry of Defence has received about the case of war pensioner Alexander Izett, on which Lieutenant-Colonel Graham Howell of the British Forces Health Service in Germany reported; and whether they are considering any further action in this case. [HL3050]
  Lord Bach:
  Since Mr Izett wrote to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 1 May announcing that he had begun hunger strike. The honourable Member for North Cornwall, (Paul Tyler MP) has tabled on Parliamentary Question, which was answered on 13 May (Official Report col. 155W). As at 23 June
  WA44
  the Ministry of Defence has received 15 other representations from Members of Parliament and a further six from members of the public referring to Mr Izett's case.

  We do not propose any further action in the case of Mr Izett.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina: EU Mission
  Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What level of co-ordination there will be between the European Union planning cell and NATO in the forthcoming European Union peacekeeping deployment to Bosnia-Herzegovina; and which of the two will take the lead. [HL3357]
  Lord Bach:
  The proposed EU stabilisation mission to Bosnia will be conducted under the "Berlin Plus" arrangements through which the EU has assured access to NATO planning. The operational commander will be the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR), who will report as an EU commander to the EU's Political and Security Committee. The operational headquarters will be NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) at Mons in Belgium, acting on behalf of the EU. The EU has a small planning cell embedded at SHAPE to assist DSACEUR and to improve co-ordination between the EU and NATO; it also has staff at the NATO regional HQ in Naples. This EU element in Naples will be in the chain of command between DSACEUR and the EU force commander in Bosnia.

  Separately, the EU decided in December to set up a civil/military strategic planning cell within the EU military staff in Brussels. The civil/military cell will improve co-operation between the EU's civilian and military responses, and conduct early warning, situation assessment and strategic planning. The cell will not itself undertake operational planning and will have no direct involvement in EU military operations in Bosnia.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many electors on average there will be per parliamentary constituency in:

  England

  Wales

  Scotland; and

  Northern Ireland

  after the number of Scottish seats at Westminster has been reduced from 72 to 59. [HL3374]
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): The average number of electors in a constituency after the reviews currently

  WA45
  being undertaken by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions are implemented is as follows:
  Wales: approximately 55,000 electors per constituency
  Northern Ireland: approximately 60,000 electors per constituency
  England and Scotland: approximately 70,000 electors per constituency
  The Boundary Commissions for England and Northern Ireland are required to submit their final reports in April and June 2007 respectively and the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and Wales in December 2006. It is a matter for the commissions, within these timescales, when they provide their final reports.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 14 June (WA 55), on what evidence the Food Standards Agency's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food decided that illegal meat imports did not require further investigation at present. [HL3395]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) ad hoc imported foods group considered documentary and verbal evidence provided by the Food Standards Agency, Health Protection Agency, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs relating to current processes in place to prevent unsafe food including meat entering the United Kingdom.
  In view of the large amount of government attention being focused on illegal imports; the group concluded that there was currently no need for it to undertake further investigation, although it was agreed that the ACMSF should keep a watching brief on developments in this area.
  Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the Food Standards Agency will consider evidence of the testing and sampling of illegal meat imports for infectious diseases before deciding on further investigation of the issue. [HL3396]
  Lord Warner:
  The Food Standards Agency will continue to monitor all available data and keep under review its assessment of the microbiological risks to public health from illegally imported meat including bushmeat.

  Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What feedback has been received on the value of the Food Standards Agency's training course for
  WA46
  local authority enforcement officers on illegal imports; and what ongoing information, guidance and advice they provide on illegal imports. [HL3443]

  Lord Warner:
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) provided a training programme on imported food, which covered how to deal with illegally imported products, for local authorities during 2003–04 as part the Step Change project to improve the enforcement imported food controls. Representatives from 99.75 per cent of all United Kingdom local authorities attended the courses and 96 per cent of attendees rated the courses positively (excellent or the equivalent top mark).

  Additionally, the FSA will shortly issue statutory guidance on imported food and feed controls for local authorities, and has established an imported food inquiry line and dedicated area of the FSA website for inquiries from enforcement officers, trade and the public.

  Financial Services Compensation Scheme
  Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Who administers the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and whether they have made a payment to a resident of Northern Ireland. [HL3364]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): The Financial Services Compensation Scheme was set up under the terms of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an independent body, although it is accountable to the Financial Services Authority.
  The scheme is available to customers of financial services firms regulated in the UK, and compensation is payable to eligible claimants, nearly always respective of current residence. The scheme has paid compensation in respect of claims against failed financial services firms based in Northern Ireland, and to Northern Ireland residents.

  Working at Height Regulations
  Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What extra requirements paid and volunteer instructors in outdoor and adventurous activities will have to undertake as a result of the proposals for Work at Height Regulations. [HL3322]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): The HSC does not expect any extra requirements to fall to paid and voluntary institutions if the Working at Height Regulations are implemented as proposed.

  Nappies
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their estimate of the volume of disposable nappies entering the waste stream in the United Kingdom per year; and what resources they have allocated to reducing that volume. [HL3281]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The Strategy Unit report Waste Not Want Not estimated that nappies comprised around 2 per cent of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes.
  Following the publication of Waste Not Want Not the Government accepted the recommendation that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) should take forward (as part of an overall waste minimisation initiative) work on supporting reusable nappies through the provision of support for new businesses and information to parents.
  The aim of the WRAP programme is to achieve an average diversion of 225kg per year per participating household. WRAP's target is to convert 155,000 households to reusable nappies by end of fiscal year 2006. This is an ambitious target and if achieved would create a reduction in household waste of 35,000 tonnes (per annum).
  The WRAP budget for its nappies work for 2004–05 is £1.2 million.

  Railways: Franchises
  Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether rail franchises are subject to European Union public procurement rules. [HL3379]
  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  Rail franchises in the United Kingdom are not subject to European Union Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 because they are concessions which are expressly excluded from these regulations. They are, however, subject to the main principles of the European treaty of nondiscrimination based on nationality (i.e. equality of treatment), transparency and mutual recognition.

  Heathrow Airport: Terminal One Lifts
  Lord Rogan asked Her Majesty's Government:
  For how long the lift in Heathrow Terminal One has been out of action; and whether they will estimate when it will be back in full working order. [HL3465]
  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  There are 60 lifts in Terminal 1. I understand lifts 13 and 14 were taken out of service in July 2003. A planned replacement programme has been delayed but the lifts are now due back in service at the end of August 2004. Lift 17 was out of service for four days at the start of this month and returned to service on 7 June 2004. Apart from lifts 13, 14, and 17, all other Terminal 1 lifts which experienced faults in 2004 returned to service on the day of the fault.

  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  July

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  2–3

  Maastricht

  Competitiveness (Informal)

  7

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  7–8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8

  tbc

  EU-Ukraine Summit

  8–10

  Maastricht

  Social Policy (Informal)

  9–10

  Amsterdam

  Transport (Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  12–14

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture

  14

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  16–18

  Maastricht

  Environment (Informal)

  19

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  19

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  23

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  August

  No meetings planned

  September

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  2

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  3–4

  Maastricht

  Gymnich

  5–7

  Noordwijk

  Agriculture and Fisheries (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  9–10

  Noordwijk

  Health (Informal)

  11

  Scheveningen

  ECOFIN

  13–14

  Brussels

  GAERC

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  16

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  17–18

  Noordwijk

  Informal Ministerial Defence

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  24

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  27

  Brussels

  (Possible) Council Transport, Telecom and Energy

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  30

  Den Haag

  JHA (Informal)

  October

  1

  Den Haag

  JHA (Informal)

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  4

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  6

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  7

  Hanoi

  EU-South Korea Summit

  7–8

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  WS14

  Date

  Location

  Event

  7

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8–9

  Hanoi

  ASEM Summit

  11–12

  Brussels

  GAERC

  13

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  14

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  14

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  20

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  25–26

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  27

  Maastricht

  Informal Ministerial—Development

  27

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  27–28

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  29

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  November

  2–3

  Brussels

  GAERC

  5

  tbc

  European Council

  9–11

  Groningen

  Informal Ministerial—Integration

  9

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  10

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  10

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  12

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15–16

  Brussels

  Education, Youth, Culture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  17

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  18

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  19–20

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial—Transport, Telecom, Energy

  19

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  22–23

  Brussels

  GAERC

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  23

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  24

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  24

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  25–26

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  29

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  29–30

  Rotterdam

  Informal Ministerial—Urban Development

  December

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  1

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  2–3

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  3

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  6–7

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  8

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  9–10

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom and Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  13–14

  Brussels

  GAERC

  13

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  15

  Brussels

  Coreper 1

  17

  Brussels

  European Council

  20

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  Coreper 2

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Review of Section 24
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I am pleased to inform the House that the review of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has now been completed.

  WS15
  Section 24, the so-called confidentiality clause, prohibits the disclosure by Home Office Ministers and officials of confidential information relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures other than in the discharge of their functions under the 1986 Act. It creates a criminal offence and provides a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment and a fine for unauthorised disclosure of information. The Government undertook to review Section 24 in the context of our commitment to freedom of information.
  The conflicting views expressed about Section 24 in the course of the review have shown it to be a complex and contentious issue which does not lend itself to a decision that will satisfy all of those with an interest. The House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, as well as animal protection and antivivisection groups, have called for the repeal of Section 24. Those representing the views of many in the scientific community, whilst supporting other means of progressing openness and transparency about the use of animals in scientific research, have expressed significant concern about the potential impact of repealing Section 24 and have urged strongly that it be retained.
  In the circumstances, we have concluded that Section 24 should be retained for the time being. We do not, however, rule out the future repeal of Section 24 and, therefore, propose to review the matter again in two years' time.
  In the mean time, we are pressing ahead with plans to increase openness about the use of animals in scientific procedures by publishing anonymised information about projects licensed under the 1986 Act as part of the Home Office publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act. This can be done without repealing Section 24 and is being taken forward as part of consultation with the scientific community about the revision and streamlining of the project licence application process. This consultation is now well advanced and new processes and training arrangements will be piloted over the summer 2004 with a view to publishing the first licence information under these arrangements in the autumn 2004.
  In addition, we have concluded that there would be value in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate publishing an annual report on its work. The inspectorate's first annual report will be published in the autumn of 2004.

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker):
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am delighted to announce the award of a total of £80 million to two more housing market renewal pathfinders over the next two years to begin to implement their strategic schemes. The funding comes from the £500 million market renewal fund announced
  WS16
  in Sustainable Communities: building for the future in February 2003.

  I am allocating this funding to the two pathfinders in the west Midlands region. This will allow activity in the area to tackle the most acute weak and failing housing markets in the region and create sustainable communities. The investment from the market renewal fund will be complemented by significant investment from other public programmes as well as from the private sector.

  I am announcing today that the north Staffordshire market renewal pathfinder will receive £30 million and that the Birmingham Sandwell market renewal pathfinder will receive £50 million until March 2006 to start to tackle the problems caused by low demand. This is in addition to £4 million each received for an early action programme in June 2003.

  By March 2006 the pathfinders expect to deliver: in North Staffordshire, the demolition of over 80 homes, the refurbishment of over 300 homes, more than 280 housing acquisitions, and additional management measures to over 11,500 homes; and in Birmingham and Sandwell, the demolition of over 590 homes, the refurbishment of 1600 homes, over 150 new homes built, more than 280 housing acquisitions, and additional management measures to over 9,000 homes.

  Each of the pathfinder schemes has been independently scrutinised by the Audit Commission, and its findings have been published in a report. The Audit Commission has looked at the evidence base and the proposed strategy to help ensure that the schemes are realistic, offer value for money and will deliver long-term housing market renewal. To meet that aim the Audit Commission has made a number of recommendations about each scheme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and each pathfinder have accepted all the recommendations and funding will depend on effectively addressing them.

  NHS Foundation Trusts: Authorisations
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner):
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The chairman of the independent regulator of National Health Service foundation trusts has today announced that, in accordance with Section 6 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, the independent regulator has authorised the following NHS trusts as NHS foundation trusts from 1 July 2004: Addenbrooke's NHS Trust, City Hospital Sunderland NHS Trust, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital Services NHS Trust, The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust.
  WS17
  The independent regulator has deferred consideration of the applications from Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust and King's College Hospital NHS Trust. Further decisions on both trusts may be made at a later date by the independent regulator.

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust has not been authorised. In the coming weeks, I have asked officials in the department to work with the trust to ensure that full support is provided for a further application for authorisation at a later date.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  Further to previous Statements to the House regarding trading fund status for the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) (on 22 July 2002, Official Report, cols. 779–780W; on 17 December 2002, Official Report, col. 45WS; and on 26 March 2003, Official Report, col. 12WS), I can now tell the House about the measures which my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary and I have agreed to ensure the future stability and effectiveness of the provision of export credits and guarantees to British exporters. These measures will provide greater certainty for ECGD's future and a better deal for British exporters.
  This has proved to be a challenging and complex process. We have listened carefully to the representations made to us by ECGD's customers. We have also been able to take account of the relevant points made by the Trade and Industry Committee in its timely report to the House on 15 June (HC 506–1) on the work of ECGD. I welcome the Committee's analysis of the issues and I acknowledge its request to end the uncertainty about ECGD's future.
  The House will be aware that I have begun to strengthen the top management team at ECGD. Earlier this year I appointed Graham Pimlott as chairman. He has considerable banking experience and helped prepare the plans I am announcing today. On 5 July, ECGD's new chief executive, Patrick Crawford, who also has a strong private sector background, will take up post. They will be working with the Shareholder Executive, now part of the DTI, to prepare strategic and business plans for ECGD. Consistent with these measures, HM Treasury will adopt a more strategic approach to its oversight role.
  We have all been aware of the comparisons made between ECGD and overseas export credit agencies, and we share a determination to see the standard of service rise to the world's best. I can announce today that the Chief Secretary and I have agreed on a programme of action which will ensure that ECGD has a firm basis for its future operations and enable the new top management team to introduce measures that offer British industry a world class export credit service.
  The key points are:
  ECGD will be authorised to offer its full range of current products and geographical spread of business.
  ECGD will aim to reduce its premium rates to customers by up to £5 million per annum, as from April 2005, whilst complying with relevant international minimum premium benchmarks.
  The DTI will invest up to £10 million over two years from 1 April 2005 to help ECGD improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operating framework in order to sustain reductions in premium rates.
  The Government will continue to press for the elimination of interest rate subsidy on a multilateral basis. In the mean time, ECGD will continue to run a limited fixed-rate export finance (FREF) scheme within the trading fund framework. This will be reviewed after three years in the light of experience and progress internationally.
  A trading fund will be established within a capital framework to enable ECGD to take a more confident and expansive approach to cover. The aim will be for ECGD to make cover available at the right price according to the assessment of risk.
  The Chief Secretary and I are agreed on the structure for the trading fund:
  The trading fund will have two separate accounts—realisations and new business. They will be capitalised and accounted for separately and have separate financial objectives.
  Capital for new business will be £1.8 billion. This capital will maintain the risk-reward balance on cover and pricing. There will be adequate headroom to manage both business growth and risk volatility.
  The new business account target rate of return will be an affordable rate, specifically designed to deliver ECGD's existing pricing regime. The Government have charged ECGD to continue pricing to break-even, in line with international agreements on export credit, not to maximise profits.
  The Government estimate the economic cost of this commitment to be approximately £120 million per annum, and will be publishing budgeting arrangements for this in the 2004 Spending Review.
  Introduction of risk management policies and systems based on best commercial practice.
  Revised Treasury consent giving ECGD greater autonomy on cover and premium policies.
  The new business account will have four aims: to provide a good quality of service at a reasonable cost to exporters, to break even in financial terms, to maintain the current risk-reward balance, and to remunerate its capital at an "affordable rate of return". This has been calculated to ensure it can be met from current premium rates without any across the board increase. Initially, the affordable rate will be set at 1.25 percentage points above the current national loans fund (NLF) rate of interest. At today's NLF rate, the affordable rate would be just under 5 per cent per annum.
  In establishing the framework for the trading fund, I had three objectives. First, it should provide a structure

  WS19
  for managing ECGD's business consistent with the current risk-reward balance and business domain. In other words, ECGD should be able to maintain its support for current levels of business. Secondly, it should help to improve risk management. This is vital to assure taxpayers that they are getting value for money. And thirdly, there should be transparent arrangements for reporting and accounting the economic costs to Government associated with ECGD's business.
  These provisions will come into effect progressively from today. A period of operating a pilot trading fund from next April will give management the opportunity
  WS20
  to test and assess these arrangements before we establish the right level of capital for a statutory trading fund to be vested in April 2007. During this pilot, we will consult customers on whether the pilot has achieved its objectives, with the intention of informing Ministers' decision on the move to a statutory trading fund in 2007–08.
  This challenging programme will put ECGD on a sound business and financial footing for the future. I have every confidence that it will allow ECGD's staff to deliver the service which its customers expect and deserve.